The court found it illegal abstaining from strike employees in Public Employment Service (DYPA – vol. OAED), which respond to the implementation of the law that determines the imposition of fines on the unemployed. Abstention, which the Minister of Labor characterizes as absurd in his social media post, deeming it inconceivable that trade union activists would independently decide to obstruct the implementation of the provisions of the law passed by the Greek Parliament. OUR OAED Staff Federation by unanimous decision of its Board of Directors, also implementing the unanimous decision of the meeting, announced the abstention from the strike from April 12 with the aim, as is usually stated in its announcement, “to prevent in any way the imposition of fines on the unemployed.” “.

They argue that with the recent law defining the income criterion for granting benefits and privileges, with the exception of unemployment benefits, of course, the Department of Labor and the DYPA administration are “trying to turn the unemployed OAED into a police force.” and declare that “by all means they will fight against his attempt to turn the social organism into a punitive mechanism.”

The court declared the refusal to strike illegal, and the Minister of Labor Kostis Hatzidakis, expressed his dissatisfaction, noting that for the first time he sees a strike “in favor of crooks and rapists.” “What rules bothered them so much?” the minister asks, noting specifically that a recent law established income criteria from January 1, 2023 for DYPA benefits. An unemployed person is deregistered when an unemployed person refuses to work three times in a row, while the imposition of a fine applies to the unemployed, who in practice work normally and “mock” DMPA. “These are rules of common sense, not a ‘criminal code’,” says Mr. Hatsidakis. But what prompted the minister’s outcry was that trade union activists decided to refrain from implementing the provisions of the Jobs Again Act, “as if it were the job of every trade union activist to respond to the implementation of the law.” and not to implement, as the Constitution itself imposes it,” he notes. And he asks a series of questions to the DYPA trade unionists:

According to the Minister of Labor, it is inconceivable that trade unions alone hinder the implementation of legal norms.

– Consider it logical and fair that the DYPA registries include people who receive benefits (special scoring in ASEP competitions, Social tourism, discount policy for transport, theaters, etc.) and at the same time have an income of 40,000-50 000 euros. ;

– Do they think it is reasonable and fair for some people to work normally and declare themselves unemployed in DYPA?

– They consider it logical and fair not to apply, as currently applied with the “Jobs Again” law, the three offer and three refusal system, on the basis of which the unemployed person is removed from the DYPA registries when DYPA offers him three suitable jobs and reject all three?