56 years have passed since 15-16 June, one of the greatest resistances in the history of the Turkey working class. However, the system of exploitation, violations of rights, and attacks on organising that workers face still continue today. In 1970, workers, walking out of factories and bringing cities to a standstill against legal regulations targeting their trade union rights, raised their voices not merely against an amendment to a law, but against the joint attack of capital and the state, bringing with them the experiences they had gained since 1960. Despite the passage of 56 years, the situation has not changed. The company-state-government relationship placed in front of trade union activities has not diminished over time; on the contrary, it has perhaps increased.
While miners are forced into resistance for months for their wages, unionised warehouse workers are thrown out of the door, couriers face a police blockade when they switch off their ignitions against precarious working conditions, and workers in factories are kept under pressure within the patron-union-state triangle. While strikes are banned under the pretext of “national security”, detentions, interventions, and de facto strike-breaking policies aimed at workers seeking their rights are becoming commonplace. We spoke with researcher-writer Zafer Aydın, who worked as an education expert at the Kristal-İş (Flint Glass, Glassware, and Ceramics Industry Workers’ Union of Türkiye) Trade Union for more than 25 years and penned the book “The June of Workers: 15-16 June 1970” in 2020, about why 15-16 June is still a resistance that the rulers do not want to remember, how it merges with today’s line of struggle extending from miners to warehouse workers, from couriers to metalworkers.
What exactly was 15-16 June an uprising against? What kind of link do you establish with today’s labour struggle?
15-16 June developed essentially against a regulation aimed at eliminating the trade union rights and freedoms of workers. In particular, DİSK (Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Türkiye) was being targeted. Because DİSK treated the trade union struggle as part of the class struggle and followed a line that advanced workers’ rights. For this reason, it found a great response among workers. The state and capital were disturbed by this rise and prepared a legal regulation aimed at liquidating DİSK. But against this, workers from DİSK, Türk-İş (Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions), unionised and non-unionised workers united and organised a resistance. The police were on the opposite side of the resistance on 15-16 June. They served to prevent the marches of the workers, and clashes took place in many locations.
The state’s strike-breaking, the obstacles placed in front of trade union rights, pressures… Do you think the system that 15-16 June opposed continues in the present day as well?
Of course it continues. Because the foundations of the trade union regime in force today were essentially laid on 12 September (1980 Military Coup). The 12 September regime was shaped by calculating how to limit workers’ organisation and how to close off the paths of seeking trade union rights, based on the lessons it drew from 15-16 June. A system was established that eroded the collective action power of workers through bans and restrictions. 15-16 June was the first major fracture in this regime. In subsequent years, it paved the way for the development of workers’ rights and democratic gains. However, the AKP government, while renewing trade union laws in 2012, did not break away from the spirit of 12 September, that is, from the understanding that limits freedoms and takes prohibitions as a basis. Therefore, the same restrictive framework continues today as well.
On 15-16 June, workers transcended legal boundaries to establish a de facto and legitimate line of struggle. Today, however, workers seeking their rights are confronted by police, prohibitions, and detention. In many resistances, from metalworkers to miners, the state directly acts as an obstacle. Do you think a de facto line of struggle is being established?
Actually, we cannot say it is completely non-existent. For example, there were de facto strikes carried out by Birleşik Metal-İş (United Metal Workers’ Union) in the metal branch of activity against strike bans. In particular, the de facto and legitimate line of struggle starting from Kavel (1963 Cable Factory Strike) paved the way for workers to gain rights and rendered prohibitions de facto non-functional. But when we look at the general picture, it is clear that there is a serious regression in the workers’ movement. We see that despite the growth of economic losses, a strong objection has not emerged. The main reason for this is that the AKP has established a hegemony based on pressure and consent. The government has scattered the grounds for workers to act together, divided the labour structure, and taken a portion of the trade unions under control. Added to this was the trend of workers becoming increasingly detached from their class, which began in the 1990s, leading to a decline in their ability to act collectively.
When a miner, a courier, or a warehouse worker looks at 15-16 June today, what should they see of themselves there? What kind of path does this resistance show to labourers? Do you think the working class is divided today?
A worker looking at 15-16 June should first see class brotherhood there. At that time, workers came from different political views, different ethnic identities, and different beliefs, but they acted together against the attack targeting their class. At the foundation of this lay class consciousness and class reflex. What is needed today as well is to bring class solidarity to the fore once again. Beyond the differences between confederations, they cannot even come side by side on taking a common stance against the regime. A joint objection cannot be produced against the AKP’s policies of poverty and exploitation.
Well, how can this picture be overcome? Would it be possible by trade unions moving away from the relationship they have established with the government and returning to the side of the workers once again?
Of course, trade unions need to stand by the workers. But it is not enough just to expect steps from above. Below, workers can unite over their common problems without considering distinctions of confederation and trade union. If a line of objection spilling over from factories into streets and squares is established, structures at the center will also have to act accordingly.
What was the fundamental truth that 15-16 June demonstrated regarding the state-capital relationship? Does that reality still continue today?
Undoubtedly, it continues. The state acted as a tool of oppression for capital in that period as well. It stepped in with this role on 15-16 June as well. Today, the same form of relationship continues. Already in the process leading up to 15-16 June, employers and the state were deploying yellow unions against revolutionary trade unions. Employers were moving unions under their own control into workplaces against unions affiliated with DİSK, making workers members without their knowledge by using their information. Workers opposed this, saying, “The employer cannot decide which union I will join.” On 15-16 June, this objection grew even larger, and they took to the streets saying, “The state cannot decide which union I will join.”
Finally, looking at it from today’s perspective, what does 15-16 June signify for the working class? Can the working class realize its own power by looking at that experience?
15-16 June is an important experience showing how one must struggle today. It is not merely a nostalgic memory; it is a historical moment from which lessons regarding today must be drawn. By learning from that experience, new ways of struggle can be established. For this reason, it is still a guiding and inspiring resistance for the working class.
Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Devlet hâlâ sermayenin aracı, published in BirGün newspaper on June 16, 2026.
Kaynak: BirGün