Awesome!
Workers of ``Shinvoz``, Serbia, occupied their factory
I have a question about this to Rata - and he'll understand probably what I'm talking about.
I met workers from Jugoremedija in Belgrade some years ago, and, while I definitely was very happy to see an actively engaged workers struggle, I later was able to read up some more, but only thanks to the fact that I'm able to read Serbian - the English news about Jugoremedija having been a bit misleading.
What I learned was this:
- the then team of workers were a small fraction of the shareholders (It was not clear how many retired workers bought shares. They were also entitled to do so.)
It had been announced that workers had got 58% percent of shares.
What got me investigating this was simple math since an article had been published with strange figures which, it seems, nobody questions. It was written that "Jugoremedija has 4,357 shareholders, who last year received dividends although they were rather small."
But Juoremedija had 357 workers. So who were these other shareholders?
Then there was this:
"A leader of the rebellion ( or the representative of the group of small
shareholders, if u prefer) Zdravko Deuric, told "Clean Hands" that "The view that we do not have an economic interest in Jugoremedija because we control less than 10 percent of Jugoremedija is absolutely wrong. Our association numbers over 2,200 people, and we control about 40 percent of the factory which can easily be proven."
In other words, the workers are in an association with the investors.
So, again friends, do the math. If the workers were only a few hundred of the 2200 who were in the association, which claimed control of only 40%, what the fuck were people talking about saying that the workers got 58% of the factory?
The legislation passed in Serbia in 1997 stated that if a state enterprise
was to be privatized, then 60% of the shares should go to workers of the
factory, retired workers OR workers in OTHER STATE ENTERPRISES. (In other words, outside investors.) Because the law attached the shares to the number of years a person worked in the factory, often workers wound up with only 20-30% with the rest going to a state-owned fund which sold off shares.
In 2001, there was a new law. Then they allowed up to 70% of shares to go to outside investors, companies, etc. What happened with the other 30% of the stock depended if it was a "large" or "small" company. In small companies, 30% of the stock went to the workers. In large companies, 15% and 15% to a state fund which the general public could purchase. There were also some "incentives" - like if you did this within one year, the workers shares would be higher than if you waiting 2 years to privatize, etc. Again, the amount of shares you were allowed to get for free depended on how long you worked.
Of course I haven't been following what is going on there, and I know that there are new developments, but a quick look at the latest news on the company turned up this:
http://www.limun.hr/en/main.aspx?id=227560
In other words, the "worker-run firm" is a capital investor in at least one other company.
So if we talk about Shinvoz, let's get some details. According to the news I saw, yes the workers (30% shareholders according to this
http://www.rtv.co.yu/sr_ci/vesti/vojvodina/zrenjanin/2007_12_28/vest_45937.jsp) are fighting for their jobs. But what is actually the look of the situation?
I think it's real shit that people are not clearer about these "worker-shareholder" things and sometimes, in fact, are supporting workers' capitalism.
In Poland we had some experience with this too, and it wound up the one company which people were saying was "worker owned" was in fact a situation where some of the workers had stocks and the company was hiring unemployed people at really low wages. This type of stuff can in no way be confused for anything they might want to see.
So what's going on here?
laureakai, that was the impression I got from the first post on this thread (especially when it linked off to parecon as a new possibility for the workers of Yugoslavia(!)) but I was hesitant to bring it up without further information. I agree some clarification would be very welcome.
edit: the revleft discussion has more information on this - from "DJ-TC":
DJ-TC on revleft wrote:
Actually, those workplaces are not managed by workers, but by shareholders' council, composed mostly (I guess?) of workers and retired workers.Shareholder-workers from Jugoremedia factory established a local political party that would fight for the same project on a local level. In that factory court of law overruled the privatization process because the new owner ran down the factory, so most of the shares were passed on to the workers. This happened few years ago, and it's repeating now in other workplaces. New management established by shareholders did a good job in reviving the factory. But shareholders will eventually pass down the shares to their heirs or sell them at a fair price, so there's really nothing "revolutionary" about this, even though some groups tend to portray it as being so.
So technically, these workplaces are not managed by *all* workers who work there and they do not manage it as workers, but by workers who received shares during the privatization and court's interference - as a majority in shareholders' councils - that is, as shareholders.
I have a question about this to Rata - and he'll understand probably what I'm talking about.
