Why would such a fragile government dare to pursue such a controversial reform? Was this an initiative taken exclusively on its own, knowing that it would displease the Left and face union opposition? What is the real reason behind this bold move?
This strike is not, as is often said, a clash between exploited workers and exploitative employers, but rather a struggle between two of the country’s greatest powers, the government and the trade union confederations, which are unable to reach an understanding and therefore sacrifice the truly poor and discriminated against, who are left without transportation and other services.
On December 11, 2025, Portugal experienced a general strike, the first since the fiftieth anniversary of April. Unlike the previous five, which were due to the austerity of the 2010–2013 period, the reason is the same as that which justified the three before those: a revision of labor laws. Moreover, as happened in only four of the ten cases, both trade union confederations jointly called the strike.
Despite this continuity, this new episode has some unusual elements. The first is that all the governments that attempted changes to labor laws that led to strikes had parliamentary majorities: Cavaco Silva in 1998, Durão Barroso in 2002, and José Sócrates in 2007. This time, the executive is clearly a minority government. Therefore, the first question that arises is why such a fragile government dares to pursue such a controversial reform. Was it an initiative taken exclusively on its own, knowing that it would displease the Left and face union opposition? What is the real reason for this boldness?
Everyone knows that the only realistic chance of approving the package is with the support of the parliamentary far right, something that would greatly weaken the parties in power and hand yet another victory to the extremists. In this way, the strategy involved is difficult to explain.
Second, the general strike was called even before negotiations had begun, based solely on the initial proposal. In other words, the unions did not even know which laws they were opposing and had already decided that “it must be rejected!” This hardly demonstrates good faith in dialogue, which, if it exists at all, will have to take place under the shadow of this heavy artillery.
Amid all these maneuvers, the concrete content of the proposal practically disappears, especially since it is still in flux, with new elements, cuts, and additions at every step.
Some aspects are, however, worth noting. The first is that our labor legislation has, for many decades, been undeniably dysfunctional. This is unavoidably reflected in the aberrant symptoms of the labor market. First, Portugal has, by far, the lowest wages in Western European Union countries (with the usual exception of Greece), with very slow growth. On the other hand, we have one of the highest levels of labor precariousness among our closest partners. The percentage of workers on fixed-term contracts, which for a long time was the second highest, has recently declined but remains above all others except Spain and Italy.
This particular point is of interest because the main argument put forward by the unions is that this package “promotes precariousness.” Yet what we see is that, under the current law, Portugal has one of the highest levels of precariousness in Western Europe. Is the argument false?
The justification only becomes clear when we look at the main dysfunction of our labor market: the existence of two separate groups of workers. On the one hand, those who enjoy the protection of the law and whom the unions represent; on the other, those who live with the precariousness of temporary contracts and false “independent contractor” arrangements, to whom legal benefits and protections do not apply. These workers, who are young, immigrants, and poor, do not have the money or the interest to pay union dues. When union leaders speak of “workers’ rights,” we must understand that they are referring to the rights of some workers.
In this sense, the unions are right when they say that the labor package will increase precariousness, because they naturally refer only to their members. Considering those workers who do not interest the union confederations and who live in complete precariousness would completely change the picture. Because it is worth remembering that the reason for the high share of fixed-term contracts naturally stems from the excessive legal rigidity of dismissals, which is also among the highest in Europe. Precariousness functions as a simple safety valve for a blockage that would otherwise suffocate the economy.
What is never mentioned in these discussions is that, when comparing the law with that of our European partners, foreign workers enjoy far fewer protections than we do. Yet they do not seem to worry about this, as they benefit from higher wages and better working conditions. And the two things are clearly linked.
In conclusion, this strike is not, as is often claimed, a clash between exploited workers and exploitative employers, but a struggle between two of the country’s greatest powers, the government and the trade union confederations, which are unable to reach an understanding and therefore sacrifice the truly poor and discriminated against, who are left without transportation and other services.
João César das Neves, Professor at CATÓLICA-LISBON