Today is 15 June, the anniversary of one of the greatest worker resistances in the history of Türkiye —the magnificent worker resistance carried out by DİSK (Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Türkiye) on 15–16 June 1970. It is the anniversary of a magnificent objection against a legislative amendment that aimed to eliminate the freedom to choose a union, alongside DİSK and class-conscious trade unionism. As is the case with every major social and political event, on the anniversary of 15–16 June, both commemoration and evaluation are conducted. Today, on the anniversary of 15–16 June, I wish to address the state of the labour movement. I will not recount the story of the action. The most comprehensive and accurate source on this matter is the book titled The Workers' June (2020), penned by Zafer Aydın. I strongly recommend this book to those interested in the subject. It is important to learn critical historical events from accurate sources. In this article, I will attempt to look at 15–16 June from the standpoint of today and draw lessons.
A GUIDING EXPERIENCE
First, it is useful to make a few methodological reminders. Every historical event must be addressed within its own conditions. In periods of stagnation and regression, emulating past magnificent actions and falling into nostalgia are frequently encountered. What is more, complaints and lamentations arise as to why such a ‘golden age’ has never been experienced again. I believe this is an illusion. The conditions of every period and space are unique to themselves and cannot be repeated. One only draws lessons from these examples, takes inspiration from the experience, and applies it to the new period and the new space. 15–16 June was a magnificent worker action that emerged at the dawn of industrial labour, being the product of that history and space.
It was pioneering and distinctive; it closed an era and opened a new one. It was the harbinger of the rise in the labour movement and became a guide. Subsequentially, the 1976 DGM (Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemesi – State Security Court) Resistance, the 1978 Warning Action Against Fascism, the 1989 Spring Actions, the 2010 Tekel Resistance, and the 2015 Metal Storm went down in history as magnificent labour actions. 15–16 June was the most important turning point, the beginning of this process. Today, we are quite far removed from magnificent actions.
Magnificent historical events must be addressed together with the conditions in which they emerged, rather than as mere legends. The rewriting of history according to current needs is a great danger. This situation creates unrealistic expectations and a distorted consciousness of history. As the French historian Lissagaray said: "He who tells the people revolutionary legends, he who amuses them with sensational/sentimental stories, is as criminal as the geographer who would draw up false charts for navigators." This mistake must be avoided regarding 15–16 June and other social actions as well. It is necessary to understand the shortcomings and errors of the past as much as its success. Those who reconstruct history according to today or their own needs are as dangerous as geographers who draw fabricated maps.
THE DAWN OF TURKISH CAPITALISM
15–16 June was an industrial worker movement centered on the Istanbul-Kocaeli axis, which emerged at the dawn of Turkish capitalism. In that period, manufacturing industry workers were concentrated in this region, and DİSK's organization was essentially located here. These two cities became the cradle of the birth and rise of capitalism in Türkiye. Industry was intertwined with living spaces and was right in the heart of the city. There were factories integrated with the city in Levent, Topkapı, Kadıköy, Kartal, and Çayırova. This situation increased the social impact and visibility of the resistance.
The entry of Türkiye's working class onto the stage of history took place in this space. For instance, the Harem-Gebze minibus line and the Haydarpaşa-Adapazarı suburban train line were the main access routes between the workers' homes and the factories. However, in our day, with the rise of the service sector on one hand and deindustrialization on the other, the weight of industrial workers in these spaces has decreased, and industry has shifted to peripheral regions. There are still workers on these routes, but this time they are service sector workers employed in plazas. Both cities continue to be the cities where wage earners, that is, the working class, are the strongest. However, it must be accepted that industrial labour and the trade union movement do not possess their former strength.
In our day, intra-city industrial basins have disappeared. These have been replaced by new wage earners and service sector employees. Although these segments are a part of the working class, they possess different characteristics from industrial workers. Yes, they are wage earners; yes, they are workers. However, even though the essence of working relations remains the same, the envelope has changed. The composition, behaviour, lifestyle, and expectations of wage-earning employees have differentiated. The spaces where 15–16 June took place yesterday witness different class experiences today. A class nostalgia to be produced without taking this into account will only create disappointment.
A WEAKENING TRADE UNIONISM
15–16 June was one of the peaks of the climb of Türkiye's labour movement that began in the 1960s. It was not a defense or a retreat, but a leap forward. In our day, however, we are faced with a trade union movement that has weakened quantitatively and qualitatively on one hand, and regressing trade union rights on the other. The more than half a century that has passed since 15–16 June has altered the climate considerably. Neoliberalism globally, and the 24 January decisions along with the 12 September coup specifically in the case of Türkiye, passed over the organized labour movement almost like a steamroller. This counter-revolutionary wave created entirely different conditions. Re-understanding 15–16 June within these conditions is imperative to take it as an example in a manner suited to the present day.