I met workers from Jugoremedija in Belgrade some years ago, and, while I definitely was very happy to see an actively engaged workers struggle, I later was able to read up some more, but only thanks to the fact that I'm able to read Serbian - the English news about Jugoremedija having been a bit misleading.
What I learned was this:
- the then team of workers were a small fraction of the shareholders (It was not clear how many retired workers bought shares. They were also entitled to do so.)
It had been announced that workers had got 58% percent of shares.
What got me investigating this was simple math since an article had been published with strange figures which, it seems, nobody questions. It was written that "Jugoremedija has 4,357 shareholders, who last year received dividends although they were rather small."
But Juoremedija had 357 workers. So who were these other shareholders?
Then there was this:
"A leader of the rebellion ( or the representative of the group of small
shareholders, if u prefer) Zdravko Deuric, told "Clean Hands" that "The view that we do not have an economic interest in Jugoremedija because we control less than 10 percent of Jugoremedija is absolutely wrong. Our association numbers over 2,200 people, and we control about 40 percent of the factory which can easily be proven."
In other words, the workers are in an association with the investors.
So, again friends, do the math. If the workers were only a few hundred of the 2200 who were in the association, which claimed control of only 40%, what the fuck were people talking about saying that the workers got 58% of the factory?
The legislation passed in Serbia in 1997 stated that if a state enterprise
was to be privatized, then 60% of the shares should go to workers of the
factory, retired workers OR workers in OTHER STATE ENTERPRISES. (In other words, outside investors.) Because the law attached the shares to the number of years a person worked in the factory, often workers wound up with only 20-30% with the rest going to a state-owned fund which sold off shares.
In 2001, there was a new law. Then they allowed up to 70% of shares to go to outside investors, companies, etc. What happened with the other 30% of the stock depended if it was a "large" or "small" company. In small companies, 30% of the stock went to the workers. In large companies, 15% and 15% to a state fund which the general public could purchase. There were also some "incentives" - like if you did this within one year, the workers shares would be higher than if you waiting 2 years to privatize, etc. Again, the amount of shares you were allowed to get for free depended on how long you worked.
Of course I haven't been following what is going on there, and I know that there are new developments, but a quick look at the latest news on the company turned up this:
http://www.limun.hr/en/main.aspx?id=227560
In other words, the "worker-run firm" is a capital investor in at least one other company.
So if we talk about Shinvoz, let's get some details. According to the news I saw, yes the workers (30% shareholders according to this
http://www.rtv.co.yu/sr_ci/vesti/vojvodina/zrenjanin/2007_12_28/vest_45937.jsp) are fighting for their jobs. But what is actually the look of the situation?
I think it's real shit that people are not clearer about these "worker-shareholder" things and sometimes, in fact, are supporting workers' capitalism.
In Poland we had some experience with this too, and it wound up the one company which people were saying was "worker owned" was in fact a situation where some of the workers had stocks and the company was hiring unemployed people at really low wages. This type of stuff can in no way be confused for anything they might want to see.
So what's going on here?
syndicalistcat wrote:
Quote:
the revleft discussion has more information on this - from "DJ-TC"except that "DJ-TC" is part of a campaign by certain serbo-croation activists to discredit Freedom Fight. so it's hard to get an unbiased account of what's going on.
And you are a part of campaign by certain american idiotic academics to discredit syndicalism by presenting it as social-democratic bullshit that could see small-shareholders actions as revolutionary. It's a sad world. Fuckin idiot.
DJ-TC is not part of our union, nor is he part of any "serbo-croatian" activist block. He is a ultra-left commie from Bosnia and Hertzegovina.
So, now we can see how a real conspiracy theory is working - we are all fighting the idea that small-shareholding is revolutionary because we all want to... discredit Freedom Fight. Retard. Fuck you.
Quote:
Dear comrades, allies, and supporters,A major victory for worker's rights and struggles in Serbia has been won following a 9 month factory occupation and a 2 and a half year strike by the workers of Jugoremedija in Zrenjanin, Serbia. On December 14, 2006, the Belgrade Higher Economic Court reaffirmed the June 2006 ruling of the Zrenjanin Economic Court that the recapitalization of the Zrenjanin-based pharmaceutical factory Jugoremedija be repealed because it was carried out illegally through the illegitimate manoeuvres of businessman Jovica Stefanovic Nini to attempt to gain majority ownership. This means that the ownership of the workers has now been restored to their rightful 58% of the company shares. With this decision, Jugoremedija is set to become the first factory amongst the "transition" countries in Eastern Europe undergoing neoliberal privatization to be recovered and controlled by its workers.
