Page 162 - 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. 162
plex Gateways
But without precluding further research, the historical data briefly
described here can be considered representative, even if they lack infor-
mation about the number of participants. Nor were the dates on which
the strike took place and working units properly specified in the Party
commission report. Petrinja, on the other hand, called the ‘work stop-
page’ a ‘general strike’, and said it was started at 7:00 AM on March 27
by the machine operators and longshoremen. The immediate cause of
the workers’ unrest was unpopular decisions taken by the workers’ coun-
cil and adopted on February 24, which were based (falsely, according to
Petrinja) on data suggesting operating losses and included draconian dis-
ciplinary measures and less favourable terms for billing hours worked,
but according to Rutar also dismissals. Petrinja was apparently sick when
the first signs of worker dissatisfaction appeared in the form of ‘forced
meetings’. But on that morning in March something really dramatic hap-
pened. Workers at the Port of Koper who stopped their work, marched
by the Tomos factory and held a rally in Tito Square, the central pub-
lic space of Koper. Egon Prinčič, who was filling in while Petrinja was on
sick leave, was apparently even at the head of the procession waving a
Yugoslav flag. At Tito Square, Radio Koper provided workers with loud-
speakers. The workers were loud, and they demanded Petrinja be allowed
to speak, which he did at the behest of the local Party, even though he
deeply disagreed with these kinds of demonstrations. At the meeting
of the workers’ council at the Port of Koper, the yelling continued, and
the council did suspend several of the unpopular measures adopted in
February. Delo also reported that the longshoremen stopped their work
and went on a ‘peaceful procession’ through Koper, passing the Tomos
factory and ending up at the main square, where they demanded the pres-
ence of the president of the municipal assembly and the management of
the Port. They were reportedly carrying banners and shouting slogans re-
ferring to ‘disorder in the distribution of personal incomes’. Contrary to
Petrinja, Delo recalled they were clearly dissatisfied, but were not yelling.
Prinčič’s strange performance with the flag was also omitted (Petrinja
1993, 214–5; Guzej 1970a, 2; Rutar 2015, 281). According to Rutar, a strike
itself was not only a typical industrial conflict between workers and man-
agement for higher wages, it was also a moment of fierce conflict between
Petrinja and the management whose aim was presumably his dismissal.
Studying company files, Rutar suggests that some members of the Port’s
management ‘helped to incite the strike or at least skilfully fomented it’.
162
But without precluding further research, the historical data briefly
described here can be considered representative, even if they lack infor-
mation about the number of participants. Nor were the dates on which
the strike took place and working units properly specified in the Party
commission report. Petrinja, on the other hand, called the ‘work stop-
page’ a ‘general strike’, and said it was started at 7:00 AM on March 27
by the machine operators and longshoremen. The immediate cause of
the workers’ unrest was unpopular decisions taken by the workers’ coun-
cil and adopted on February 24, which were based (falsely, according to
Petrinja) on data suggesting operating losses and included draconian dis-
ciplinary measures and less favourable terms for billing hours worked,
but according to Rutar also dismissals. Petrinja was apparently sick when
the first signs of worker dissatisfaction appeared in the form of ‘forced
meetings’. But on that morning in March something really dramatic hap-
pened. Workers at the Port of Koper who stopped their work, marched
by the Tomos factory and held a rally in Tito Square, the central pub-
lic space of Koper. Egon Prinčič, who was filling in while Petrinja was on
sick leave, was apparently even at the head of the procession waving a
Yugoslav flag. At Tito Square, Radio Koper provided workers with loud-
speakers. The workers were loud, and they demanded Petrinja be allowed
to speak, which he did at the behest of the local Party, even though he
deeply disagreed with these kinds of demonstrations. At the meeting
of the workers’ council at the Port of Koper, the yelling continued, and
the council did suspend several of the unpopular measures adopted in
February. Delo also reported that the longshoremen stopped their work
and went on a ‘peaceful procession’ through Koper, passing the Tomos
factory and ending up at the main square, where they demanded the pres-
ence of the president of the municipal assembly and the management of
the Port. They were reportedly carrying banners and shouting slogans re-
ferring to ‘disorder in the distribution of personal incomes’. Contrary to
Petrinja, Delo recalled they were clearly dissatisfied, but were not yelling.
Prinčič’s strange performance with the flag was also omitted (Petrinja
1993, 214–5; Guzej 1970a, 2; Rutar 2015, 281). According to Rutar, a strike
itself was not only a typical industrial conflict between workers and man-
agement for higher wages, it was also a moment of fierce conflict between
Petrinja and the management whose aim was presumably his dismissal.
Studying company files, Rutar suggests that some members of the Port’s
management ‘helped to incite the strike or at least skilfully fomented it’.
162
