Labor

SACRAMENTO — One of California’s most powerful labor unions declined to endorse a proposed state billionaires tax, a blow to its backers and a sign of simmering divisions on the left over the controversial ballot measure.

The executive board for Service Employees International Union California voted Wednesday to take a neutral position on the tax, which will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 40. It would impose a one-time, 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026.

In a statement, the 750,000-member union noted revenue from the “one-time tax proposal [is] dedicated 90% to healthcare,” echoing concerns from other unions opposed to the measure. Teacher, police and firefighter unions argue the tax would largely benefit the healthcare sector and fear it would destabilize the state budget and, along with it, services such as education and public safety.

SEIU California is a parent organization of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the union that crafted the measure and moved to put it on the ballot before securing broad support from other labor groups.

SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said he pushed the tax to backfill an estimated $100 billion in cuts to healthcare and food assistance programs that California is expected to shoulder under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump last year.

“Trump’s ‘Big, Ugly Bill’ slashed funding for healthcare in California to pay for more billionaire tax breaks. Now, millions of Californians are losing their health coverage, and millions more are being forced to pay skyrocketing costs,” SEIU-UHW Press Secretary Renee Saldana wrote in a statement to The Times.

Saldana pointed to an internal poll showing 70% of union members in California would support the billionaire tax, adding: “We’re confident that SEIU members will be joining millions of their fellow Californians and voting YES on Prop. 40 this November to protect healthcare, keep hospitals and clinics open, and stand with California working families.”

In negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom last month, Regan offered to pull the tax from the ballot in exchange for concessions for his union, including help securing contracts at several medical facilities around the state, two sources told The Times. Regan denies making the demand, and said the proposal is meant to solve an impending “catastrophe in California’s healthcare system.”

Several unions and Democratic allies, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, argue the one-time tax is the wrong solution for the cuts, which are unlikely to be reversed while Republicans hold power in Washington.

SEIU California said its members are focused on “a multi-year campaign to secure California’s fiscal foundation with ongoing revenue,” including an effort to tax large companies that pay wages low enough that their workers rely on public benefits.

Surrounded by members of the SEIU California executive board, Newsom this month signed a bill punting the “Fair Share” measure to next year, when a new governor will take office.

Some labor unions and elected Democrats worry that, in the long run, the proposed billionaire tax will hurt the state budget — which raises more money from wealthy people taxed at higher rates — by pushing rich Californians to move to other states.

Some already have. Google co-founder Sergey Brin last year moved to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe to preemptively avoid the tax, and has pumped $82 million into a committee fighting Proposition 40.

Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential contender, has begun arguing for a federal wealth tax that the rich could not escape by moving to a new state.

“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” he wrote on Substack in June. “The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”

SEIU California on Wednesday also announced “strong opposition” to Proposition 39, a proposed voter ID measure; and Proposition 43, which would make it harder for local governments to raise taxes.

SEOUL, June 30 (UPI) — The labor unions of Home Plus and Korea Zinc on Tuesday blasted MBK Partners, one of Asia’s leading private equity funds, over its troubled ownership of the former and the attempt to take over the latter.

“Although we are workers from different workplaces, we are all suffering in the face of the same capital greed. Korea Zinc and Home Plus are no different,” Home Plus union leader Ahn Soo-yong told a joint press conference in Seoul.

“Home Plus has now entered rehabilitation proceedings and stands on the brink of liquidation. But throughout this entire process, MBK, which should be held accountable, is evading responsibility,” she added.

MBK Partners acquired Home Plus from Tesco in a $5 billion deal in 2015. However, the discount chain entered a court-led rehabilitation program in early 2025 after years of mounting losses. MBK tried to sell Home Plus for more than a year with little success.

Against this backdrop, Home Plus has steadily reduced its store network in recent years. The retailer operated more than 140 hypermarkets across the country at its peak in the mid-2010s, but now has just 67 remaining.

“The hardship facing Home Plus is by no means a problem unique to Home Plus,” Korea Zinc union head Lee Eun-seon said.

“If MBK succeeds in taking control of Korea Zinc, the job insecurity and workplace destruction now being experienced by Home Plus workers will inevitably become the grim reality for Korea Zinc employees as well,” he said.

Korea Zinc has been locked in a prolonged control battle with MBK, which teamed up with zinc manufacturer Young Poong early last year to pursue a takeover bid. The two sides clashed at shareholders’ meetings in 2025 and 2026 in a series of heated proxy battles.

The share price of Korea Zinc fell 4% on the Seoul bourse on Tuesday, while the broad KOSPI rose 0.97%. Neither MBK nor Home Plus is publicly listed.

June 30 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has nominated Keith Sonderling to be the U.S. secretary of labor, a position the attorney has held on the interim basis since Lori Chavez-DeRemer resigned in April.

Trump announced his nomination of Sonderling to the post permanently on Monday in a statement, describing Sonderling as a man who has throughout his career “proven his dedication to delivering strong results for the Hardworking People of our Country, and I know he will do an incredible job in his new role.”