[more...]
Oh deary me.... 
Quote:
And you are a part of campaign by certain american idiotic academics to discredit syndicalism by presenting it as social-democratic bullshit that could see small-shareholders actions as revolutionary. It's a sad world. Fuckin idiot.DJ-TC is not part of our union, nor is he part of any "serbo-croatian" activist block. He is a ultra-left commie from Bosnia and Hertzegovina.
So, now we can see how a real conspiracy theory is working - we are all fighting the idea that small-shareholding is revolutionary because we all want to... discredit Freedom Fight. Retard. Fuck you.
name-calling and sectarian smears. thanks for showing your hand ratibor. you still living in that big house your wealthy businessman daddy provided?
yeah, i knew that DJ-TC is a left-communist in Bosnia-Herzegovina. however, he's also moderator of the serbo-croation language forum on revleft. and in that forum he said he was in agreement with ratibor's grouplet in its stance in this case. that's what i was referring to.
to answer revol, no, i generally wouldn't support share-holding of firms as a solution, and nor do Freedom Fight.
of course it would depend on the situation. you might structure a worker coop so each worker automatically has one share, and no worker could have more than one. then one share per vote would mean one person one vote. you might do this if there were some local legal requirement of organizing a collective firm in terms of share ownership. you could also require a worker who leaves to sell back to the coop their share at a limited price, based on some nominal amount. this would be to organize a worker coop the way housing coops are here in California for example. housing coops are organized this way in California due to state law. but worker coops within capitalism aren't what i would see as a revolutionary strategy, but it could be a useful tactic, especially in a situation like this, where workers use it as a means to keep their jobs and gain control. worker coops can serve a function as an example, as well as a solution for workers in terms of immediate needs. but, again, this would be as a tactic.
my understanding of the situation is that Freedom Fight are supporting an effort by the workers to retain their jobs and control through a workplace takeover. as far as I know, using their share ownership may be just a legal tactic. but it would be useful to get more information, such as what their plans are.
syndicalistcat wrote:
as i said, my understanding is that they are trying to control the workplace, and their ownership of a majority of the shares is just a legal tactic. i don't know what the workers' longterm aim is.
I'd say a raise in profits, greater dividend pay outs, before getting in a new batch of proles to do their job for half the wages?
syndicalistcat wrote:
Quote:
I'd say a raise in profits, greater dividend pay outs, before getting in a new batch of proles to do their job for half the wages?possibly, but you don't know that that is their plan, do you?
There might have been a bit of a joke in that.
I went onto the RevLeft form and left some questions:
1. What is the exact ratio of worker-held shares to shares held by management and ouside investors?
2. Are all workers given an equal amount of shares for free or can workers aquire additional shares? Are workers forced to take loans to pay for their shares?
3. Are there any workers that are not shareholders?
4. If a worker quits or retires, do they retain shares? If a new person is hired, do they become a shareholder, do they have to work to get shares or must they purchase shares? Or are they simple wage labourers?
5. Is a worker obliged to maintain his or her shares while working or can they sell them on the open market?
6. How exactly is the factory run? In most "worker-shareholder" situations, a management board is still in place. In places where workers are not a majority, usually you get a worker representative on a supervisory board. How exactly is the structure to look?
7. What is the decision-making process like?
These are the questions I think relevant to getting to the bottom of the case.
Syndicalist cat is correct in saying that there are different possibilities for worker-run businesses within the constraints of capitalism, but we neither know whether they are permitted by law or the framework of the transfer of shares to workers, nor do we know if the workers are committed to such ideas. As I say in my post on that forum, I believe that speaking about this openly is the best way if you eventually would like to give the workers ideas on a more just system.
That said, I think that some "reality checks" need to be out there without reactions like "you're against the workers" or "you're discrediting someone". I think it's just as likely, maybe even more so, that the situation is not as rosy as initially presented, but I won't make judgements until I see some harder facts. I'm just rather inclined to assume that this is not more than typical worker-shareholdism as this is extremely common in most post-communist countries. In the case of most E.European countries, legislation on this was passed in a way to actually limit real worker control, in ways to sell off the most profitable industries to cronies or companies that paid bribes, or to pass on debt to workers by requiring them to "lease" the company and take loans to pay for debts and fixed assets in exchange for shares. I only know of a few exceptions, even fewer that became some sort of nominal cooperative.
