The online survey on the proposed amendments to the Labour Law (2 July 2014; a convenience sample of 297 participants) shows that the issue had high visibility at the time, but that most respondents were only partially familiar with the content of the proposal. Developments around the amendments were followed through the media by 37.64% and through the internet by 25.28%, while 16.85% received information through conversations with colleagues and friends. A total of 5.90% were actively involved, and 13.48% did not follow the topic at all.
When it comes to familiarity with the text of the proposal itself, only 4.71% say they are “fully” informed, while the largest share are informed “a little” (47.14%). An additional 28.28% say they are informed “to a great extent,” and 13.13% “not at all.” This pattern—broad exposure to the issue combined with limited understanding of details—is an important context for interpreting attitudes.
Assessments of the proposed amendments are predominantly sceptical. Overall, 48.15% of respondents rate the amendments as “bad” (24.92%) or “very bad” (23.23%). They are seen as “average” by 27.61%, while positive ratings are rare: “good” 5.05% and “very good” 2.02%. The share with no opinion is high (17.17%), consistent with the finding that familiarity with the proposal’s content is mostly superficial.
The clearest message of the survey concerns procedure: as many as 76.43% believe it is not acceptable to adopt the amendments without a public debate. Only 6.40% say that would be acceptable, while 17.17% are undecided. This suggests that the legitimacy of the process (transparency and public participation) is almost as important as the content of the amendments themselves.
What would citizens do if the adopted amendments were contrary to their interests? The most common response is defeatism: 27.42% say “I would do nothing because nothing can be changed.” Still, a significant share choose low-risk, institutional forms of pressure: 26.63% would support a petition, while 20.10% would join protests. Mobilisation through trade unions is visible but weaker: 9.14% would become active in existing unions, and 1.57% would establish a union. This points to a combination of dissatisfaction and limited confidence in the possibility of change, along with a preference for “softer” forms of mobilisation (petitions) over organised union action.
The trade-union picture further explains this dynamic: 51.18% are not union members and do not want to become one, while 25.59% are not members but are considering joining. Active members account for 7.74%, passive members 11.11%, and 4.38% say they were members in the past. In respondents’ comments, a point that stands out is the absence of the option “there is no union in my company,” suggesting a structural obstacle to union organising, especially in small firms.
The sample structure by employment status shows that employed and working-age respondents dominate: 24.24% are employed in the public sector, 19.53% in the private sector, with 14.48% unemployed for more than six months, 11.78% students, and 5.72% unemployed for up to six months. The median age is 35, and the mean is 36.43.
The political dimension is present but not dominant: 30.30% say the way the party they voted for would vote on the Labour Law would influence their future decision, 26.94% say it would not, while the rest are uncertain or have no opinion (42.77% in total). In the most recent elections at the time, 20.20% stayed at home, 7.41% invalidated their ballot, while 14.81% voted for the SNS-led coalition; as many as 24.58% do not wish to declare, pointing to the sensitivity of political self-identification in such surveys.
Methodological note: this was an online survey, so the results cannot automatically be generalised to the population as a whole. Still, the findings clearly indicate three key signals from 2014: (1) broad interest alongside limited knowledge of the content, (2) a predominantly negative perception of the proposed amendments, and (3) a strong public demand that such an important issue not be adopted without public debate.