Sonderling served as deputy and acting administrator of the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division during Trump’s first term, and as deputy secretary — the department’s chief operating officer — during Trump’s second.

The 43-year-old was made interim head of the department on April 20, replacing Chavez-DeRemer, who had resigned as she faced a series of allegations of professional misconduct.

She stepped down as a Labor Department inspector general’s investigation was examining allegations that she kept a stash of alcohol in her office, maintained a relationship with a member of her security team and used agency resources for a variety of personal activities.

In a statement Monday, Sonderling said he was “deeply grateful to President Trump for his trust and confidence.”

“Serving in both President Trump’s administrations has been the greatest honor of my life,” he said on social media.

“If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to continuing that service as secretary of labor and advancing the president’s agenda on behalf of America’s workers, families, unions and job creators.”

Following Trump’s announcement, a number of Republicans congratulated Sonderling on his nomination.

“Congratulations to Keith Sonderling on his nomination to be secretary of labor,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said online.

“He is the kind of pro-worker leader that Americans deserve.”

June 5 (UPI) — The Treasury Department on Friday issued an advisory that financial institutions, including banks and casinos, to “be vigilant” against signs of unlawful employment of illegal immigrants.

The Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, called FinCEN, in the advisory calls on the institutions employ methods to detect schemes covering up the employment of people who are not authorized to work in the United States.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a FinCEN press release that part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration includes “securing our financial system.”

“This administration will not allow illegal aliens to abuse financial institutions to steal billions of dollars from hardworking American taxpayers,” Bessent said.

In order for non-immigrants to work in the United States, employers are required to petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for eligibility, before a prospective employee either applies to the State Department for a visa or enters the country through a port of entry, according to USCIS.

FinCEN said in the release that the hiring, concealing and exploiting of workers without visas can give employers advantages over other businesses, depress wages, facilitate identity theft and steal tax revenue from the United States.

The agencies additionally said that the hiring of these workers can also help fund and assist criminal enterprises that include drug trafficking and human trafficking.

The financial institutions are being asked to watch out for red flags of shell companies, identity theft, fraudulently used social security and worker identification numbers, shell companies and a raft of other detectable signs of fraud.

In addition to depository institutions such as banks, credit unions, money services businesses and securities and futures firms, FinCEN has aimed the advisory at casinos, the insurance industry, mortgage companies and brokers, and the precious metals and jewelry industries.

The Treasury Department said that more than $2.5 billion in suspicious activity reported by financial institutions was linked to payroll fraud schemes in 2025 alone, noting one multi-year scheme that cost the United States more than $38 million in tax revenue.

June 2 (Asia Today) — South Korean small business owners called for more practical labor consulting and measures to ease payroll burdens during a government meeting Tuesday.

The Ministry of SMEs and Startups held a roundtable on labor difficulties facing small businesses at the Korea Certified Public Labor Attorneys Association in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.

Minister Han Seong-sook, government officials and representatives from convenience stores, restaurants and cafes attended the meeting to discuss labor management difficulties in the field.

Participants said complicated wage rules, including weekly holiday allowances and severance pay, have become a major management burden. They urged the government to provide professional consulting support.

At the meeting, the ministry announced support measures to help small businesses manage labor issues. The measures include a question-and-answer guidebook on commonly missed labor rules, regional on-site briefings and stronger online guidance through short-form videos.

The ministry also plans to help resolve disputes through counseling centers and labor lawyers. It said it will link a 24-hour artificial intelligence labor law counseling service with Small Business 24, a government support platform for small businesses.

Small business groups, however, expressed disappointment with the measures. They said expanding online and offline counseling channels could become a formality unless the government also secures enough budget and staffing to handle a surge in labor complaints.

They also said 24-hour AI counseling may have limits because labor disputes often involve complicated facts and competing interests that differ from case to case.

Participants emphasized that small businesses need more than basic information or counseling. They said the government should build a field-based consulting system and adopt policies that directly reduce labor cost pressures.

They said the government needs a bolder approach that goes beyond publicity-focused measures to address the core problems facing small businesses, including complex employment structures and allowance management.

“We will implement the measures announced today without disruption to create an environment where small business owners can run their businesses with confidence,” Han said.

The government said it will continue listening to difficulties in the field and review possible improvements to the system.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260602010000499

SANTAIGO, Chile, May 15 (UPI) — The departure of more than 30,000 Venezuelan workers from Chile’s labor market in recent months has become an unprecedented trend that analysts say appears linked to tougher immigration policies under President José Antonio Kast and, to a greater extent, Venezuela’s political reconfiguration.

A study by the Economic Context Observatory at Diego Portales University found that the Venezuelan labor force in Chile fell 5.4% during the January-March quarter, marking five consecutive months of year-over-year declines.

Over that period, Chile’s overall labor force grew 1.1%.

“This is not an isolated phenomenon. The magnitude of the decline in the Venezuelan labor force had not been observed in previous periods,” economist Juan Bravo, director of the Economic Context Observatory and author of the study, told UPI.

Bravo said the gradual, but noticeable, return home of Venezuelans living in Chile began after the arrest of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro during a U.S. military operation Jan. 3.

