إعرف دستورهم | حقوق العمالKnow their Constitution I Workers’ Rights

October 7, 2019

“The Rights of Workers in the New Constitution” “Did you know that in the new constitution,” “the state is obligated to protect the rights of workers?” “Among them, that your wage is fair and
to the extent of your work” “Not just this, it also guarantees you a minimum wage-” In fact it’s an incredibly elastic article A minimum and maximum wage without putting any limits, saying what
this minimum wage might start at, and then how the laws would add to this. What needs to happen is that the minimum wage
be tied to a sense of what it can afford you They’re tying wages to productivity They’ve created a relationship between work and
production that’s the opposite of people’s understandings Let’s say I’m a worker ready to go to work, and the boss stops production, what blame do I have that you don’t pay me my wage? The most important matter is prices How should prices fluctuate and how the worker’s
wage should change to match prices, realistically, Because even the former regime, in the old constitution,
tied wages to prices This minimum wage can be the same as Dr. Samir Radwan recommended in 2011, 700 EGP ($113) It could be even less It could be higher The issue is stated in an incredibly loose fashion, to meet the desire and mood of the government. “And lest anyone take more than their right,” “The constitution obligates the state to set a maximum wage” He’s lying to us in his talk about the maximum wage because the article says that the maximum wage
only applies for government jobs Neither the public sector industries, the private sector will have a maximum wage Secondly, even in the government jobs
this limit is going to be played with because it’s written “a maximum wage allowing for exceptions based in law” It’s opened the path to exceptions, a road to hell that’s created shocking inequalities in people’s lives in wages and elsewhere, in what’s gone on before,
and even now it’s just as it was “The constitution guarantees the worker
shares in public sector profits and-” Thats a new lie! They’re saying that this is a ‘guarantee on wages’ Despite that the article says “the workers have a right to profts” but then doesn’t specify it We could see shortly a law passed saying this share is 5%, 3%, 2% even I mean the developers are paupers after all!
They don’t make any money It’s not like they’re sucking our blood and sweat So we need to help them out and give them everything,
and rob the workers of their rights “That’s all besides the fact that the state guarantees
worker’s rights to vacation, retirement, social insurance,” “healthcare, and protection against general liability” Alright I’m sorry, but… The part mentioning healthcare specifically is
humiliating and disgraceful This is an article not just for the workers but for everyone That healthcare is obligated for the poor Meaning what? You would have to obtain a humiliating
certificate of poverty in order to obtain free healthcare “the constitution protects the right to peaceful strike-” Another lie they’re pushing on us, is that
the constitution protects the right to peacefully strike The article says “Peaceful striking is a right
and organized by law” This means any sit-in or occupation is unconstitutional The laws they’re going to pass regarding
the right to protest Will ignore rights to sit-in and demonstration because they’ve only allowed for “peaceful” striking It’s enough that we say that from 2007 to now, the more than 4,000 stirkes and sit-ins we’ve seen There have only been two that are legal under the Labor Law of 2003 “If you want to know the rights of workers in the constitution,” “Go look at these articles:
14, 15, 17, 27-” OK, let’s just take a look at these articles When it begins talking about article 35,
regarding freedom to organize unions and syndicates It drops the word “by choice” that they included in the previous article talking about political parties and civil society organizations, So that unions would remain up in the air, unable to establish how they’ve been instituted In the 1971 constitution, Management Councils of the unions could be dissolved by court order Here it says you can dissolve the union itself by court order I can understand that if the management of any union committed one or two mistakes or a crime that body should be dissolved But to dissolve the union? That is a crime! There’s a line of thought in this constitution
that is absolutely criminal these formations are the formations of the society it’s as if you’re forbidding society, if you wanted, from all the forms of organization that represent it until it’s just the Muslim Brotherhood and their militias that remain “If you thought all this was convincing, go vote yes” “and if you think this isn’t enough, go say no” The organization of things in this way
pushes the viewer to say yes The way it starts by saying: “If you see these things as convincing go say yes”, why didn’t he start the other way around? This advertising itself has, well I can’t call it anything other than lying. Because unless you note all the sides of any article in the constitution You are in truth failing to explain the truth You’re choosing the bit that you find convenient And you’re choosing, even the preamble,
and you know that it’s only the preamble and not a constitutional article with binding power This constitution is one biased in favor of
the rich against the poor the powerful above the powerless the rulers above the ruled It’s not all the time that they use force at times, using a constitution like this one,
they appear to be well within the law following the constitution. But they’re all just mechanisms
to rob us and deprive us of our rights Subtitles by the community

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *