Page 161 - Mellinato, Giulio, and Aleksander Panjek. Eds. 2022. Complex Gateways. Labour and Urban History of Maritime Port Cities: The Northern Adriaticin a Comparative Perspective. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 161
Workers of the Port of Koper and the Economic Reform Period in 1960s Slovenia
bikes because Tomos’ suppliers cancelled production of certain lines due
to low profitability. In 1966, as many as 500 motorbikes remained unfin-
ished for that reason. The Party report further claimed that Tomos was
hoarding large stocks of production materials for the same reasons as
many other companies at the time – they were afraid these commodities
might soon be unobtainable on the market (AS 1589/III, t. e. 184, fasc.
487, Zabeležka, 14 June 1966, 2–3).
So, what happened at the Port of Koper in early spring 1970? Regarding
the events in question, I was able to obtain a report (‘Information’) and
political assessment of the work stoppage from the local Party branch
dated April 1970. Other sources are some press articles published in the
central Slovenian daily Delo in March and April, and a letter the President
of the workers’ council of the Port of Koper, Milan Končarevič, submitted
in June to the Secretary of the Secretariat of the CC LCS Andrej Marinc,
who would become Stane Kavčič’s successor as President of the EC of the
SRS in 1972. In order to reconstruct the events, Petrinja’s highly detailed
accounts (1993; 1999) proved to be of enormous value as well. In addition,
Rutar’s archival findings – especially Petrinja’s reports, Proceedings of
the Directors’ Meetings and documentation of Workers’ council meetings
through 1969–1970 – provide valuable insight into the conflict (2015).
The accounts published in Delo clearly summarize the position of the
Party almost to the letter, although they avoid taking a harsh tone with
director Petrinja. On the other hand, the letter to Marinc addresses the
strike only indirectly, the main substance being a defence of the former
and current director (Petrinja had stepped down in April, and that fact
alone speaks volumes). The letter could easily have included the views of
the workers’ council of the company and its president. But there are none.
Its tone is cold, and it is limited to a ‘response regarding criticism of busi-
ness policies of the Port of Koper, which includes incorrect references to
data and facts’ (AS 1589/IV, t. e. 226, a. e. 506, Stališča, 16 June 1970). It
could pass as a routine report submitted by any Western manager to a
board of trustees. The local LCS report and assessment targeted Petrinja
with the clear aim of discrediting him. That was hardly a surprise, as his
boldness and arrogance had earned him plenty of enemies in high plac-
es over the years. Yet this document at least illustrates the living condi-
tions of Port of Koper workers, and by doing so, if only indirectly, gives
them a voice.
161
bikes because Tomos’ suppliers cancelled production of certain lines due
to low profitability. In 1966, as many as 500 motorbikes remained unfin-
ished for that reason. The Party report further claimed that Tomos was
hoarding large stocks of production materials for the same reasons as
many other companies at the time – they were afraid these commodities
might soon be unobtainable on the market (AS 1589/III, t. e. 184, fasc.
487, Zabeležka, 14 June 1966, 2–3).
So, what happened at the Port of Koper in early spring 1970? Regarding
the events in question, I was able to obtain a report (‘Information’) and
political assessment of the work stoppage from the local Party branch
dated April 1970. Other sources are some press articles published in the
central Slovenian daily Delo in March and April, and a letter the President
of the workers’ council of the Port of Koper, Milan Končarevič, submitted
in June to the Secretary of the Secretariat of the CC LCS Andrej Marinc,
who would become Stane Kavčič’s successor as President of the EC of the
SRS in 1972. In order to reconstruct the events, Petrinja’s highly detailed
accounts (1993; 1999) proved to be of enormous value as well. In addition,
Rutar’s archival findings – especially Petrinja’s reports, Proceedings of
the Directors’ Meetings and documentation of Workers’ council meetings
through 1969–1970 – provide valuable insight into the conflict (2015).
The accounts published in Delo clearly summarize the position of the
Party almost to the letter, although they avoid taking a harsh tone with
director Petrinja. On the other hand, the letter to Marinc addresses the
strike only indirectly, the main substance being a defence of the former
and current director (Petrinja had stepped down in April, and that fact
alone speaks volumes). The letter could easily have included the views of
the workers’ council of the company and its president. But there are none.
Its tone is cold, and it is limited to a ‘response regarding criticism of busi-
ness policies of the Port of Koper, which includes incorrect references to
data and facts’ (AS 1589/IV, t. e. 226, a. e. 506, Stališča, 16 June 1970). It
could pass as a routine report submitted by any Western manager to a
board of trustees. The local LCS report and assessment targeted Petrinja
with the clear aim of discrediting him. That was hardly a surprise, as his
boldness and arrogance had earned him plenty of enemies in high plac-
es over the years. Yet this document at least illustrates the living condi-
tions of Port of Koper workers, and by doing so, if only indirectly, gives
them a voice.
161
