defend

As Chinese-made products are flooding the EU market and threatening thousands of jobs, the European Commission is stepping up its work to protect the bloc’s production from the risks of China’s excess production.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The move comes as data from Chinese customs showed that, in the first four months of 2026, Beijing accumulated a surplus of $113 billion with the EU-27, up from $91 billion over the same period in 2025. The surplus widened by $22 billion over 12 month, while the EU’s trade deficit with China had already reached €359.9 billion in 2025.

Pressure is also mounting on Brussels as Beijing has repeatedly threatened retaliation in recent weeks over several EU laws limiting access to the single market for Chinese companies.

On Friday, China also banned these companies from engaging with the Commission over EU foreign subsidy investigations.

To address the China issue and try to restore a level playing field, EU Commissioners are set to debate the matter on 29 May. What options does Europe have on the table?

1. Cutting dependence on Chinese components

The Financial Times reported on Monday that a plan to force EU companies to buy critical components from at least three different suppliers was in the pipeline at the European Commission.

The idea would be to set thresholds of around 30% to 40% for what can be bought from a single supplier, with the rest having to be sourced from at least three different suppliers, not all from the same country.

The proposal comes after China last year restricted exports of rare earths and chips, which are critical for key EU industries such as green tech, cars and defence.

2. Targeting strategic sectors with tariffs

In its economic security strategy presented last December, the European Commission also said it would present new tools by September 2026 to strengthen the protection of EU industry from unfair trade policies and overcapacities.

“We will fight tooth and nail for every European job, for every European company, for every open sector, if we see they are treated unfairly,” Maroš Šefčovič told Euronews.

A decision to impose new quotas and double tariffs on global steel imports, dominated by Chinese overcapacities, was already agreed by EU countries and the European Parliament in April.

Now the chemical industry is in the spotlight. Chinese chemical imports have surged 81% over five years. But the EU chemical sector also relies on exports abroad, including to China, the industry’s fourth export market, which makes any measure targeting China complicated.

“As an export-oriented industry, the European chemical industry generates over 30% of its sales abroad. That creates a risk of retaliation from third countries,” Philipp Sauer, trade expert at Cefic, the lobby group of the European chemical industry, told Euronews.

3. Hitting imports with anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties

The Commission can also impose duties on Chinese companies when import prices fall below those at which they sell their products on their domestic market. It can also investigate companies for receiving unfair subsidies.

However, investigations can take up to 18 months, and cases are piling up at the Commission’s DG Trade, which has only around 140 officials to handle them.

Sauer said that between one third and half of all ongoing investigations relate to the chemical sector.

4. Using the Anti-Coercion Instrument

The Anti-Coercion Instrument is a last-resort tool — the so-called trade bazooka — which can be used in cases of economic pressure from a third country and would allow the EU to hit China with strong measures such as restricting access to licences or public procurement in the EU.

But its use would require the backing of a qualified majority of member states, which is not guaranteed.

Germany opposed tariffs adopted by the EU in 2024 against Chinese electric vehicles. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who has visited China four times in three years, also supports closer ties with Beijing, seeking to secure major Chinese investment.

5. Unifying member states

At the same time, Brussels faces the risk that its decoupling strategy might face significant resistance from national governments. EU member states remain divided over how to approach China, which could in turn allow Beijing to play capitals against each other.

Such differences are already emerging in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector, where the EU has proposed a new mechanism requiring the phase-out of so-called high-risk suppliers, such as Huawei and ZTE, in strategic industries, starting with telecommunications.

The proposal, included in the revamp of the EU Cybersecurity Act, is sparking controversy among several European governments, most notably Spain and Germany, which have long worked with Chinese equipment now deeply embedded in their digital infrastructure.

This de-risking strategy has also raised financial concerns, since Chinese suppliers tend to be much cheaper than European alternatives such as Ericsson and Nokia, partly because they are publicly subsidised by Beijing.

European telecom operators have asked the EU for financial compensation to replace their Chinese equipment, following the example of the US “rip and replace” programme, but neither the EU nor national governments seem keen to put the money on the table.

