ABSTRACT
In late October 1989 the authors met in Paris to discuss the last stages of completing the text. In the course of these discussions the question emerged of the historical and practical significance of the labour-managed model of self-management as it had been developed in Bulgaria from 1982 to 1988. The principal issue was the significance of historical experience: specifically whether the experience and activity of the labour collectives in this period, associated with the establishment of the third structure and its mechanisms, could have any future influence on patterns of action. There were some unexpectedly quick answers to this question following the political events in November. A special plenary session of the Central Council of the Bulgarian Trade Unions with representatives from many labour collectives was held on 24 November to respond to the situation and to formulate trade union strategy. A delegate from one factory took the floor and demanded to know ‘Why did Zhivkov take workers’ self-management away from us?’ This was not an isolated case as the majority of letters sent to Trud, the trade union newspaper, at this time were concerned with that very question. At the same time enterprises which had been concentrated in large corporations, which controlled the funds, as a result of the provisions of Decree 56 began to secede from the larger units using the third structure of the general assembly to legitimate their action. In such episodes the initiative came from the top of the enterprise but there were frequent examples of initiatives from workers themselves. Thus workers used the third structure to legitimate strike decisions and to get rid of directors or to express lack of confidence in them, especially in the spring of 1990. This emergence of organic mechanisms provided some confirmation that labour-managed self-management had established certain roots and that the concept had engaged workers at the base. The wave of strikes in enterprises in different parts of the country was, however, mainly related to issues of distribution, employment, and health and safety. These strikes were essentiallly organic mechanisms rather than the result of external mobilisation. Thus Dr K. Trenchev, President of Podkrepa estimated that 5 per cent of these strikes were organised by representatives of the established trade unions and 10 per cent by representatives of Podkrepa, while the remainder were spontaneous (interview with John Thirkell in July 1990). The political crisis thus brought issues of labour relations to the centre of the political arena.
