The entire political right and employers have come out in unison to question the legitimacy of the general strike called by the main unions, CCOO and UGT, pressured by the Tenants' Union and the movement for the right to housing. While the Popular Party has remained in a discreet criticism of the general strike, calling it a "serious error," Vox and the CEOE have not hesitated to condemn this strike as "ideological and illegal," and denounce that it has no connection with the labor sphere. But then, is the strike called for 11-N truly illegal?
The regulation of strikes in Spain is a true constitutional anomaly, as it is the only Fundamental Right, stated in art. 28 of the Constitution, that is not developed by Organic Law. The lack of political consensus in the elaboration of an updated norm keeps this right governed by Royal Decree-Law 17/1977, prior to the Constitution itself. In this norm, strikes called with political motivation unrelated to the interests of workers are rejected, among other causes.
It is at this point that employers and the far-right miss the mark when, by making a superficial and isolated reading of the norm, they try to separate the right to housing from the interests of the working class; as if having economic capacity to enjoy decent housing were not important for workers. And in this sense, it is enough to review the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, which has established with absolute forcefulness that in the interpretation of this Fundamental Right, claims of socioeconomic interests that go beyond the strict labor sphere must be integrated.
But also the Supreme Court itself, undoubtedly more conservative, has confirmed in recent jurisprudence such as STS 31/2020 the legality of a call for demands connected with the economic and labor sphere. The sum of both positions has given rise to the concept of 'mixed strike', whose legal fit cannot be questioned after years of doctrinal consolidation. In this regard, the CEOE rectified its attempt to appeal the call before the courts after consulting legal advisors.
It is surprising that, in the face of such evident and repeated jurisprudential block, the far-right and employers insist on denouncing the call. But even more surprising is the hypocrisy of Santiago Abascal's party, which criticizes the political motivation of this strike despite the fact that the Solidaridad union, with a barely residual presence, called under its impulse a failed attempt at a general strike in response to the Amnesty Law in November 2023. Needless to say, this strike did have a purely ideological foundation disconnected from the socioeconomic sphere, and that, despite that, it was authorized precisely under the umbrella of the extensive interpretation made by the Constitutional Court. The call, by the way, was an undeniable failure.
In short, the doubt about the legality of the 11-N strike has no solid legal basis. The call meets all legal and constitutional requirements to be a legal, legitimate, and pertinent general strike. Thus, all economic, social, productive, and labor sectors are called to freely exercise their constitutional right to demand improvements in the conditions for access to decent housing.