In other words, the EU’s full decoupling from China might have high political and economic costs.

Whether European countries are willing to bear it remains to be seen.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Thousands of people rallied Saturday in the cradle of the modern civil rights movement to mobilize a new voting rights era as conservative states dismantle congressional districts that helped secure Black political representation.

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey called Montgomery “sacred soil” in the fight for civil rights.

“If we in our generation do not now do our duty, we will lose the gains and the rights and the liberties that our ancestors afforded us,” Booker said in the Alabama capital.

The crowd was led in chants of “we won’t go back” and “we fight.”

“We are not going down without a fight. We are not going down to Jim Crow maps,” Shalela Dowdy, a plaintiff in the Alabama redistricting case said, alluding to racial gerrymandering in several states that has followed the recent Supreme Court decision to roll back the Voting Rights Act.

A crowd of thousands gathered in front of the city’s historic Alabama Capitol, where the Confederacy was formed in 1861 and where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke in 1965 at the end of the Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights march. The stage, set in front of the Capitol, was flanked from behind by statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and civil rights icon Rosa Parks — dueling tributes erected nearly 90 years apart.

Speakers said the spot was once the temple of the Confederacy and transformed into holy ground of the civil rights movement.

Some in the crowd said the effort to redraw lines has echoes of the past.

“We lived through the ’60s. It takes you back. When you think that Alabama’s moving forward, it takes two steps back,” said Camellia A. Hooks, a 70-year-old Montgomery resident.

The rally began in Selma, where a violent clash between law enforcement and voting rights activists in 1965 galvanized support for passage of the Voting Rights Act. It then moved to the state Capitol, where King gave his “How Long, Not Long” speech the same year.

The Supreme Court ruling involving Louisiana hollowed out a tenet of the Voting Rights Act that was already weakened by a separate high court decision in 2013 and then narrowed further over the years. That helped clear the way for stricter voter ID laws, registration restrictions and limits on early voting and polling place changes, including in states that once needed federal pre-clearance before they could change voting laws because of their historical discrimination against Black voters.

Veterans of the civil rights movement are alarmed by the speed of the rollbacks, noting that protections won through generations of sacrifice have been weakened in little more than a decade.

Kirk Carrington, 75, was a teen in 1965 when law enforcement officers attacked marchers in Selma on what became known as Bloody Sunday. A white man on a horse wielding a stick chased Carrington through the streets on that day, he said.

“It’s really just appalling to me and all the young people that marched during the ’60s, fought hard to get voting rights, equal rights and civil rights,” Carrington said. “It’s sad that it’s continuing after 60-plus-odd years that we are still fighting for the same thing we fought for back then.”

The effect in Montgomery

Montgomery is home to one of the congressional districts that is being altered in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.

A federal court in 2023 redrew Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District after ruling that the state intentionally diluted the voting power of Black residents, who make up about 27% of its population. The court said there should be a district where Black people are a majority or near-majority and have an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice.

But the Supreme Court cleared the way for a different map that could let the GOP reclaim the seat. While the matter remains under litigation, the state plans special primaries Aug. 11 under the new map.

Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures, who won election in the district in 2024, said the dispute is not about him but rather people’s opportunity to have representation.

“When Republicans are literally turning back the clock on what representation, what the faces of representation look like, what the opportunities, legitimate opportunities for representation look like across this country, then I think it starts to resonate with people in a little bit of a different way,” Figures said.

Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter, a Republican, said the Louisiana ruling provided an opportunity to revisit a map that was forced on the state by the federal court.

“People tend to forget what happened. When this thing went to court, the Republican Party had that seat, congressional seat 2,” Ledbetter said last week. “There’s been a push through the courts to try to overtake some of these red state seats, and that’s certainly what happened in that one.”

Evan Milligan, the lead plaintiff in the Alabama redistricting case, said there is grief over the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, but it is crucial that people recommit to the fight.

“We have to accept that this is the new reality, whether we like it or not,” Milligan said. “We don’t have to accept that this will be the reality for the next 10 years or two years or forever.”

Chandler writes for the Associated Press.