At risk of getting into a slippery area, gotta say that it's a little annoying to me when people who I suppose are not capitalists wind up getting uncritically behind rather capitalist structures. What I mean by that is that, as human beings who are on the side of people trying to just get a better deal, we can probably all support say some totally material workplace demands - like we want raises, etc.. Of course it's not a revolutionary demand, but we all understand it. It may well turn out that the workers at Shinvoz are in fact better off and more in control of their own jobs. So a bit of empathy from the critics too. But I've seen recently a few cases of "hey this is great! this is worker control!" when it fact nothing near to what we want was happening. It's annoying for me on the local level, where we're fighting with the significant legacy of libertarian capitalists in the anarchist movement and market-based, pro-capitalist proponents of privatisation and workers' shareholderism (the legacy of the Balcerowicz-IMF-Solidarity plan) to deal with the results of this, which is a growing tendency of social democratic capitalism to weave its program into the anarchist vision.
Unfortunately see far too many people getting gung-ho about false "workers' control" and "popular control" like these shareholder schemes, like Chavez or fucking shit like Porto Alegre, which is promoted by certain people as something far more revolutionary than it actually is. You know - what the fuck is going on? I mean, I understand why leftist statist nationalist morons like Chavez. I understand why some totally misinformed kid who only reads leftist college professors' participatory wet dreams can believe this. What I don't get is why people who have rather solid theoretical knowledge, who probably have access to independent information not written by statist hacks and apologists seem to willingly suspend their disbelief to promote some ideas or practices that are clearly much inferior to even their own ideas.
It may be a little off topic, but people touched on this in a way since they mentioned ZNet and, well I know you can find different ideas there, but man some stuff there...
I think that the people promoting this Shinvoz should find out the answers to my questions. Then people can see if this is really "the most progressive thing in Serbia" or what. If it turns out to be a typical capitalist worker shareholder scheme, people should say it openly, so that people don't have illusions, without using paranoid ideas like people are "discrediting" others. That implies a deliberate attempt to say something untrue about people and I don't think that's really what's happening here. Then I suggest that the people who are interested in having more contact with them or promoting this case actually promote THEIR IDEAS - in other words, instead of saying "hey! shareholding is great!" maybe saying that some of the problems of the shareholding system include being able to gain profit without working, being able to hire wage labourers who do not get dividends, etc. etc. and THEN propose that an alternative (albeit still within capitalism and not an ideal but better) would be to limit shares to one per worker, non- sellable, all workers entitled, entitlement ending on the end of the job or retirement, equal voting rights through general assemblies and, if representatives are elected, with clear mandates, recallable, in rotation. Something like that.
Party of the Jugoremedija shareholders
Zrenjanin -- Small shareholders and workers of Zrenjanin factory of medicines Jugoremedija had created political party Equality.
They announced that they will participate in local elections. On the founding congress that was held during the weekend it was announced that the party will be working in the interest of economy of Zrenjanin and ownership rights of the workers.
Zdravko Deuric, longtime president of the Union of small shareholders, and present president of the Managing board of Jugoremedia was named president of the party.
----------------
Stranka akcionara Jugoremedije
Zrenjanin -- Mali akcionari i radnici zrenjaninske fabrike lekova Jugoremedija osnovali su političku stranku Ravnopravnost.
Oni su najavili da će učestovati na lokalnim izborima. Na osnivačkoj skupštini održanoj tokom vikenda saopšteno je da će stranka Ravnopravnost raditi na zaštiti zrenjaninske privrede i vlasničkih prava radnika.
Za predsednika stranke izabran je Zdravko Deurić, dugogodišnji predsednik Udruženja malih akcionara, a sadašnji predsednik Upravnog odbora Jugoremedije.
http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2007&mm=12&dd=24&nav_category=11&nav_id=277889
I don't know enough about the views of Freedom Fight or the situation there in Serbia to say much more at this time. Freedom Fight is a left-libertarian group but i didn't say they were "syndicalist." i don't know who these "academic syndicalists" are in the U.S. that rata rants about. moreover, Freedom Fight has not claimed that the struggle of the workers was "revolutionary". in this case the struggle isn't just about "shareowner rights" but about their jobs. some of the workers seem to regard their "shareowner rights" as just a legal tactic. So rata's rhetoric is off the wall.