The 15–16 June resistance was a powerful response given against the attempt to eliminate the rights provided by the 1961 Constitution and the Trade Unions Law No. 274, to destroy the strengthening class-conscious trade unionism, and to annihilate the freedom to choose a union. The target was DİSK, but along with DİSK, it was class-conscious trade unionism itself. Today, trade union rights and freedoms are far behind those days. The trade union thresholds that were intended to be introduced by the law that caused 15–16 June were finally implemented after the 12 September coup. Although threshold rates have been lowered today, the branch of activity threshold is one of the greatest obstacles before the trade union struggle. Alongside this, workplace and enterprise thresholds and anti-democratic collective bargaining authorization systems present gargantuan obstacles before unions and workers. Workers who carried out a partial general strike with a de facto and legitimate line of struggle on 15–16 June cannot effectively use the right to strike today due to de facto bans under the name of "postponement of strike".
On the other hand, a quantitative and qualitative erosion is observed in unionization as well. In our day, even though official unionization rates are announced in the 14–15 per cent band, the real picture is much more bleak. This data is merely the "official" unionization rate; informal workers have not been taken into account. Furthermore, this rate is at this level largely due to the weight of public workers. The real place to look is the private sector. The most vital issue that must not be overlooked regarding unionization rates is the scope of collective bargaining agreements. Because real trade union protection is provided to the worker through a collective bargaining agreement. The number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements in Türkiye is far below the number of unionized workers. In the private sector, this rate drops down to around 4–5 per cent.
NEW TIMES, NEW RESISTANCES
The 15–16 June resistance, with its mass character, had been able to bring thousands of workers from different branches of activity side by side. Today, local worker struggles continue in many places, but these struggles progress along a fragmented line. This situation leads to questions and complaints of the type: “Why can the labour movement in Türkiye not reach a line of general action or a general strike like 15–16 June?”
15–16 June is a worker action whose great and historical importance is indisputable. However, it is necessary to see its limitations as well. It was a regional action and was limited to a specific segment of the working class. It held the character of a partial general action. Examples of an all-out general strike are highly limited even in world history. For this reason, especially under today's working conditions, an expectation of an all-out general strike and resistance is neither realistic nor possible. What matters is to be able to unite the large number of individual actions scattered across the four corners of the country into a common line of struggle.
At this present moment, there are already a large number of local actions. What is needed is a courageous trade union will and focus that will pioneer these actions and instill confidence. There is a need for a labour movement that possesses a consciousness of solidarity, rather than one that is divided, buried in silence, and competing within itself. Historical events are born within their own conditions. The need is not to wait for a repetition of 15–16 June, but to create new labour struggles suited to today's dynamics. Individual worker actions continuing today are a guide and demonstrate how the struggle ought to be woven.
HOW IS TRADE UNIONISM CONDUCTED?
Perhaps the most important lesson of 15–16 June is how the trade union struggle ought to be conducted. The DİSK leadership and cadres had organized and pioneered a gargantuan action. Here, the initial trade union will and determination were important. The rest followed and in fact, from time to time, even surpassed the trade union will.
Today, there are no magnificent actions, but there are a large number of worker resistances and protests. In the recent period, worker actions of various sizes are breaking out in many cities and worker basins. Those who pioneer these actions face very heavy oppression. However, unfortunately, a powerful solidarity cannot be woven with these actions and with those who shoulder the action.
Oppression targeting actions to seek rights has existed in every period; these are not surprising. What is surprising and saddening is the failure to establish an effective trade union solidarity in the face of this oppression. The essence of the matter lies exactly here. Mainstream unions, in particular, prefer to remain in a position of passive observers regarding this matter. Yet, these resistances across the four corners of the country demonstrate how trade unionism ought to be conducted in the field, not at a desk. It is highly telling that the existing trade union statu quo remains silent and indifferent to this cry.
15–16 June itself was, above all else, a giant action of solidarity. Workers from different branches of activity, and even those who were members of different confederations, had stood shoulder to shoulder. Youth and students were in solidarity with the workers. Today, the trade union movement needs this spirit of solidarity once again.
We who evaluate 15–16 June today possess the knowledge not only of 15–16 June, but also of all the time that has passed in between. It is necessary to evaluate 15–16 June or similar major social actions precisely with this theoretical awareness and historical consciousness. We are obliged not to try to repeat the past, but to be inspired by it, to re-translate it with the language of today, and to draw lessons from it. Instead of looking at 15–16 June—over which more than half a century has passed—as an insurmountable epic or a matter of nostalgia, it must be viewed as a reference, a school, and a unique experience to form new ways of seeking rights suited to today's conditions. Undeniably, the countless worker resistances sprouting in various parts of the country today do not possess the magnificence of a 15–16 June. However, those small resistances teach us how the real trade union struggle ought to be conducted.
Note: This article is translated from the original article titled 15-16 Haziran’ın öğrettiği: Başka bir sendikacılık mümkün!, published in BirGün newspaper on June 15, 2026.