“Venezuela is undergoing a transition and internal reconfiguration process, with some signs of change, but still facing high social tensions and a fragile economic situation,” he said.

With Kast taking office in March after campaigning on stricter measures against undocumented immigrants, Venezuela’s recovery process has become a more significant factor in migration patterns.

“While it is not appropriate to assume that the entire Venezuelan population in Chile will return to their country, it is also unrealistic to assume that no one will,” Bravo said.

The decline in Venezuela’s labor force is concentrated among people who have lived in Chile for fewer than five years, are age 34 or younger, male, single and hold university degrees. That group represents 80.1% of the total decrease.

Researchers warned that the reduced Venezuelan presence is directly affecting jobs in sectors that include delivery services, hospitality and customer service.

“By far, the occupation that could face the greatest labor shortage is motorcycle drivers, where 61.1% of workers are Venezuelan,” Bravo said.

He said Venezuelan workers also are heavily represented among vehicle cleaners, gas station attendants, hotel receptionists, electronics technicians and mechanics, cosmetologists and restaurant servers.

The drop in Venezuelan participation also comes as Kast’s government advances another campaign promise: the construction of a border trench aimed at stopping undocumented migration.

The so-called Border Shield Plan calls for a 37-mile trench in northern Chile along the borders with Peru and Bolivia. Authorities said in late April that 20% of the project had been completed, including an initial 7.5-mile stretch.

At the same time, Kast is seeking to restore diplomatic relations with the government of interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez to begin deporting undocumented foreigners living in Chile.

Authorities estimate that 75% of undocumented migrants in Chile are Venezuelans who cannot be deported because the lack of consular relations prevents Chilean authorities from verifying their identities and Venezuela will not accept them back.

Ernesto León, national director of migration and international police at Chile’s Investigative Police Department, or PDI, told Spanish newspaper El País that 6,000 deportations to Venezuela remain pending, while another 2,000 Venezuelans have left Chile voluntarily.

Samsung Electronics Co. and its labor union failed to reach a wage agreement Wednesday, raising concerns over a major strike later this month that could disrupt operations at the world’s largest memory chipmaker.

The breakdown came after two days of government-led mediation talks that had been viewed as a last-ditch effort to avert the strike scheduled for May 21.

Union and management have remained sharply divided over performance-based bonuses tied to the company’s earnings related to artificial intelligence (AI).

The union has demanded performance bonuses equivalent to 15 percent of operating profit, along with the removal of the payout cap and the formal institutionalization of the bonus system.

The management, meanwhile, proposed allocating 10 percent of operating profit to bonuses and offering a one-time special compensation package that it said exceeds industry standards.

“Because the differences between the labor union and management did not narrow, we requested mediation and waited for nearly 12 hours, but the proposal only worsened,” Choi Seung-ho, head of Samsung Electronics’ largest labor union, told reporters after the meeting at the National Labor Relations Commission office in the administrative city of Sejong.

Choi said some 41,000 unionized workers have expressed their intention to take part in the general strike, adding that the number could rise to more than 50,000.

“It is meaningless to wait any longer,” Choi said. “We do not plan to hold an illegal strike. We will proceed in a legitimate way.”

Choi added that the union now will focus on responding to Samsung’s request for an injunction restricting the union’s planned strike.

Later Wednesday, the Suwon District Court concluded a closed-door second hearing attended by about 30 people, including lawyers and officials from both sides.

During the hearing, the union argued that the strike would be carried out lawfully within a limited period and that it had no intention of illegally occupying company facilities, making an injunction unnecessary.

The court is expected to decide by May 20 whether to grant the injunction.

Following the breakdown in talks, Samsung Electronics expressed regret over the suspension of the mediation process, while pledging to continue efforts to engage in dialogue.

“The post-mediation process, which the government worked hard to arrange, unfortunately collapsed after the union declared negotiations broken down,” the company said in a press release. It, however, vowed to continue making sincere efforts until the very end to prevent the worst-case outcome from materializing.

The labor dispute at Samsung Electronics, the world’s largest memory chip maker and South Korea’s most valuable company, has raised concerns that a walkout could disrupt production and upend the semiconductor supply chain, as well as hurt the broader economy overall.

Observers say that if a full-scale strike takes place, losses to the South Korean economy, which is heavily dependent on exports, could exceed 40 trillion won (US$26.8 billion).

South Korea’s exports reached a record $219.9 billion in the first quarter of 2026, driven by strong global demand for AI data centers. Semiconductor exports were a major contributor, surging 139 percent from a year earlier to $78.5 billion as investment in AI-related servers accelerated.

Some observers have speculated that the government could invoke emergency arbitration powers to prevent further escalation.

Under South Korea’s labor laws, the labor minister may order emergency arbitration when industrial action is deemed likely to endanger public welfare or seriously harm the national economy.

If invoked, all strike actions would be prohibited for 30 days while mediation and arbitration procedures are conducted by the commission. Emergency arbitration powers have been exercised only four times in South Korea’s history.

A commission official declined to comment on the possibility, saying, “It is not something we are reviewing.”

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

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.