Garbiñe Aranburu (Legorreta, Gipuzkoa, 1973) acknowledged that until the General Secretariat's "responsibility is known" its "real weight" is unknown. He has come up with the desire to clarify LAB's position in the face of ALS criticisms, often anticipating questions and not entering many environments.

You have been secretary general for two years now. What would you put on the profit exchange and the loss exchange?

One of the achievements is to put the health of the union first. We have a cohesive union, with a clear strategy, and all of that is seen in our expansion and our results. We have the best results ever after the last election campaign. We are on the historic roof, and in the elections we have held since January they are having very good results.

How is affiliation going?

It's also the highest membership ever. LAB has about 44,000 affiliates.

There will also be something about Gaza.

At the last congress we made a clear commitment to partnerships, to collaboration with ALS, and it has not materialized. We have done everything that was in our hands. We are two unions, with two different strategies, and that is legitimate, but we have always made a constructive contribution to this situation. Our contribution has been how to overcome inequalities, but it has not been possible because the answer we have found elsewhere has been: “Come to my model or there is no collaboration.”

With a counter-apoder model you have achieved the historic ceiling in representation. The LAB model isn't in question, right?

In this country, this union is the only one born in a counter-apoder model that has grown within that model. And since we were born, we have only grown. We are very clear about our model.

The confrontation will then be understandable the difference with ALS, which is also based on the counterpart.

There's no single way to understand counter-apoder. It is clear to us that we have to make a comprehensive offer of social and political transformation, and that the main area of work is the workplaces; the aim is to promote the struggles for the workers, driving strikes. Where the strike is, LAB is there. But more than that is the counterpart.

Does ELA not make all this offer?

That's one of our main differences. We believe that in addition to driving strikes in companies, we will have to be able to offer more general mobilisations in the face of the precarious situation that we are experiencing.

Does it mean a cross-sectoral scenario?

Yes, with a global response offer. In this country, where the social struggle is alive, pensioners are on the streets, also feminists, increasingly young, and also against climate change. The working class is divided, but the working class is one and the only one, and we want to drive alliances to give a better answer. Why don't we mobilize for the minimum wage? Why not a strike?

CCOO and UGT have not joined in demanding a minimum wage of EUR 1,200 for the company.

If UGT and CCOO were to join this demand, very well, but we did not put them there, because they are in the middle of the trade unionism of concertation.

So are you asking ELA for collaboration?

Also to ELA and others who are in the majority of trade unions, as well as other social actors.

You're talking about a big stage, about society, but you've strengthened the Fighting Fund in the face of company strikes.

LAB has always been and will be present in company conflicts and in all strikes aimed at improving the situation of workers. No one is going to give this union counter-apoder lessons, because we have been born and grown into the counter-apoder model. Borroka Kutxa is a tool to support these strikes, but what we have to offer workers is a strategy, a union model. The box is a tool to alleviate the consequences of the strike, but also to deal with other consequences of the criminalization of the strike. It is an important difference with the ALS resistance box.

It talks about criminalization. Would I set an example?

Since the adoption of the Moorish law, in some cases, we have paid the fines we have received for trade union action through Borroka Kutxa.

And is the ALS box not used for it?

No.

It is clear that we are at the moment of highlighting the differences between ALS and LAB.

ALS is the one that's sizing our differences. This strategy has led to incomprehensible situations.

For example?

In the workplace conflict in the residences, ALS's priority is to call a solo strike. They have not tried to reach an agreement with LAB.

Mitxel Lakuntza says that ELA is working alone and doesn't understand that you don't join them. This gives you a tennis match.

The thing is, ALS wants to value our differences, and we don't deny that there are differences. In the strike, we can also have different strategies. We think we need to talk about how more pressure can be put on the employers, and not just about the duration of the strike. The employer must be given the key to the duration, as it is the option to lengthen strikes. Conflicts must be socialised and solidarity between workers and users must be sought.

That's just one of the differences, according to the ALS itself. OK?

We also have a different strategy for collective bargaining, yes, it is true. Also on the role that trade unions should play in the political process... There are many things, but before them we make a constructive contribution to overcoming the obstacles. Mitxel Lakuntza is also aware of this, as we have made these contributions in writing to ELA. On the contrary, what we receive from ALS is “this model is the one worth, and you have to come here.” And since we have not gone and work is not going to be done, ALS has made a fictional story to justify the lack of collaboration, and in that report he has insisted on the difference, on the rejection of consensus.

