May 1, 2010 was the saddest Labor Day since the establishment of the Soviet Power in Moldova. Such an impression was left both by the first half of last Saturday, when there were no people celebrating in the central square of Chisinau, and by the second half of the day, which was dominated by a lot of agitated people. In fact, the day of May 1, 2010 marked the end of the process of transferring the Moldovan trade union movement to the politicians. The leaders of the National Confederation of Trade Unions of Moldova said they do not intend to organize events to celebrate May 1 as many people go to the countryside on Saturdays and it will be ridiculous to stage demonstrations with several hundred people. They promised they will bring much more participants in the May 1 protest the next year. However, 10,000-15,000 people came shortly afterward to the demonstration staged by the Communists Party (PCRM) in the Great National Assembly Square. Most of them were definitely trade unionists. The fact that the Confederation's leaders would have been able to gather only several hundred people of the 750,000 members points to its organizational capacities and to the organization's capacity in general, which was reduced to a minimum if not to zero during the last few years by its leaders. But the main conclusion is another one – the Saturday's demonstration showed that the trade union movement was yielded to the political parties within a process that lasted for several years. It happened because the leaders of the trade union movement allowed the governments to interfere in the internal affairs of the trade unions. It seems that the trade unions did not stage their own demonstration because they knew about the PCRM's plans to gather a lot of people in the central square. The trade union leaders considered the meetings and/or messages might have blended and the image of the trade unions would have been associated with a party that is not in power anymore. Thus, there was a risk that the trade union leaders could bring the current power's disgrace on them. Until now, the situation of the trade union leaders was simpler as it was much easier to hold May 1meetings toegther with the ruling party, i.e. the PCRM. On the other hand, prudence made the trade unionists not to detach themselves definitively from the PCRM, which may return to power in the present political situation that is so unpredictable. Therefore, the only solution they found was not to organize the May 1 demonstration, where the participants usually demand that the labor rights be respected by ensuring decent salaries, workplaces, viable social assistance, etc. What else can one think about the unions that have staged one, two or maybe three demonstrations during the last ten years and did not mobilize the people in May 1 protests in the poorest country in Europe, as Moldova is considered officially? This year as well, many protests held on May 1 in countries with much higher living standards degenerated into violent clashes between the protesters and the police. The trade union leaders might reply that the rights of the trade unionists were defended through the direct negotiations with the Parliament and the Government and this would have shown again that the poorest state in Europe, respectively the state with the poorest population, chose the way to Europe namely because there is nobody in the country that could promote the people's interests. We can presume that the trade unionists did not mobilize the people in protests as they feared consequences similar to those of the April 7, 2009 events. The PCRM again proved the weakness of such a position as it was able to avoid clashes during its meeting. The very tough political message promoted by the PCRM through its demonstration can be accepted or not. But we cannot dispute its ability to take over the trade union movement and its members at a time when they remained without a 'master'. It is true that the PCRM made effort to subdue the trade unions during its eight-year rule. The process included different stages of dismemberment and subduing of the trade union movement. This topic was developed by Info-Prim Neo in the commentary “Subordination through Unification” that was published on June 13, 2007 ( http://info-prim.md/?a=10&nD=2007/06/13&ay=8706 ). Former and current trade union leaders played a decisive role in bringing the trade union movement under the control of the authorities and the political power. However, this political boomerang inevitably hit these 'army leaders' who remained without the army (the members of the organization joined other leaders to demand that their rights be respected), without battle field (the Great National Assembly Square as place where the most important messages in the life of the people and the country are expressed) and without flag and professional holiday (May 1 was a very important holiday for many generations of trade unionists). But the trade unions and the power cannot have the same professional holiday, as the lawyer and the prosecutor, the victim and the executioner cannot celebrate the same professional day). In fact, the Social Democratic Party (PSD), which has recently undergone changes in its administration, realized immediately that the trade union movement that remained without a leader can become the pray of left political parties and for the first time staged protests and leveled criticisms against the trade unions. The maxim “the holy place cannot remain empty” is valid for the trade union movement as well. The PSD's behavior shows once again that the trade union movement is a force and a product in demand, but it was brought to a state of deep apathy by its current leaders. As it reached a state of exhaustion, the trade union movement uses now its internal reserves in the form of property – buildings and land sold and leased out and other tangible goods and financial resources that are not limitless. [Valleriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]