- Македонски
- English
Through the media, we have been informed that the Government representative emphasized that the Initiative of SSM to reduce the salaries of the officials and elected and appointed persons is full of politicization and least protects the interests of the workers. It is also said that what is being proposed is unconstitutional and has already been discussed and decided for in the past. They keep saying that their strategy as Governmental strategy is the only constitutional path – (through legal changes to the coefficients), to prevent further wage growth of the officials wages and path to gradually restore the level of their wages as it was before the decision to increase them by 78% was made.
We want to emphasize that what SSM is proposing under the new formula for calculation of the officials and elected and appointed persons salaries is both Constitutional and Legal, or the change in the basis for calculating the officials and elected and appointed persons salaries from average to minimum wage will result with a reduction in the officials and elected and appointed persons salaries by -40% and the additional reduction in the complexity coefficients by -40% will result in a reduction in the officials and elected and appointed persons salaries by an additional -40% or according to the well-known formula x-y=z. Or to understand mathematically more precisely, if X is 80% (by how much the officials and elected and appointed persons salaries have increased) - Y (the reduction in the basis from average to minimum wage and additional reduction in coefficients) which is - 80% = Z which is 0%, and that means that they should immediately reduce their salaries by 80% and to return to the reality in which all workers live.
Furthermore, in addition to reducing the officials and elected and appointed persons salaries, in order to protect the interests of all workers, the workers demand that the minimum wage be immediately increased to 600 euros, and that other salaries be increased by at least 6.000 denars or by the difference from the increase in the minimum wage (difference from the current minimum wage and the new minimum wage).
The question is how reducing the coefficient of the officials and elected and appointed persons salaries by 9.2% (as much as the increase in the average salary for 2025) as a way not to increase their salaries, but also as a way not to reduce the salaries of the officials and elected and appointed persons is a Constitutional and systemic solution, and reducing the complexity coefficient by 40% and reducing the basis for calculating the officials and elected and appointed persons salaries by 40% or having a total reduction of 80% is contrary to the Constitution and the Laws.
How is it that reducing coefficients so as not to increase their salary is Constitutional, and reducing coefficients so as to reduce their salary is unconstitutional?
As a reminder, the Constitutional Court repealed the Government Decree for freezing the coefficients, and thus the enormous increase in the officials and elected and appointed persons salaries occurred.
However, although this Government last year reduced the coefficients with Decrees, now that the Constitutional Court has decided as it has already decided, the officials and elected and appointed persons will receive a 12.6% increase in their salary for 2025, retroactively, because the increase in the average salary in 2025 compared to 2024 was 12.6%.
The most important question is this:
The blackmail to have the workers give up the right to have the average salary as the basis for calculating their salary multiplied by a complexity coefficient, is being given on the basis of the Constitution or on the basis of the wishes of individuals in the Government, and also how is it that from one side they want for themselves a solution that will sustain, hold, survive and will not be annulled again by the courts, and from other side they are demanding that the workers themselves annul something that is their right under the Constitution, and that is as addition prohibited from annulling by both the Law and the General Collective Agreement?