ATLANTA — Same fight. New generation.

That’s the mantra of a multiracial group of civil rights leaders and activists organizing opposition to a mostly white conservative alliance dismantling the Voting Rights Act and political districts that allowed Black and other nonwhite voters to choose more of their elected leaders for the last half-century.

“We have to respond as quickly as possible,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in an interview. “The real question,” Johnson told the Associated Press, “is how do we as a country really address the effort to shrink us backwards into a 1950s reality?”

Johnson’s 117-year-old association, which was at the forefront of legal and legislative fights for Black political rights in the 20th century, is among scores of groups coming together Saturday in Alabama for a rally and tribute to the Civil Rights Movement that helped bring about the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They plan events in Selma, where voting rights advocates were attacked by white law enforcement officers on Bloody Sunday, and Montgomery, where a rescheduled march concluded two weeks later.

Unlike 61 years ago, the Alabama events are not the pinnacle of a protracted movement. Instead, civil rights activists hope they serve as a catalyst for a renewed crusade after the U.S. Supreme Court, two weeks ago, further weakened the VRA by no longer allowing race to be considered in how congressional and other districts are drawn.

They acknowledge difficulty in countering a white-dominated conservative network entrenched in the White House, Capitol Hill, federal courts and many state legislatures of the Old Confederacy, where a majority of Black Americans still live.

The VRA “was the foundational nucleus of the Civil Rights Movement,” said Jared Evans of the Louisiana-based Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. “They’ve taken that from us,” he said, with the recent Louisiana v. Callais decision on congressional districts and the earlier Shelby v. Holder decision in 2013 that rolled back federal oversight of election procedures in states and localities with a history of discrimination.

Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, who is senior pastor of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached, said from his pulpit that the result is “Jim Crow in new clothes.”

Warnock pointed to King and the last voting rights movement. “We need political power. We need economic power. We need personal power,” he said, assuring parishioners that “your adversaries know that your voice matters” because they’re “bending over backwards” to diminish it.

Evans reached further back into history to say what must happen next.

“Our response must be and will be a second Reconstruction period,” Evans said.

Some Democrats want an answer from Congress

The ultimate goal, organizers said, is to win more elections, sway policy fights and protect diverse political representation at all levels.

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, a Black lawmaker who represents Selma, Alabama, said an immediate priority is to “reform and reintroduce” Democrats’ flagship voting bill, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act.

Sewell, whose seat ultimately could be threatened under redistricting, said Democrats want to “completely” eliminate partisan gerrymandering.

She also said the legislation would “bring back pre-clearance,” the requirement for certain federal approvals that the court struck down in Shelby.

“We need to come up with a modern-day formula for showing just how egregious the behavior of these state actors is,” Sewell said.

The Supreme Court ruled in Callais that states do not have to draw majority nonwhite districts under the Voting Rights Act and, in fact, should not consider race at all when drawing boundaries. By arguing that the law’s remedies to combat discrimination had themselves become racist, the decision allows states to redraw heavily Black districts that have historically elected Democrats while arguing that the designs are based on party interests, not race.

President Trump praised the decision as “a BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law, as it returns the Voting Rights Act to its Original Intent, which was to protect against intentional Racial Discrimination.”

Groups mobilized for redistricting sessions

Many of the same groups who’ll be in Alabama on Saturday have already gone to Southern statehouses, where white Republican lawmakers moved swiftly to redraw congressional districts after Callais.

Alabama and Louisiana lawmakers reverted to a single majority-Black district, each scrapping a second district that had been ordered by lower federal courts under now-reversed VRA interpretations. Tennessee lawmakers gutted a majority Black district by splitting greater Memphis into three different sprawling districts — itself an obvious racial gerrymander the court had previously forbidden, Evans said.

Anticipating the Callais outcome, Florida and Texas proceeded with redistricting before it came down. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a term-limited Republican, has called a June session to redraw congressional lines for the 2028 cycle. Mississippi and South Carolina have delayed the matter for now.

