Tag: Oral History Center

  • The condition of workers in interwar Romania

    The condition of workers in interwar Romania

    Anyone who reads pages of the history of Romanian workers learns, in general, that this social class was always persecuted and that it had a hard time. The press of the time, politicians, written documents, photos and videos describe difficult living conditions, with extreme cases of poverty. Quite often, observers tend to generalize about a particular case and neglect the details. But the oral history restores the details and contradicts the often-gross generalizations, especially the propaganda that the communist regime made between 1945 and 1989.



    The Romanian Radio Broadcasting Corporations Oral History Center has interviews with witnesses of the interwar period, the best period of economic development in Romania’s history, about the working conditions of the workers. Before 1945, the year when the communist regime was established, Manole Filitti was the director of the Phoenix oil factory. In 1996, he remembered the conditions the workers enjoyed in the enterprise he ran. Apart from salary rights, the employer offered facilities such as locker rooms, showers, protective equipment and eateries.



    Manole Filitti: On Sunday mornings, I spent two or three hours going to visit three or four workers. I would take the names of the workers who were facing difficulties from the personnel department, for instance workers with more children and things like that, and I would fill the car with various food stuffs, with soaps, detergent and other things and I would go to these people’s homes. I would ring the bell or knock on the door, go in there and leave them these gifts. I exchanged a few words with them, they also told me about the needs they had, for clothing, children’s shoes and others, and we, the factory, covered their expenses and helped these people.



    The lawyer Ionel Mociornița was the son of industrialist Dumitru Mociornița, one of the creators of the Romanian leather and footwear industry. In 1997, he was talking about the attention his father paid to the standard of living of his workers: The existence of the unions was somewhat more formal than effective, but that did not stop the employers, and I’m talking about myself, I don’t know about the others, having very good social and medical assistance inside the factory. There was social insurance, by the way, my father built the Social Insurance House with his own money in Piaţa Asan – Asan Market, as he built the Regina Maria- Queen Marie high school, part of the Gheorghe Şincai high school, the Bucur hospital. My father also set up the summer camps of many high schools. There was no collective bargaining agreement, the labor agreement consisted in the individual employment and the worker left when he wanted to or when he was proved at fault. There were two sections of the Court on Calomfirescu street where I can say that very few employers were able to win a case against the workers.



    The attention paid to the condition of workers was due to the legislation as well as to a humanitarian rationale that was above legal obligations. Ionel Mociornița recollects his father’s lifestyle: His concept was: everything that is extra should be put into the development of the industry, into its improvement and into charity works. He led a very strict life, he didn’t smoke, he didn’t drink, he didn’t know how to hold playing cards in his hand, just like myself, he didn’t dance, I mean we led a life of real serious people and creators, and if the wrong times had not come, I am convinced that three or four generations later we would have had factories and industries in Romania of the same importance as those abroad that are centuries-old and that form the strength and foundation of developed countries.



    Teofil Totezan was a shoemaker and in 2000 he told how he learned the trade from a craftsman. He went to a vocational school and in 1929 he got a job at the Dermata factory in Cluj, but he learned practical lessons from a craftsman at his home.



    Teofil Totezan: You were in the owner’s house, you fed the pigs, you went to pick weeds. The craftsman I learned the craft from was a very handsome boy, he learned his trade and married the daughter of a rich shoemaker. That man had three daughters and gave each girl a house. And so, my master had a house from his father-in-law, he was a very good man. He used to say, curse me now, not when you grow up! And I was thinking to myself God, help me get rid of him! All his disciples were afraid of him. And he assumed the role of an educator. There were wonderful working conditions at the factory. Because a worker like me, in the city, at that time earned 600 lei a week. When you went to the factory, the first salary when you entered the factory was 600 lei. I was earning 1,500 lei a week, and my teacher friend had 1,800 lei.



    Workers in interwar Romania benefited from the working conditions of a developing society. It was a society that had a lot to improve, but real societies, not utopian ones, always have something to improve. (LS)

  • Romania and the Helsinki Conference

    Romania and the Helsinki Conference

    The 1972 the Helsinki Conference was the first conference to cover Europe as a whole after about 20 years of division between the democratic West and the communist East. Finland hosted as a neutral nation since it did not belong to either NATO or the Warsaw Pact. The conference was held at the Dipoli conference center in the Espoo area of Helsinki, and was attended by 35 European countries.



    Ambitions ran high, as the conference in Helsinki was the first European security and cooperation conference, seeking to tackle all the major political, legal, military, economic, scientific, cultural and humanitarian problems faced by Europeans in the early ‘70s. Like most global conference, it focused on negotiations between the two opposing political, economic and military blocs, and required both sides to consider the others position on such issues.



    Romania also took part in the Helsinki conference, and had an active role. Diplomat Valentin Lipatti was a member of the Romanian delegation, and recounted how Romania stood out, in an interview for Radio Romania’s Oral History Center:


    “The bilateral consultations that preceded the consultations in Dipoli showed that people were fumbling around in terms of the workings of the future conference. We thought things through better and faster, and we thought ahead. We thought to prepare a set of rules with some proposals for procedures. When we arrived in Dipoli in late November, a few days before the proceedings, we already had in our diplomatic briefcase a set of procedural rules. This had a principle that we never strayed from in 20 years of European negotiations and meetings: that of perfect equality in rights for all participating states, without discrimination, no bigger and smaller states, states with more rights than others, as it usually happens in the UN Security Council, where we have the permanent members with veto power and the non-permanent members who applaud or not, and who don’t really have a word to say. How does this principle of sovereign equality reflect in the procedural rules? Through consensus. The consensus allows each participating state to legitimately defend its rights and interests.”



    The European West and East were meeting at the negotiation table two decades after the end of the war to find a common base for cooperation. Even though interests were seen as a reflection of the side each state was on, in reality each country was seeing to its own interests in promoting principles, topics and procedures. Here is Valentin Lipatti:



    “The westerners had long blocked the principle of inviolability of frontiers, dear to the Soviets’ heart, and the Soviets were blocking the principles related to human rights and the so-called human dimension of the CSCE (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe). And this mutual blocking in the end led to an understanding, a compromise that unblocked things. We ourselves repeatedly blocked consensus every time we felt we were negatively affected, and oftentimes we blocked methodologically. For instance, if we wanted to get from the Soviet delegation a concession on issue A, we were blocking issue C, which interested them. And then we found a solution for mutual unblocking.”



    Romania’s initiatives for the running of the conference were well received, and were successful. Here is Valentin Lipatti:


    “There were no small size committees, because they violated the consensus and equality of rights. Usually, when a text is drawn up in a regular international conference, a very select working group is formed. That select committee may do a very good job, then submit the final text to the participants for a vote. It’s like when you finish cooking the food and all you have to do is eat it. You can add some salt, or have a glass of wine with it, but the food is prepared. That is why we initiated all the committees, all the working groups, absolutely all of them, from the most important to the apparently most insignificant, which had to be open to everyone. The few democratic norms that imbued the Helsinki Conference with its very special character, a total novelty, were due to Romania. In Dipoli, we presented the first working document for the preliminary multilateral consultations, the procedural norms included these provisions and many more. No one submitted any counter-document, because they were taken by surprise. We managed to be successful with most Romanian proposals. Basically the procedural rules were brought in by Romanians, with small amendments, none of them essential.”



    The final act of the Helsinki Conference was signed in 1975, and was called “Measures to Render Effective Refraining the Threat or Use of Force”, Romania sought to promote the principles of disarmament and recognition for the existence of developing countries. In the West, the final document issued in Helsinki was instrumental in the creation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1990.



    (Translated by C. Cotoiu)