On 12 November, it became known to the public that employees of "Drilling Operations Management", which provides services to JSC "Ozenmunaigas", organised a rally in Zhanaozen, where they put forward a number of demands to the company's management.
The editorial board of FBRK has previously written about the chairman of the trade union of "Drilling Operations Management", Tagane Koshanov, whose unfounded claims about double taxation led to the rally of the enterprise's employees.
However, if one carefully examines the essence of the demands, a question arises: where do the real needs of the workers end and where does blatant manipulation begin?
One of the main demands of the employees is to ensure the direct employment of the children of the company's pensioners. At first glance, this demand might appear to be a concern for families, but in reality, it violates the algorithm approved by the company in 2020, which guarantees equal opportunities for employment to all residents of Zhanaozen.
Another contentious point is the increase in payments for early retirement to 300 MCI. Currently, the maximum payout is 125 MCI for workers with more than 40 years of service, which today is one of the best pre-retirement support programmes in the country.
Other demands also raise eyebrows. For example, the proposal to build a large repair base for equipment. Given that the company's equipment fleet is being actively renewed — 65% of the machinery has already been replaced, and a further 53 billion tenge is planned to be invested in modernisation by 2029 — the need for a new base, to replace the existing one, does not appear convincing.
Furthermore, the trade union insists on reinstating the conditions of the 2013 collective agreement, which stipulated the payment of taxes for employees by the company itself. This is despite the fact that, since 2017, payments to employees have been made after tax deductions.
This means that the company, in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, withholds taxes and transfers them to the state budget, while remitting the "net" amount to the employees after all deductions.
All this gives the impression that, instead of constructive dialogue and real solutions, some employees are looking for excuses to create conflict. It is possible that behind these demands lie not so much the genuine needs of the workers, but rather a desire to satisfy someone's personal interests, under the guise of concern for the collective. The only question is who ultimately benefits from such manipulation.
Our editorial board once again reminds that before supporting any initiatives, one should carefully verify the information and assess its reliability, so as not to become a pawn in someone else's game, where the interests of the people are almost never considered.