South Carolina state Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey was among the few white Republicans who pushed back against GOP redistricting plans. He said that not even pressure from Trump could sell him on disenfranchising Black South Carolinians instead of doing what’s best for his state.

Other white conservatives are still talking openly about ousting Reps. Jim Clyburn and Bennie Thompson, the only Black U.S. House members from South Carolina and Mississippi, respectively.

Evans, the Louisiana activist, predicted the fight ahead won’t just be about congressional representation.

“Look for them to go after state house and state senate seats — and then it will be the local level,” he said, adding that “it’s going to be an entire erasure of Black representation.”

The issue is more than a partisan Washington fight

Heavily minority districts drawn under the VRA before Callais nearly always elect Democrats. Black Americans have overwhelmingly aligned with the party since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, sparking a decades-long migration of most white Southern politicians to the Republicans. Latino and Hispanic voters still lean Democratic in most places as well.

The immediate fight shapes the midterm campaign scramble for control of the U.S. House during the final years of Trump’s presidency. Trump initially pushed Republican-run states to redistrict to protect the party’s fragile House majority.

But Johnson, the NAACP leader, said all voters should see more than partisan warfare or a regional battle over race.

Beyond party allegiance, Johnson argued, white conservatives want to curtail a range of rights “depending on how you pray, depending on who you love,” while also pushing economic policies that punish workers across racial and ethnic lines. From legislation to the confirmation of federal judges who decide constitutional questions, those policy outcomes start with election results.

“It’s not a Black problem,” Johnson said. “That’s an American problem.”

There is no singular movement or leader yet

Evans, Johnson and others acknowledged the complexity in harnessing disparate organizations and galvanizing voters on issues like redistricting and gerrymandering. But they insist the brazen nature of Republicans’ course has spurred engagement.

Johnson said he was on an organizing call in Mississippi this week that had 8,000 participants. Evans pointed to packed hallways in the state Capitols in Baton Rouge and Nashville, respectively.

The NAACP and allies have challenged new maps in multiple states, despite Callais. Many groups want to spur midterm turnout among Black voters, and others are disenchanted with white conservatives’ maneuvers in racially diverse places.

Johnson stressed the need for perseverance.

The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision was seismic, with a unanimous court declaring segregated public schools unconstitutional and reversing 19th-century precedents denying Black Americans’ fundamental rights.

But it took 17 years — and many more court battles — for it to be implemented in most Southern school districts. Fights over mandated student busing continued beyond the South. It was a decade after Brown before Congress and Johnson enacted the movement’s seminal laws.

There’s no clear leader of a modern movement.

Johnson said it’s worth remembering that even with King at the helm before his assassination, “there was tension around strategy” in the 1950s and 1960s.

But even “through that tension, through many episodes, we were able to get directly in the right place.”

Barrow and Brown write for the Associated Press.

Grant Leary of Crespi is ready to defend his 2025 championship as Southern Section individual golf champion.

Qualifying begins Wednesday for the Northern Regional at Los Robles Golf Course. The top 20 players from the three regionals advance to the individual finals May 21 at River Ridge Country Club.

Leary shot 66 last year to win. He’s been playing well. He won a playoff at a U.S. Open qualifying tournament in Brentwood to advance to the final stage, a tournament June 8 in Sacramento. The U.S. Open will be in New York this season.

He’s committed to San José State.

One top player who won’t be participating this year is sophomore Jaden Soong, the defending CIF state champion from St. Francis. His father, Chris, said Jaden has too many conflict dates this month on his schedule while trying to earn a spot to play in the Junior Presidents Cup in September at Medinah Country Club.

Soong is No. 10 in the standings. Tiger Woods’ son, Charlie, is No. 7.

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email eric.sondheimer@latimes.com.

Adelmo Becerra is a Venezuelan trade union representative from the National Institute for Training and Socialist Education (INCES) and also a member of David Hernández Oduber Revolutionary Current (CREDAHO). In the past, he worked as an instructor at INCES and as a worker in the steel industry in Ciudad Guayana. In this interview, Becerra discusses the Venezuelan government’s recent labor policies under US sanctions, the growing labor reform prospects, and the present struggles and challenges facing the working class.