When the eastern European countries used share distributions as part of their attempt to privatize the public assets, a danger was precisely that it would divide workers between share owners and non-shareowners...and that former apparatchiks would grab enough shares to gain control. in this case the workers are fighting against one of these grabs. I think it's very possible that the folks from the Freedom Fight collective are trying to suggest to the workers ideas along the lines that laureakai suggests.
Well, I went on their page and looked through the English section and quickly through Glos Radnika.
If they are proposing the changes that I spoke about, it is nowhere on their webpages. That's the kind of silly stuff I'm talking about. Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the moment, it would make sense to do so.
What I did see though is simply the uncritical repetition that these are "worker-owned" or "worker-controlled" factories, with no other info about how they are owned or controlled.
One could forgive the claim that Jugoremedija is the first "recovered" factory in Eastern Europe which saved itself from privatization and is "controlled by a majority of workers". It's completely ignorant, but many people don't know what's going on in other countries. Problem is that signals or discussions about this started years ago - and since that time nobody cared to check it.
It is true that not all of these factories or businesses had to go through a struggle, but some of them did.
It is remarkable however that all the many thousands of people who probably heard these claims, so few thought of the "worker controlled" industries in other countries. Surely people heard about places like Russia where at some time 2/3 of all former state companies were owned in the majority by workers (and what of it?). Even there I know of MANY companies which were at first 100% worker-owned - and were controlled from the top down and did't do much to benefit people. There was a tendency for employees to sell off their stocks as soon as possible.
Of course one can understand how people might be interested in this case, but again, no evidence that any deeper thought was given to the issue.
laureakai: very fine posts. When I saw the title of this thread I thought "ooh, nice" but immediately the fact that the most information we got was that they're "supporting the Balkan edition of Z Magazine" raised some flags.
I think this article Parecon as a New Path for the Balkans? by Michael Albert and our old friend Andrej Grubacic indicates where Freedom Fight might see this going.
I have certain criticisms of Parecon, very similar to some other anarchists, but from this article it is clear that the Balkan Z-Net people at least in theory advocate something different than what is actually going on there - although you get no indication of that from just reading what FF write about Shinovoz.. I don't understand then why it isn't more prominent on their webpages or info about Shinovoz.
What I hope is happening are some heart-to-heart talks with the rank and file workers there. I don't think that telling them directly that anarchism is much better than shareholding schemes is anything outrageous. 
laureakai wrote:
I have certain criticisms of Parecon, very similar to some other anarchists, but from this article it is clear that the Balkan Z-Net people at least in theory advocate something different than what is actually going on there - although you get no indication of that from just reading what FF write about Shinovoz.. I don't understand then why it isn't more prominent on their webpages or info about Shinovoz.What I hope is happening are some heart-to-heart talks with the rank and file workers there. I don't think that telling them directly that anarchism is much better than shareholding schemes is anything outrageous. :-)
I forgot my old user name...
Well, this article is translated on Serbo-Croatian. You can find it on web site of Freedom Fight and it is published in Z mag Balkans. As anarchists people from Freedom Fight can`t and won`t make decisions instead of these workers. And why they support them and work closely with Jugoremedija workers it is said on revleft forum by Zigomar:
Quote:
So again, maybe you see in them small shareholders but we see in them hungry workers without job. Your questions seems so far away in a situation where they have to fight to save the factory from bankruptcy, from state which wants to put it on the market, and when they fight with workers of other factories from Zrenjanin city for those workers` working places.Ok, what is important here for us. During the election campaigns of actual neoliberal political elite when Milosevic was in power, part of their campaign for the privatization of companies was humiliating workers and their ability to self-manage factories. They were saying that most of the factories went into bankruptcy because ``stupid`` workers couldn’t manage them. In reality factories were managed by members of communist’s party that easily transformed themselves into new neoliberal elite. So responsibility for factories` bankruptcy is theirs and not workers`.
Neoliberal elite in power forced Jugoremedija in bankruptcy saying that even bad privatization is better than to leave factory to ``stupid`` workers.
