“People must be at the centre of everything, because essentially nothing makes sense without people. Who needs state infrastructure and services if there is no place in them for people; who needs nature protection, healthcare, educational institutions and roads if there are no jobs in the area?” Kristīne Rapa, chair of the Latvian Forest Sector Trade Union (LMNA), stresses in this interview, noting that the union is currently devoting the greatest attention to developing social dialogue in the sector, as well as to educating employees both about the importance of that dialogue and about their rights to a safe working environment, rest time and other guarantees of the state social welfare system. Many people are not informed about their rights.
Kristīne Rapa is interviewed by journalist Māris Ķirsons and Pauls Rēvelis, editor of zemeunvalsts.lv
If we talk about the sector (forestry, the timber industry and furniture manufacturing), what is currently at the centre of the Latvian Forest Sector Trade Union's attention?
It should be remembered that a trade union's work proceeds on several levels, and different issues are addressed at each of them. The simplest level, for example, is the union's talks with the sector's employers on matters that directly affect people employed in the sector or at a particular company – their working arrangements, rest, health and well-being. The next level is the National Tripartite Cooperation Council (NTSP), which coordinates and organises tripartite social dialogue between employers' organisations, state institutions and trade unions in order to reconcile these organisations' interests on social and economic issues. LMNA is represented on four NTSP sub-councils. At this level the discussion is about national-level issues – the budget, tax policy, employment and so on. One of the most topical questions recently, and one that affects every employee, is the debate over how much sick leave is paid: how many days and at what rate the employer pays, and from which day the state takes over the baton. In recent years there have been a great many discussions on precisely this – who pays for sick leave and for how long – and no common ground has yet been found.
The next level is the European organisations and structures where employment issues are discussed. Although trade unions represent employees and habitually argue with employers, there are issues and processes on which the positions of LMNA and the sector's business organisations coincide. How is that possible? Very simply! For several years now a struggle has been going on in Latvia between those who want to turn as much land as possible, including forests, into territories where nothing may be done, or at best where economic activity may be carried out only under substantial restrictions, and those who oppose such a desire.
If considerable forest areas are withdrawn from economic use in a given region, that means smaller logging volumes and less work for those employed in this sector, and at the same time fewer timber resources for local timber processors – so staff numbers will have to be cut, and the state and the municipality will receive less in tax payments. All the loud and entirely unfounded assumptions that a person working in logging or wood processing will immediately be hired by a company operating nearby are for the most part untrue, because it is hardly possible to “retrain” a logger or a small sawmill worker overnight as, say, an IT specialist. And is there in fact any other company nearby that provides work for people in the region?
As a result, the restrictions mentioned above produce a secondary effect – people, if they are able, go to earn a living in the nearest town or the Riga region, or in the worst case abroad, often taking the whole family, children included, with them. What will happen? Rural schools already have fewer children; the number of people in employment in the area falls, which in turn affects providers of various services, for example small local shops. That is precisely why the Forest Sector Trade Union takes part in discussions on the issues under consideration both in the government and in Saeima committees that affect the sector and its further development.
If there is a disproportionate number of bans and restrictions, a more pressing question arises: who supports this state, and how much can forest sector employees earn and pay in taxes? There is a large deficit in the state purse; the state is unable to fund all of society's needs in full. And so we have arrived at the question: where is the state heading, who will support it, what will it be able to afford, and how many and which functions will it be able to perform.
I cannot predict at what point Latvian society will grasp the importance of this question and begin to think critically. Unfortunately, the “infection” of populism is widespread in politicians' rhetoric. It is politically less appealing to talk about jobs, or about how to preserve jobs – how not to destroy them, how to find the instruments to increase the number of jobs so that there is someone to support the state. It is easy to talk about cats and hares and the like, which unfortunately do not support the state and do not pay taxes.
If we compare indicators such as GDP and the extent of protected areas per capita, in terms of protected areas we are in the top ten in Europe, whereas in terms of GDP we are in the bottom ten. We protect a great deal and earn little, even though forest and land are among the few natural resources available in Latvia. That is neither far-sighted, nor sustainable, nor wise from a national point of view.
What is currently the most important thing you are focusing on?
Employees' knowledge and raising its level. The second thing: given what is happening, critical thinking needs to be developed. For example, there are real cases where a person injured in an accident, under pressure from the employer and without knowing their rights and the social support guaranteed by the state, changes the location of the accident in the documents – from the workplace to somewhere else. Lately, though, the State Labour Inspectorate has been paying serious attention to such “changes”. There are still situations where an accident has happened at the workplace but the person does not know what they are entitled to, while the state institutions do not inform them. An accident at work means sick leave is paid differently; the injured person is entitled to state-funded rehabilitation and even to paid travel (on submission of a fuel receipt) to, for example, the Vaivari rehabilitation centre. That is precisely why the statistics of the State Social Insurance Agency showing how few people request these services come as no surprise.