On May 1, the Venezuelan government raised non-wage bonuses while maintaining the minimum wage frozen. What was your reaction to these announcements? How do you place them in the context of recent labor policies in Venezuela?

The announcements represent a continuity of the labor policies of recent years. There had been expectations for restoration of the minimum wage in the short term. According to Article 91 of the Constitution, it must be adjusted once a year. Naturally, it would be a partial and limited restoration. But it is important to place the announcements in the context of various processes currently unfolding in the labor sphere.

In Venezuela, the Social Dialogue Forum, a body coordinated by the International Labour Organization (ILO), has been in place since 2021. Several trade union federations participate in this forum, including the Independent Trade Union Alliance of Venezuela (ASI), to which the INCES union belongs, the Venezuelan Workers’ Confederation (CTV), the Bolivarian Socialist Workers’ Federation (CBST), as well as government representatives. The Social Dialogue Forum is not binding, but Venezuela has ratified conventions, including Convention 26, which establishes consultations with trade union organizations for setting the minimum wage. However, a mechanism for establishing it has not yet been agreed upon.

At the same time, the government led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has established the National Dialogue for Labor Consensus, which includes the CTV, ASI, and CBST labor federations, along with representatives from business associations FEDECÁMARAS and FEDEINDUSTRIA, and government officials.

Then there is the struggle on the streets that has unfolded in the country in recent years. I would single out the August 2018 Program for Growth, Recovery, and Economic Prosperity as a starting point. This program produced two instruments that have denied wage and labor rights established in collective bargaining agreements, even disregarding the Constitution and labor legislation. I am referring to Memorandum 2792, from October 2018, which sets out the broad guidelines regarding the suspension of collective bargaining rights. And then there is the 2021 ONAPRE Directive, which addresses its specific application. Both instruments remain in force, and their repeal has been a constant demand in the workers’ struggles.

So, back to May 1, there was no restoration of the minimum wage. However, the announcements stem from agreements reached at the National Dialogue for Labor Consensus. And the signed minutes refer to a “wage consultation process” that will begin in May. This indicates that the issue of the minimum wage is far from settled. Similarly, the agreements “urge” the private sector to establish this same US $240 income floor, specifying that it may be through “non-wage bonuses,” although in reality there are no mechanisms to enforce it.

But the minimum wage is not an isolated issue. We have heard spokespersons from both the government and the private sector speak of labor reform. Just in recent days, in a meeting of the Social Dialogue Forum, one of the agreements was to “coordinate consultations of labor-related laws with the National Assembly.”

Let us take a closer look at the issue of bonuses versus wages. What are the consequences of this “bonus-ization” policy?

The main impact is on workers’ entitlements, specifically in the form of social benefits. These benefits accumulate over the course of the employment relationship, and their primary function is to recognize seniority so that it can be taken into account when paying out benefits.

But there is also another concept: retroactivity. This means that benefits are paid based on the final salary. Thus, when an employment relationship ends at a private company, the benefits paid as compensation are calculated based on the final wage and the duration of the employment. The same applies to those retiring from the public sector, or from a private company that offers a retirement plan –which is very rare in Venezuela.

This issue is very important because it has been at the center of the historical Venezuelan working-class struggles following the oil-led industrialization and the 1936 Labor Law. Social benefits allowed Venezuelan families to have assets, purchase homes or other property, and also served as a safety net in contexts of unemployment or economic crisis. This safety net no longer exists today because the minimum wage has been effectively eliminated.

Then there are other important factors, such as social security contributions, which fund the Venezuelan Social Security Institute (IVSS). This is a universal solidarity-based system in which both employers and employees contribute, and it serves as the economic foundation for old-age pensions and other IVSS social support initiatives, such as in healthcare. So, this system is also in crisis because contributions are computed based on wages.

The result is that for the private sector, both social security contributions and severance pay are practically free right now, and that in turn affects job stability.

Speaking specifically about INCES, which is a state-run training institute, what is the current employment situation like? Do the staff work full-time?