But the workers after reclaiming their factory took factory out of the bankruptcy. So in Serbia Jugoremedija is an important example that workers can manage their factory. After decade of campaign against workers` abilities it is very important for us so we can have something familiar to people to point our fingers when we talk against private property and for workers` management. Jugoremedija is now almost the only factory in Zrenjanin city that is working and giving salaries to the workers. There are some 2.500 workers without job. So workers from Jugoremedija inspired and organised workers of ``Bek`` and ``Shinvoz`` also from Zrenjanin to block their factories which were led to bankruptcy and to request abrogation of privatization contract.
Why is that the ``most progressive fight`` in Serbia for us? Well, because it is almost the only fight and if there is any fight else it is organized by these workers.
One more reason why we also support these workers is because there are some Serbian wealthy ``revolutionaries``, anarchists and syndicalist fighting for the big owners that want to buy whole Serbian pharmaceutical industry (Jugoremedija is pharmaceutical factory) and then to sell it expensively to multinational corporation. That is the reason for their defamation and for their call not to support these workers because they are not ``revolutionary`` enough. Like it means that you are revolutionary when you bullshit to people from your bourgeois villa your daddy bought it to you and when you do nothing else.
Quote:
3. Are there any workers that are not shareholders?Well, maybe new employed workers are not shareholders but new worker’s management is exploring the ways to transform them in shareholders after few years spend in factory.
Just one of the answers from revleft. As you can see, that factory is really under workers control. All 58% of it. Ah, and yeah, that is only valid if you are pensioner or an older worker... and if you think that owning shares of the company is equal to being in control of the workingplace.
So this:
syndicalistcat wrote:
except that "DJ-TC" is part of a campaign by certain serbo-croation activists to discredit Freedom Fight.
meant:
syndicalistcat wrote:
however, he's also moderator of the serbo-croation language forum on revleft. and in that forum he said he was in agreement with ratibor's grouplet in its stance in this case. that's what i was referring to.
So, anybody who agrees that actions of small-shareholders are not revolutionary, and is participating in same forum with us, is:
syndicalistcat wrote:
part of a campaign to discredit Freedom Fight
cretin.
syndicalistcat wrote:
no, i generally wouldn't support share-holding of firms as a solution
But these Serbs are so primitive, that this is good enough for them...
rata wrote:
Quote:
3. Are there any workers that are not shareholders?Well, maybe new employed workers are not shareholders but new worker’s management is exploring the ways to transform them in shareholders after few years spend in factory.
Just one of the answers from revleft. As you can see, that factory is really under workers control. All 58% of it. Ah, and yeah, that is only valid if you are pensioner or an older worker... and if you think that owning shares of the company is equal to being in control of the workingplace.
Yes, 58% and the rest is owned by the state. 51% is enough to prevent people like your daddy to take over factory and to fire workers.
syndicalistcat wrote:
I think it's very possible that the folks from the Freedom Fight collective are trying to suggest to the workers ideas along the lines that laureakai suggests.
syndicalistcat wrote:
possibly, but you don't know that that is their plan, do you?
rata wrote:
syndicalistcat wrote:
"syndicalist." i don't know who these "academic syndicalists" are in the U.S. that rata rants about.You, and other Z creatures which are flirting with syndicalism whenever it suits their career.
C`mon Rata we know who you work for. Don`t give me this shit.
Quote:
One more reason why we also support these workers is because there are some Serbian wealthy ``revolutionaries``, anarchists and syndicalist fighting for the big owners that want to buy whole Serbian pharmaceutical industry (Jugoremedija is pharmaceutical factory) and then to sell it expensively to multinational corporation. That is the reason for their defamation and for their call not to support these workers because they are not ``revolutionary`` enough. Like it means that you are revolutionary when you bullshit to people from your bourgeois villa your daddy bought it to you and when you do nothing else.
pinter wrote:
C`mon Rata we know who you work for. Don`t give me this shit.
Yes. CIA.
http://iniciativa-comunista.over-blog.com/article-12468783.html
Workers are now squatting in the factory to put pressure on the Agency for privatization to break a privatization contract because it caused bankruptcy of factory.
Workers of ``Shinvoz`` are supported by other workers of ``Jugoremedija``, ``Bek``, etc, factories from Zrenjanin that are already managed by workers.
At this moment these workers are the most progressive element of Serbian society. They are fighting for their own working places, for equal rights, and they are inspiring whole Serbia to fight against neoliberalism by supporting Balkan edition of Z magazine.
Freedom Fight link1
Freedom Fight link2
www.freedomfight.net
Freedom Fight on english