But why would ELA not be interested in a strategic alliance?

They will have to respond, but we see corporate interests. ELA wants to take the stage of the debate to some domestic work that he has put on us. Because LAB doesn't do them, there's no collaboration. That's his explanation, and he wants us in that non-constructive whirlwind. And we're not going to be in that whirlwind of inequality.

It looks like you're doing it.

We have to explain our position. I have already said before that there are incomprehensible situations. One of them is the housing conflict. We call the strike again and we don't know what ALS wants. What happens in the offices of Bizkaia is also incomprehensible; ELA has broken union cooperation and called for a strike on its own; and then it has not.

Do you tell him that he has called for a strike and that it has not been done?

There has been no strike and I would ask the workers what they have been given. In the conflict of canteens, likewise, call for mobilizations after an agreement? Call the strike while in a minority? This has never been seen and confuses public opinion. So it needs a fictional story, because people find it very difficult to understand that behavior.

A possible alliance sometimes gives obsession, but both ELA and LAB are on the historical roof looking at representation. This situation has not hurt you in this paragraph.

This doesn't satisfy LAB, because corporate interests have never been our priority. If that were the case, we would spend a few years focusing on us and not making apology for collaboration, but the workers do not deserve that, but an accumulation of forces.

The era of Mitxel Lakuntza begins in ALS. Are relationships as bad as they seem right now? Have you had any meetings with him?

We have been with him because that has been the case, but we have not had any working meetings. It is up to them to take this step. We will not beg. The collaboration between the two cannot be built if one of the two does not want to. If it's a way for there to be collaboration that LAB gives up, that's not going to happen.

Adolfo Muñoz, in his BERRIA farewell, stressed that LAB is part of the Abertzale left, to suggest that it is not an independent union. What do you say?

They rush into the offensive for others to defend us. LAB's level of autonomy has been shown by practice, and that's not a problem, but an excuse.

Has the practice shown that LAB is independent?

LAB is independent to make its own decisions, jakina.LABek has a clear position in favor of social and political transformation; we say that the national struggle cannot be relativized, that without political change social transformation cannot be carried out. We also say that the Abertzale syndicalism must have a clear commitment to a sovereign process, and we are in a position to counter the institutions, with criticism, but also with proposals.

ELA says that only criticism comes when the Abertzale left is not in the institutions.

This is not true, and there are many examples that clearly demonstrate this.

Are you going to cite any?

In the context of 8 March last year, because of the wage gap, the Basque Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution, also with the votes of EH Bildu, and we strongly criticised it, and we transferred this criticism to all the political parties and also to EH Bildu. ELA has used this same example precisely to say the opposite, and that is why I mentioned it, because we made it more critical than they did. But I would like to make it clear that within the sovereignty of the Left we are advocating strategies for alliances, in the institutional, trade union and social spheres. And there we see that ALS has complexes, it lacks will.

Sánchez will be the one who rules in Spain. Labor reform was not touched, and it is now spreading that it can change the priority of collective agreements, giving leadership to those of Spain. Fear of what might come?

The 2010 labor reform was approved at the time of Zapatero with the abstention of the PNV, which made a clear commitment to centralize collective bargaining. The balance of power in Spain differs from those in here, and that is where the employer makes more profit. After all, they want to replace the trade union representatives; the majority here have fought and achieved other working conditions. Sanchez does not want to straighten the spirit of reform. More than half of Basque workers are at risk of being subject to or subject to Spanish treaties. In view of this, our response has been to defend all areas of negotiation, not just that of the company.

We are in the Old Part of San Sebastian. Can we at the same time fight for the precarious workers linked to tourism and for the public workers who want to regain precarious conditions?

Yes, understanding that there has been a whole process of precariousness that has affected all workers; we have all seen our wages and conditions worsened. But the reality and the starting point for all workers is not the same, and precariousness does not affect all of us at the same level. We have to make fighting offers adapted to each reality. That is the challenge of trade unionism. We have to show that we are able to adapt to the realities of all workers, beyond the classical sectors, with new formulae.

This interview was published by the newspaper Berria and we brought it to ARGIA thanks to the CC-By-sa license.