Why in Latvia should a taxpayer have to search out or find out what they are entitled to in a particular situation and write applications at all? Surely the right approach would be for it to be offered to the person straight away, and for them to choose what they will do, when and how?
That would be a very good solution and a thoroughly justified and appropriate way for the state to deal with its residents. Such a system would increase people's trust in public administration and in the state as a whole because, I will say it again, people come first.
Another paradox: people need jobs, and yet the opposite is often observed – in places or areas where a significant investment project is planned, many oppose it, deterring or literally driving away potential investors.
That is not a peculiarly Latvian trait – namely, “I support the idea and the project, but just not near my own back yard”, let them build it in the neighbouring municipality or somewhere else. In such disputes local governments ought to act as mediators, trying to balance the interests of the investor and of residents, because a municipality has an interest both in jobs and economic development and in a safe, unpolluted living environment for its residents. It is sad that there are quite enough examples where no common ground has been found.
Is this a national trait, a lack of belief, or an inability to see the benefits? One trifling “but” and the whole good intention falls apart like a house of cards.
Reaching agreement is not simple, because we live in a democratic system, not a totalitarian one. If we cannot agree or cooperate on important issues, that affects not just an individual project or a particular place, but the country as a whole. What Latvia badly lacks is a policy for the use of our greatest natural resource – land – which ought to underpin all the other planning documents.
Do decision-makers respond to such a situation?
The Latvian Forest Sector Trade Union turns 35 this year; we have built up a great deal of varied experience of cooperation. As a member of the National Tripartite Cooperation Council, the union has always voiced its opinion, but the solutions we have proposed have by no means always been accepted and put into practice. We have submitted proposals to include measures promoting the use of wood in the strategic actions envisaged for meeting the land sector's climate targets, by making the necessary changes to construction policy and public procurement regulation, and to carry out a socio-economic impact assessment of all the strategic actions for meeting Latvia's climate targets, but unfortunately we were not heard.
If we speak about dialogue with the Ministry of Agriculture, credit is due to the current Minister of Agriculture, Armands Krauze, who has revived the work of the Forest Advisory Council and listens to LMNA's position on the development of social dialogue while looking for possible solutions.
There is no common position with employers, for example, as I mentioned earlier, on the duration and level of sick pay, a position maintained by the Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia. This discussion fails to take account of the most fundamental question – why are employees ill so often? People do not receive the healthcare they need in good time. If an employee needs to see a doctor and can only get an appointment several weeks or months later, that means the person will be “on sick leave” for the whole of that time, and it is still unknown whether by then the illness will have advanced so far that treatment will require far greater resources and time. If a doctor's appointment were possible as quickly as possible, that would mean a faster return to fitness for work, lower treatment costs, and lower costs for the employer and the state too. Essentially the root of the problem lies in the availability of healthcare services, or more precisely in how long they take. To organise a steady work process, employers need healthy, able-bodied employees, and it is doubtful anyone really wants to be ill. It is one thing if one person in a large workforce falls ill, quite another if those off sick number in the dozens. The union can see that covering for those who are ill is already becoming a problem for the remaining colleagues, since they are the ones on whom the additional workload falls, which over a long period increases the risk of occupational illness. What is more, overtime is not the best solution: as fatigue grows, so do inattention and the risk of injury. That means overtime and extra shifts are a solution for a very short spell, not for weeks or months. What will happen to an employee who works 60 hours every week? What will their health be like in a year, or in five?
Have you not observed situations where employers dismiss older employees because they tire more quickly, lose concentration sooner and the risk of accidents at work increases, while at the same time hiring younger people who may work for a lower wage?
I have not observed such situations. If anyone acts that way, they are bad employers. With the employers we have collective agreements with, such situations have not occurred. For example, at one large forest sector company the average age of employees is 45–55, and if someone is over 55 they are not dismissed for that reason.
How can a person's healthy lifespan be extended? A contribution has to come from the person themselves, from the employer and from the healthcare system – from the availability, accessibility and speed of services. In terms of healthy life years, Latvia looks very poor against the EU average; that has to be admitted.
Do you see signs of the so-called silver economy?
Yes, it can be seen at more than one company. Many are looking for people who want to work, and often it is precisely those with a touch of silver in their hair who are the more diligent and dependable employees. The availability of labour, especially skilled labour, is becoming ever more pressing, because as we know the number of births in Latvia falls every year and employers' competition for every worker is becoming even fiercer. That is why what is needed is not just discussion but concrete measures and actions to make the forest sector attractive to young people. Employers already today do not rely solely on the potential employees trained by educational institutions, but hire people who want to work and provide training in the workplace.
This form of staff training – work-based learning – needs to be permanent, and available to businesses, students and technical college pupils alike, as well as to the unemployed and to people who want to change their current occupation, or whose occupation is no longer in demand on the labour market. For the silver generation, the most important thing is taking part in lifelong learning or continuing education programmes so that they do not drop out of the labour market. Unfortunately, as they grow older people do not always want to study, so the motivation to learn matters. The harsh reality today is digital skills and abilities, which young people have at a good level, something that certainly cannot be said of all older people. New technologies are increasingly entering companies' “armoury” and demand an ever higher level of digital knowledge and skills from employees. A significant catalyst of sorts for acquiring IT skills and knowledge was the recent pandemic.