According to data recently provided to us by the authorities, there are approximately 11,500 people on the payroll, 6,800 of them active workers, and the rest are retirees. The vast majority receive only the “economic war” and bonuses, now set at $200 and $40 a month, respectively. Through our collective bargaining agreement, retirees also receive the food bonus, which is not the case in general in the public sector.

In recent years, as a union, we have held discussions with INCES authorities and the Ministry of Labor –which oversees the institute –to ease the requirement that people come to work every day while we try to secure better conditions. Simply put, if their income isn’t enough, they should have the option of trying to find a second or third job. With the recent increases in bonuses, the authorities are putting more pressure on workers to return to full-time work, but it’s complicated.

We are still in that struggle to improve conditions, even though we have not even been able to make progress on a memorandum of understanding to improve the socioeconomic clauses of the current collective bargaining agreement. But that’s the priority.

Turning now to the private sector, you have participated in the Observatory for Labor Dignity, which has investigated current working conditions in Venezuela. In general terms, why the focus on the private sector? And what is the reality of that world?

The first reason is that unionization rates in the private sector have historically always been very low in our country. At its peak, in the 1970s, it reached 30%, and today it is likely below 15% –and that is being optimistic. We must take into account the massive migration of recent years. It is a very low unionization rate, and in sectors such as retail or services, there are practically no unions.

Consequently, the level of job insecurity and vulnerability is much higher, especially given the government’s policy of restraining official workplace inspections based on tacit agreements with the private sector under the pretext of “promoting employment.”

One issue that came up repeatedly was the lack of maternity protection which was one of the advances of the 2012 Labor Law. Right now, in the companies we investigated, such as [department store chain] Traki or [textile distributor] El Castillo, no woman wants to get pregnant because that would mean immediately losing their job. Not only that, but it would also make it impossible to get a reference letter or a recommendation for another job.

It is important to stress that the approach to undermine or marginalize collective bargaining agreements was not limited to the public sector. The private sector also adopted it. Under the guise of “protecting jobs”–claiming that companies would go bankrupt otherwise –many employers sent workers home on minimum wage, with some being called back to work at the employer’s discretion.

Given the context of crisis and precariousness, under US economic sanctions, that has persisted for several years now, is the impact on workers’ awareness noticeable?

Indeed, there is a very acute lack of awareness regarding labor rights. The new generation of workers is entering the workforce with virtually no knowledge of the rights they hold by law, in part because they have never had access to them.

So, issues like employment contracts, pay stubs, or even working hours themselves are a problem. It is very common to have 10, 12, or even 14-hour workdays, or for the two days off per week not to be upheld. At Traki, this is usually respected, although the two days are not necessarily consecutive. In El Castillo, the average is one and a half days. In El Castillo, there is also a practice of having workers sign their contract and a resignation letter at the same time, which is obviously illegal.

Another characteristic is high turnover. Fixed-term contracts have become the norm. Although after several contracts the law grants the right to continued employment, this is practically nonexistent. The vast majority of people move around a great deal between jobs. This is, of course, made possible by the fact that benefits are nearly non-existent and it is extremely cheap to dismiss a worker, which in turn keeps people in a much more precarious situation.

But there is an important factor to consider: the shift in subjectivity –and this, of course, is not a phenomenon unique to Venezuela. A few days ago, I watched an interview with a North American researcher who found that for young people in the US a job at Starbucks seems like a good opportunity –better than average. Here, in some of the testimonies we collected, young people expressed satisfaction with working at the Traki department stores. They earn some $250 a month, work 9- or 10-hour shifts –while conditions elsewhere are worse –have two days off a week, and would like to stay there. Therefore, the notion of work with rights has also eroded. Issues like overtime pay, not to mention social security, become irrelevant due to the precariousness of the present. The employment relationship, which includes rights and mechanisms to protect them, is beginning to be viewed simply as a commercial transaction.

Labor reform talks are underway. Government spokespeople talk about “updating” the law following the impact of US sanctions, while private sector spokespeople are also voicing their demands. What is currently at stake?

