The banking union (AEBU) transferred the conflict it had with Citibank over the dismissal of three workers to all companies in the private financial sector. This week he occupied the headquarters of the Heritage bank and continues with surprise measures. The genesis of the conflict occurred after Citibank sold one of its business units in Uruguay and made the decision to lay off 29 workers in that area. There were 26 who reached an agreement and there were three employees who did not accept compensation greater than that provided by law.
The union understands that one of the private banks must offer work to the three officials, or failing that, demand that Citibank take them back. The Association of Private Banks (ABPU) is concerned about the generalization of the conflict. The president of the ABPU, Roberto De Luca, told The Observer that the union took all private sector companies hostage. The union understands that the measures applied by AEBU are exaggerated and that, with its attitudes, it puts the rights of three people before those of banks, financial institutions, companies, clients and users of the financial system. What follows is a summary of De Luca’s interview with The Observer.
How does the Association of Private Banks observe the conflict between AEBU and Citibank?
With much concern. Conflicts have impacts on many people. In the conflict that was originally between Citibank and AEBU, the union later incorporated the banks and now 84 companies in the financial sector. They are companies that do not participate, that cannot make decisions, that cannot do anything, and yet they are involved. Basically it involves the clients of those 84 companies. We feel hostage to a situation that we cannot control. We don’t generate it and we can’t do anything about it either.
How many workers are there in private banks?
A little more than 3 thousand people. A little less than half are unionized and the rest are not part of AEBU.
What is the impediment of the rest of the banks to absorb these three workers as required by AEBU and to be able to put an end to the conflict?
The world of work is changing in all industries and in banking in particular. In Spain, in the last 10 years, the bank workforce fell 34%. What there is fundamentally is a replacement of the skills required for digital banking. Banks would have no problem taking these people if they needed those profiles, but they are not the profiles that are being taken or are needed. And banks want to make their own decisions when recruiting workers. With the conflict we all lose. It does not seem that the solution proposed by AEBU is reasonable. There are people entering banks with other profiles. A lot of people from marketing, from technology, from data analysis. It is not the profile of these three people who surely have a good experience in administrative matters. AEBU strikes because the banks do not hire these people, but it also took over a bank because it hired a person, as was the case with Heritage. In short, AEBU understands that it has the right to define which people should be incorporated into the banks. It seems to us that this does not correspond. There is a rights issue.
Photo: Leonardo Carreno.
Occupation at Heritage
AEBU says that if there is no work continuity for these three people, the union measures will continue and predicts a long conflict. Does the Association of Banks have the same perception?
Can be. None of the 84 companies involved can force Citibank to take on these people. At least on the banking side there is currently no requirement for personnel with these skills. We are stuck on an issue that seems to have no solution. AEBU says: ‘There is no dialogue’. No, there is dialogue. What we can’t do is reach an agreement. It is as if I were saying: I have the right to housing. Then I’m going to go with my whole family to live in your house. You’re going to tell me no. I propose that I make myself more flexible: instead of going with my whole family, I will go with my wife and my two children. I will have the same answer. So I tell you again: I am more flexible and I go alone with my wife. You’re going to keep telling me no. So I end up saying: do you realize that I am flexible and you are not? That is the situation we are experiencing. The law says that companies in Uruguay can fire. Dismissal is free, without cause and without notice. Citibank gave eight months’ notice so people could prepare. It has a cause: the business unit was sold. In addition, it gave them a much higher compensation than that provided for in the law. In Uruguay there is no labor stability law for the private sector. AEBU says that before the banks incorporated people fired from others. Examples appear from 20, 30, 40 years ago. The world of work changed. Employment in the banking sector varied radically in terms of profile and experiences required. Uruguayan banking has gone through the entire transformation process and there have been practically no layoffs, except for extraordinary situations like the one now. In these cases, what people do is a process of labor reconversion, they look for work in the market as a whole. It is not common for it to be considered that they must necessarily enter a company in a certain sector of activity.
Do they take it then as an arbitrary measure?
Yes. It gives the impression that the union understands that it has rights that others do not have. What he is doing, in short, is to say: I have the right to be given job stability or to be given a job in this same industry. If the banks decided to take those three people. What would they be doing? They stretch, leaving three people who are going to drink with the right age and profile for their needs to replace them with three other people who do not have that profile. That is not good for anyone. AEBU thinks that the right of these three people is more important than that of hundreds of companies and clients that are being affected by these measures. There are a lot of small businesses that the other day did not collect their card settlement. Obviously there is a right to apply union measures; but there is a responsibility in the application of those measures. It gives the impression that the measures are exaggerated with respect to the situation. Two occupations and a lot of impact on companies and people.
Leonardo Carreno
Conflict at Citibank
For the Association of Private Banks, did Citibank take the right path, did it do everything it should in recent months?
What he did was based on the legal regulations in force in the country. As hundreds or thousands of companies apply on a day to day basis they must restructure the company and lay off some people. Also that he has done it in the best possible way. With notice, cause and with compensation higher than the legal one.
As a trade union, is there any proposal to raise and intercede in the conflict?
I repeat that we are hostages of this situation.
Is there concern about other measures that the union may apply?
Above all because of the impact on customers, on the payment system, on businesses. That is the main concern. This also comes at a significant cost to the bank workers themselves. Every day of unemployment affects your income. This situation is not good for anyone.
Did you have recent contacts with AEBU?
In Uruguay, luckily, there is always dialogue. Citibank has had contact with the union in the last eight months. Although there were no negotiations between the Association of Private Banks and AEBU on this issue, because it is not an issue that we can define ourselves, we always have contact. Most of the time there is good communication.