Scientific and technological progress is an everyday matter, and as a result the number of traditional jobs is shrinking. How is this felt in the forest sector?
That is the reality. Technologies improve; they become not only more material-saving, more productive and more efficient, they also reduce the amount of heavy manual labour. At the same time technology allows an employee to get considerably more done and to earn a higher wage, which in turn benefits the state, which receives more in labour taxes. The forest sector too has historically seen how technology reduces the number of workers – in logging, for example, when forestry machinery came into widespread use.
Digitalisation is gathering pace and spreading, and I would stress that at the companies with which LMNA has concluded collective agreements, not a single employee has been dismissed on those grounds, because it has been possible to retrain staff. At present the union is concerned about the potential impact of the Green Deal on jobs. Those doing the work in the sector are not clear about how it may affect their lives and their work. Around the world, trade unions' motto on this is clear: not a “green” transition but a just transition – leaving no one behind. LMNA maintains this position both in Europe and in Latvia.
How do you maintain this position in Europe?
The Latvian Forest Sector Trade Union is a member organisation of the EFBWW (the European Federation of Building and Woodworkers). The EFBWW, in turn, is a partner in European-level tripartite social dialogue and provides its views and opinions to various European Union institutions. LMNA also takes part in formulating the EFBWW's position. What is more, I have been elected vice-president of the EFBWW's Forestry Sub-Committee, so I have a seat at the big table of European Union decision-makers, and I always try to make use of that opportunity. Of course, to do that successfully one needs information from the sector's companies, business organisations and public administration institutions.
In this connection I would add that I would be very pleased if the information needed to develop a considered and well-founded trade union position could be obtained more quickly and efficiently than is currently the case. The biggest problem is being able to look at the issue in question more broadly, not just at the level of a single company or a single region. It has to be said that there are very few companies in the sector in Latvia that are able to offer such a view or assessment. Over time the store of knowledge and expertise will grow, thanks to the information base of our largest forest management company, since employees of the state forest manager AS “Latvijas valsts meži” have set up a trade union organisation that forms part of the Latvian Forest Sector Trade Union.
Unfortunately, the information received from state institutions is very fragmented, because each ministry or agency looks at a particular question in a very narrow, departmental way, which essentially makes it impossible to see and assess the overall picture, since the pieces of the “information jigsaw” sometimes cannot really be assembled into a single, comprehensible whole. On the other hand, there are companies in Latvia whose representatives follow what is being discussed abroad, analyse how the subject of such discussions or an innovation might affect the company's competitiveness in the future, and consider what measures to take themselves in anticipation of potential decisions. It would be welcome if the public sector worked in the same way, at least in relation to the branches of the economy that are of vital importance to Latvia.
Latvia should certainly make use of its opportunities not merely formally but to take an active part in drafting specific EU directives and regulations and in setting the requirements they contain (as we know, these later “come back” to us in Latvia as mandatory to introduce and implement). Other EU member states and the sector representatives operating in them use this method in their work.
Alongside this, there is the chance to use one more platform – LMNA is also a member organisation of BWI (Building and Wood Workers International, the international federation of building and forest sector workers' trade unions).
I would add that, as an LMNA representative in BWI, I had the opportunity to take part in social dialogue at the very highest level – the International Labour Organization operates under the auspices of the UN, and last year it organised a tripartite meeting of experts with the aim of updating and improving the ILO's 1998 code of practice on safety and health in forestry work.
I am glad that this code incorporated all the proposals put forward by me and by my colleagues from the Nordic trade unions concerning working environment risks when carrying out forestry work in winter. Until now, heightened attention had been paid to the risks associated with working in heat, while the risks of working for long periods in low temperatures were forgotten. At the suggestion of the employees' group representatives, the code has also been supplemented with an entirely new section on tree nurseries. Overall, this document describes the duties, position, responsibilities and rights of all parties involved in forestry operations in relation to workplace risks. The working group sought to cover the majority of the hazards and risks currently identified in connection with forestry. The main premise was and will remain that an employee must work in safe conditions, regardless of the technologies used and of which corner of the globe the workplace is in...
Artificial intelligence and modern technologies are step by step reducing the need for people – for employees. Might we expect, for instance, a robot tax in the future?
Taxes are the basic source of revenue for any state, funding the services society needs – security, education, health, infrastructure. If there are fewer taxpayers, solutions will have to be sought, but that is not a question for today.
We constantly hear employers' observations about a shortage of labour or about potential employees' very high expectations, as well as calls to bring in labour from third countries. From the trade union's point of view, we ought to be talking about investment and technological development that create highly skilled jobs for our own people. In the union's view, Latvia's people must be placed at the centre of everything.