After what we went through, we no longer maintained the assumption that “European employers provide better social rights.” They establish business enterprises here because of cheap labour. They also have certain guarantees from the government such as tax exemptions, and they receive deductions in electricity and water costs, etc. DİAM Worker Sevda Toprak, DİSK-BMİS member (July 31, 2019) Sevda Toprak: a 24-year-old female worker. She currently works at an enterprise where BMİS is organised. Before, between 2012 and 2017, she worked as a quality supervisor at Diam. She was fired from this position during unionisation efforts. Working overtime at Diam occurred frequently. Our salaries were paid regularly but the real problem was their behaviour towards us. Regardless of being male or female, managers were cursing at us. During the month of Ramadan, people, who were fasting for long hours, were doing overtime and wanted to go home. I witnessed a manager cursing at the workers when one asked the manager “Do you have no conscience?” Eventually, in April 2017, together with our friends, we decided to unionise against such behaviour. Workers were mostly women. We started to meet with everyone and register them as members. I was in the committee conducting the process. Then, the employer found out. One day, we were working overtime again, and our director arrived and wrote down the names of those who would work overtime. I said “me,” and the director said, “there is no need.” Then, five minutes before the end of the shift, they asked me to go to the human resources [department]. I went up, four other friends were there. These were all people I met throughout the process. We realised that something was clearly wrong. They gave us notices of termination, and said: “you’re going to sign these.” Human resources finance manager, CEO, floor managers, etc. We asked for the justification and they told us “we do not want to work with you.” We had to leave but in the following days, we continued to gather in front of the workplace. Some of our friends joined the Union after witnessing the situation. Protests, such as slowing down work inside, were held. Managers were acting provocatively in the face of protests. They recorded the events on their phones, yelled at us, etc. Eventually, we decided to organise 84 C O L L E C T I V E R I G H T S O F W O R K E R S U N D E R T U R K E Y ’ S C O N T I N U O U S S TAT E O F E M E R G E N C Y T R A D E U N I O N R I G H T S I N E U R O P E A N A N D E U R O P E A N - A F F I L I AT E D E N T E R P R I S E S a protest in front of the workplace with the support of workers from other enterprises. Nearby, there was an enterprise where our union was organised. The employer, who had heard that we would hold a protest with others who would come from the nearby enterprises, locked our friends in the factory during their break time. Some people were locked in the cafeteria. Some people jumped out of windows from the second floor. They showed this kind of inhumane behaviour on the first day we went there. Afterwards, they also dismissed our friends who joined us while we were waiting in front of the factory. Our protest continued for around one month. The employer contacted a famous labour law specialist to act as a mediator. Through him, they told us to end the strike and that what is necessary will be done. But they did not keep their promise. Even the specialist left the job saying that this damaged his reputation. During the last nine days, workers stopped working and around 100 friends were dismissed. The factory was surrounded by razor-wire, they hired security guards and the police parked a water cannon vehicle in front of the door. The protest that consisted of halting work started after a petition was sent to request competence to complete collective agreements. However, following the mass dismissal of those who remained inside, we had to stop the protest, which had continued for 10 days, due to financial reasons. The employer hired new workers through İşkur. The entire management of the factory changed. The lawsuits we filed to be reinstated and to be compensated have been going on for two years. They [the cases] are now at the regional court. They contacted our co-workers to testify against us at court. All of them, except for our supervisor, told the truth and did not give false testimonies. The company had a French CEO while we were employed there. We saw him once or twice a year. But he did not show a positive attitude during the events. The workplace did not have an atmosphere of open dialogue even though it was a European company. On the contrary, even though it was illegal and incorrect, a sign was posted on the wall that read “unions cannot recruit members in workplaces that have less than 250 workers.” [This happened] exactly at the time when we were striving to attain the necessary majority to apply for competency to enter agreements. Meanwhile, we also contacted other companies or branches of the company in other countries, such as England, but we did not achieve any results. INTERVIEW SUMMARIES 85