I think there are several aspects to consider. We are clearly witnessing an aggressive campaign being waged by the media, along with well-known economists and influencers, to impose a narrative that any wage increase will cause inflation. As such, the only way to raise wages is to reduce employers’ responsibilities and eliminate the retroactive nature of labor benefits.

The 2012 Labor Law reinstated the calculation of benefits based on the last salary. This had been modified, amid much controversy, during the Caldera administration in the 1990s. Still, unlike proposals we see now, retroactivity was not completely eliminated. There is a proposal to let workers choose between receiving benefits immediately or accumulating them, which completely distorts the concept and takes advantage of current economic difficulties. If wages are insufficient, workers obviously prefer to collect as much as they can right away. Even if the current $240 minimum income was turned into salaries, this would represent less than 50% of the food basket for a family, according to different estimates.

I believe it is essential to reject the narrative promoted by groups like Fedecámaras, to reject the premise that we must give up our rights and historic achievements because there are no conditions to sustain them. For starters, there is a lack of transparency and information. We do not even have reliable information on the size of the economically active population. The last census was in 2011, and following the massive migration over the past decade, we do not know what the current picture looks like.

According to 2021 data from the National Institute of Statistics (INE), there were roughly 4 million workers in the formal private sector, just over 3 million in the public sector, and around 5 million pensioners. Therefore, with that precise data, and with transparent information on revenues, it would be possible to quantify whether or not there are resources. Because GDP was heavily hit by the US blockade but has been growing—according to the Central Bank, for 20 consecutive quarters –but the last adjustment to the minimum wage, to $30 per month, was in March 2022.

Another piece of data we lack is the distribution of surpluses among the workforce, private capital, and the state. According to research by former Minister Víctor Álvarez, the labor share reached 40% by 2010. Currently, according to estimates by researcher Carlos Dürich, that figure may be around 20%, which is what is typically observed in African countries with high levels of poverty and inequality.

We need all that data if we want to discuss what is possible or not, and how the wealth that is generated will be distributed. This is especially true in this context, where, outrageously, the US controls Venezuela’s oil sales. Now the Central Bank will be subject to external auditing, but the public still lacks information. So there is a second layer of opacity there.

In summary, under the present conditions, with an unfavorable correlation of forces and foreign control over the Venezuelan economy, it is not possible to restore the minimum wage and have it cover living costs, as established in Article 91 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, economists and trade union federations have argued that there are conditions for a partial restoration.

In this complex context, both domestically and internationally, what is the path forward for the workers’ struggle in the country?

For me, there is one fundamental factor –one that has been evident in recent years –and that is social pressure. Workers are the only force that has exerted pressure on the government, and to some extent on the private sector as well, particularly since 2022. In 2023, the government placated the protests by introducing the “economic war” bonus. The minimum wage had been devalued to $5 at the beginning of the year, and 15 days later the government set the bonus at $25, and then in May at $70. Even if it happens through non-wage bonuses, it is a struggle with the bourgeoisie over the country’s income.

The May 1 increase, again via bonuses, is also a response to pressure from the streets. We will now see what happens with the wage consultations and labor reform plans. The challenge is to sustain the actions and protests over time. But that sustainability depends on unity.

And what are the challenges to building unity around the labor agenda? A few weeks ago, we witnessed an absurd demonstration by certain union factions asking for support at the US Embassy.

Precisely. On May 1, there was a unified demonstration that likely drew 3,000 to 4,000 people in Caracas, along with smaller marches in other parts of the country. Various labor federations were present, ranging from the more left-wing ones like the CUTV to those social-democratic or Christian-democratic like the CTV or ASI.

On March 12, we also had a united mobilization, but since then the forces have split. And that weakens us because it reduces our impact; the business leaders rub their hands together.

This division has partly to do with issues of leadership and protagonism, and with the fact that not all federations understand that we must play on two chessboards at this moment: on one hand, the negotiating tables, and on the other, applying pressure in the streets.

But the division is also due to a particular factor: a group called the Coalición Sindical, whose main focus is not so much labor or wages, but politics. It serves as the vehicle within the labor movement for María Corina Machado’s political faction, which is obviously trying to capitalize on labor issues for its own agenda. This group has no interest in joint actions to secure better conditions –even if only partial –for the working class; rather, its priority is to stoke conflict.

