Page 166 - 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. 166
plex Gateways
about spinning off the construction works and maintenance shops from
the Port of Koper company. But he continues by addressing the gener-
al conditions at the Port of Koper, even mentioning the strike implicitly.
In order to support his cause and refute criticism of poor management,
he outlines the same hardships mentioned in the Party report. But he
also refutes comments (not mentioned in the Party report) about how the
Port of Koper had put more resources into wages than into the company’s
development. He included numbers to prove his case. Regarding the debt
load, Končarevič stated that the Port had to repay as much as 25 million
dinars alone each year for the credit, which amounted to a third of its to-
tal income. He bitterly recalled that the Port of Koper was the only port in
Yugoslavia built by the working collective itself. And wages were stagnat-
ing: until 1967, employee earnings were about 30% above the average in
the SRS, but this figure had fallen to 10% by 1969. Petrinja later explained
that workers also worked really hard for their above-average wages. For
example, workers had to carry 120 kg sacks of Cuban sugar, and two men
were assigned to carry 300 kg bales of cotton. Such details go a long way
towards explaining the high workforce turnover rate. Lastly, Končarevič
notes that prices for port services had not changed since the beginning
of 1970, while prices for materials and other necessary commodities had
gone up (AS 1589/IV, t. e. 226, a. e. 506, Stališča, 16 June 1970; Ugrin 2000,
13).
Petrinja left the Port of Koper in April 1970, immediately after the
strike. The event and burnout were the reason, as he claimed later. Even
though he was awarded the prestigious Boris Kraigher prize for his
achievements in January, and the workers’ council initially did not ac-
cept his resignation (again!), and despite receiving the support of Stane
Kavčič, this time, he left for good (Petrinja 1999, 10).
Conclusion
At the end of his life, Danilo Petrinja recalled that until 1967, the ratio be-
tween the minimum and maximum wage in the Port of Koper was 1:3.5,
and that his personal salary was somewhere in the middle. At that time
‘more than half of the employees earned more than me. And I was hap-
py about that. They contributed more value to the company’ (Ugrin 2000,
13). He further regretted that the company’s management was not entire-
ly successful in doing everything they could to ensure the workers would
treat the Port of Koper as their own, as a company that would also provide
166
about spinning off the construction works and maintenance shops from
the Port of Koper company. But he continues by addressing the gener-
al conditions at the Port of Koper, even mentioning the strike implicitly.
In order to support his cause and refute criticism of poor management,
he outlines the same hardships mentioned in the Party report. But he
also refutes comments (not mentioned in the Party report) about how the
Port of Koper had put more resources into wages than into the company’s
development. He included numbers to prove his case. Regarding the debt
load, Končarevič stated that the Port had to repay as much as 25 million
dinars alone each year for the credit, which amounted to a third of its to-
tal income. He bitterly recalled that the Port of Koper was the only port in
Yugoslavia built by the working collective itself. And wages were stagnat-
ing: until 1967, employee earnings were about 30% above the average in
the SRS, but this figure had fallen to 10% by 1969. Petrinja later explained
that workers also worked really hard for their above-average wages. For
example, workers had to carry 120 kg sacks of Cuban sugar, and two men
were assigned to carry 300 kg bales of cotton. Such details go a long way
towards explaining the high workforce turnover rate. Lastly, Končarevič
notes that prices for port services had not changed since the beginning
of 1970, while prices for materials and other necessary commodities had
gone up (AS 1589/IV, t. e. 226, a. e. 506, Stališča, 16 June 1970; Ugrin 2000,
13).
Petrinja left the Port of Koper in April 1970, immediately after the
strike. The event and burnout were the reason, as he claimed later. Even
though he was awarded the prestigious Boris Kraigher prize for his
achievements in January, and the workers’ council initially did not ac-
cept his resignation (again!), and despite receiving the support of Stane
Kavčič, this time, he left for good (Petrinja 1999, 10).
Conclusion
At the end of his life, Danilo Petrinja recalled that until 1967, the ratio be-
tween the minimum and maximum wage in the Port of Koper was 1:3.5,
and that his personal salary was somewhere in the middle. At that time
‘more than half of the employees earned more than me. And I was hap-
py about that. They contributed more value to the company’ (Ugrin 2000,
13). He further regretted that the company’s management was not entire-
ly successful in doing everything they could to ensure the workers would
treat the Port of Koper as their own, as a company that would also provide
166
