Turkey is a member of the International Labor Organization (ILO) Minimum Wage Agreement No. 131 It has not signed since 1970. The intervening 55 years clearly show that this was not a case of neglect or forgetfulness. This attitude reflects a conscious choice regarding labor, or rather of a class position expression.
ILO Convention No. 131 stipulates that the minimum wage is not arbitrary, rights-based minimum wage. Accordingly, the minimum wage not only ensures the worker's survival, but also the survival of himself and his family. to be able to live humanely to ensure the security of the wage. Nutrition, housing, clothing, health, education and participation in cultural life are essential elements of wage determination. Wages must cover not only biological existence but also social existence.
In Turkey, the minimum wage has long ceased to be a means of subsistence, a mechanism for managing poverty transformed. Wages that have fallen below the hunger line are not the result of economic necessity but of conscious political choice. Therefore, the annual increases are far from covering the real increase in the cost of living. The minimum wage is not a living wage, obedience is based on a systematic order.
Another critical aspect of Convention No. 131, unions' real decision partner is mandatory. Symbolic representation is not enough; equal and binding participation of workers' and employers' organizations is essential. The state is not the arbiter in this process; it is responsible for the implementation and supervision of wages. directly responsible. This is the main safeguard that prevents the minimum wage from being set according to political calendars and populist rhetoric.
This approach negates the rhetoric of “good news”, “balance” and “sacrifice” that is repeated every year in Turkey. It does not accept that the minimum wage is determined according to the election calendar, the patience threshold of capital or the arbitrariness of the market.
“For Those Who Say ”Our Economy Is Not Suitable": Even Poor Countries Signed
The defense that is often raised is this:
“Turkey's economic conditions are not suitable for this agreement.”
However, this claim completely collapses when we look at the countries that are parties to the convention. Because ILO 131 is essentially not for rich countries, is designed to protect working people in low-income and fragile economies.
For example Bolivia, signed the convention in 1977, despite being one of the poorest countries in Latin America. Despite its limited resources, the minimum wage is not just about survival, a humane life should be taken as a basis.
Cameroon, despite being one of the most fragile economies in Sub-Saharan Africa, became a party to the convention in 1973. Even in this country, where informality is widespread, there is an international obligation that wages cannot be set arbitrarily.
Ecuador, was one of the first countries to ratify the convention in 1970. Even this country, marked by economic crises and political instability, has not shied away from adopting a labor-protective framework in its wage policy.
Kenya, has adopted a minimum wage based on the cost of living, despite being an economy dominated by agriculture and a low-wage service sector.
This list could be extended to countries like Nigeria, Morocco and Tunisia. What they have in common is clear:
Instead of managing poverty as destiny, limit the minimum wage from producing poverty preferred it.
Why is Turkey Even Behind These Countries?
Although Turkey is one of the founding members of the ILO, it has consciously avoided this convention for 55 years. This cannot be explained by economic inadequacy. Because even countries much poorer than Turkey have undertaken this obligation.
Only one explanation remains:
The problem in Turkey is not resources, is a preference.
This is a preference;
your labor is cheap,
unions are ineffective,
the minimum wage is negotiable,
It is a choice that aims to make poverty permanent.
The minimum wage does not translate into the right to a decent living. Because this order, exploitation of cheap labor on the basis of the minimum wage. And this order can only survive as long as the minimum wage remains a handout.
The Silence of the Opposition and Trade Unions: The Invisible Underpinning of This Order
At this point, placing the responsibility solely on the government leaves the truth incomplete. The opposition, especially the CHP, The silence on this issue for years is remarkable. ILO Convention No. 131 was not brought to the agenda of the Parliament in a strong and persistent manner, and the minimum wage issue was almost completely reduced to a negotiation of numbers. However, the problem is not how much the wage is, the principles according to which they are determined.
Instead of making the minimum wage a structural rights issue, the CHP and other opposition parties have preferred to remain within the narrow framework set by the government. This situation de facto serves the continuation of the existing order. What is even more striking is that a significant part of the trade union movement has accompanied this silence. The union understanding, which considers staying at the table a success and takes refuge in the language of “balance” instead of pushing the process, has become part of the mechanism that produces poverty.
However, the duty of trade unions and the opposition claiming to be labor is not to bargain within the limits set by the government; it is to negotiate within those limits. is to force. As long as it is not clearly stated that the minimum wage is the right to a decent living, as long as the demand for ILO 131 is not strongly embraced, it is de facto guaranteed that the government will not sign this convention. In this context, silence is not neutrality; is tacit support for the maintenance of order.
The minimum wage is not a handout.
Human dignity is non-negotiable.
And no order built on a poverty wage is permanent.
What to do?
First of all, it is necessary to stop framing the debate in the wrong way. The issue is not “how much to increase” the minimum wage; how it is determined is a problem. A mechanism that produces poverty does not change the result, no matter what figure it produces.
Step one is clear:
Turkey is a member of the Minimum Wage Agreement No. 131 without any reservations. This signature means that the minimum wage is not a handout, right that there is an official acknowledgment of it.
Second, the minimum wage determination process must be completely reorganized. Trade union representation should no longer be symbolic; workers' organizations should be part of the decision-making mechanism. equal and binding element should be made into a state. The state should not hide behind the role of arbitrator; it should be directly responsible for the implementation and supervision of wages.
Third, the minimum wage must be indexed to the real cost of living. No wage can be considered “minimum” if it is determined without taking into account the hunger limit, poverty line and regional living costs. The minimum wage is not a single figure, a livable budget should be treated as such.
The fourth step is to abolish taxes and indirect deductions on the minimum wage. Taxing the poverty wage is incompatible with the concept of a social state. It is unacceptable to roll back wage increases through taxation.
Finally, the minimum wage is not an exception, base wage that the average wage is falling towards the minimum wage. If average wages are being pulled down towards the minimum wage, the problem is not just low wages; is an economic model that devalues labor. This model cannot be changed without strengthening trade union rights and providing secure employment.
The minimum wage issue is not technical, political.
The solution is therefore not technical, is a matter of preference.
A wage system based on a decent living is possible.
As long as we choose to protect labor, not poverty.