That is why we see actions such as demonstrations in front of the US Embassy, calling on Trump to intervene. But right now, the priority for the US is stability, so it can advance its energy and mining interests. It views social pressure as something the Venezuelan government must handle on its own.

In short, it is essential at this moment to have a united force with a specific agenda: to fight for the restoration of wages, for the reopening of collective bargaining negotiations, for the release of unjustly imprisoned workers and trade unionists, and to defend labor rights against regressive reform efforts.

April 21 (UPI) — Iran on Tuesday demanded the United States release the Iranian-flagged container ship the U.S. military seized over the weekend, threatening to use “all its capacities” to defend itself as the cease-fire neared its end.

The U.S. military seized Touska on Sunday as it enforced a military blockade of Iranian ports and ships, raising already high tensions during a two-week cease-fire rapidly nearing its end that negotiators from both countries are to use to secure an end to the war.

U.S. warships intercepted Touska transiting the north Arabian Sea en route to Iran’s Bandar Abbas port city for allegedly violating the blockade.

Iran responded with accusations of violating the cease-fire and drone strikes targeting U.S. military vessels, according to state-run media, though U.S. Central Command has yet to comment.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday condemned the seizure of Touska as an “unlawful and savage act of the terrorist U.S. army,” saying the “act of maritime banditry and terrorism” terrified the ship’s passengers and crew, some of whose family members were onboard.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran, while warning of the very dangerous consequences of this unlawful and criminal act by the United States, emphasizes the immediate release of the Iranian vessel, its passengers, its crew and its families,” the ministry said in a statement.

The ministry said the seizure is a violation of international and the fundamental principles and rules of the U.N. Charter, and that it had informed the U.N. secretary general, the Security Council and maritime organizations.

“There is no doubt that the Islamic Republic of Iran will use all its capacities to defend Iran’s national interests and security and to safeguard the rights and dignity of its citizens,” the ministry statement said.

“It is obvious that full responsibility for the further complication of the situation in the region lies with the United States.”

The cease-fire is to end at midnight Tuesday.

Iran has accused Trump of ducking real negotiations on ending the war in favor of trying to exert the United States’ economic and military might to force it to capitulate.

“Trump, by imposing a blockade and violating the cease-fire, wants — in his view — to turn the negotiating table into a table of surrender, or else justify starting the war again,” Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said late Monday in a statement.

“We do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats, and over thee past two weeks we have prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield.”

Trump has continued to boast online that he was “winning” the war while defending himself from criticism and vowing the deal his administration is working on with Iran will be “FAR BETTER” than the landmark multinational Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action the United States, Iran and several other countries signed during the Obama administration.

“If a deal happens under ‘TRUMP,’ it will guarantee Peace, Security and Safety, not only for Israel and the Middle East, but for Europe, America and Everywhere else,” he said on his Truth Social media platform.

“It will be something that the entire World will be proud of, instead of the years of Embarrassment and Humiliation that we have been forced to suffer due to incompetent and cowardly leadership!”

Turkey, Iran’s neighbor and U.S. ally, has been among nations working to de-escalate tensions in the Gulf and seek an extension to the cease-fire as negotiations appear to be at a stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program.

Though public rhetoric is fiery, negotiations behind closed doors are progressing, Ankara’s foreign affairs minister, Hakan Fidan, said Sunday during a forum in southeastern Turkey’s Antalya.

“The good thing is this: both sides continue to negotiate with a very serious intention, sincerely, they have the will to continue,” Fidan said.

“Now, no one wants a new war to start again with the end of the cease-fire next week.”

Turkey hopes that under international pressure, the United States, Israel and Iran will extend the cease-fire to solve outstanding issues, he said.

“A two-week period is good for a cease-fire, but the file in front of them is so comprehensive that it will not be possible to solve all these issues in two weeks,” he said.

“Therefore, a new extension will be needed. I hope this extension will come. I am optimistic about that.”