General strike of 11N: Should I notify my company, how much will they deduct from me, can they force me to work?

As of October 20, 2026, there is no record of a general reform of the right to strike in active parliamentary processing. The initiative most directly related to its protection, presented by Sumar, expired on October 6, 2026 with the dissolution of the Cortes. Therefore, it should not currently be described as pending debate or approval.

The main initiative and its progress

The Bill for the protection of trade union freedom and the right to strike in the workplace, file 122/000276, was presented by the Plurinational Parliamentary Group Sumar in the Congress. The Board agreed to admit it for processing on April 28, 2026, forward it to the Government, and order its publication, which took place on May 4. These agreements appear in the Congress bulletin.

Before the dissolution, the accredited progress was that initial phase. There is no record that the Plenary had approved its consideration, that is, the decision to begin debating and processing its content. Nor is there evidence that it had reached committee, commission report, approval by Congress, or referral to the Senate.

The situation changed with Royal Decree 806/2026, of October 5, published on the 6th, which dissolved the Congress and Senate and called elections for November 29. The bill expired on that date: its procedure ended without becoming law. The decisive reference for its current status is, therefore, the publication of the dissolution, subsequent to its admission.

What it intended to change

Sumar's proposal did not constitute a comprehensive regulation of the exercise of the strike. Its purpose was to strengthen protection against employer retaliation through changes in the Workers' Statute and the labor infractions regime. Measures included:

• Explicitly recognizing the right not to suffer persecution or retaliation for the legitimate exercise of trade union activity, affiliation, or the right to strike.
• Combating the creation of lists or files of workers due to their union participation or strikes with discriminatory intent.
• Explicitly classifying such employer behaviors as very serious infractions.

These measures remained proposals and did not come into effect through this initiative (text of the bill).

Other related proposals

There are also two Vox initiatives linked to the protection of labor rights and coercion in the context of strikes. Both expired on October 6, 2026:

• Organic Law Bill for the protection of workers' constitutional rights, file 122/000048, with a criminal scope, not a general regulation of the strike.
• Organic Law Bill amending the Penal Code for the protection of the right to work, file 122/000192, published on May 30, 2025. It proposed adding a section to article 315 regarding coercion to initiate or continue a strike (published text).

Practical conclusion

There is no record of a government project for general regulation of the right to strike submitted to the Cortes. The basic regulation continues to rely on Royal Decree-Law 17/1977 and constitutional jurisprudence. The identified proposals did not replace that framework: they expired, they were not simply suspended. To resume their changes, a new initiative would be necessary in the next legislature, not an automatic continuation of the extinguished procedures.

The Ministry of Labor does not grant prior authorization for general strikes: the strike is a fundamental right and its exercise does not depend on a ministerial license. Its intervention is related to the communication of the call, mediation in the conflict, and certain administrative and inspection actions. It is important to distinguish these functions from the setting of minimum services and judicial control of the strike.

Communication of the call, not authorization

The call must be communicated to the affected employers and the competent labor authority, complying with the legally established notice and content requirements. Communicating does not mean asking for permission: receiving the notice does not make the Ministry an authority empowered to approve or reject a strike at its discretion.

In a nationwide general strike, the state labor administration may intervene due to its territorial competence. But the "general" nature of the call does not grant the Ministry all decisions regarding its effects. The distribution of responsibilities also depends on the territory, the sectors affected, and the administrations responsible for each service.

Mediation and monitoring of the conflict

The labor authority can carry out mediation actions to facilitate an agreement between the organizers and the employer representation. These actions seek to bring positions closer, promote negotiation, or help resolve incidents. They do not equate to directing the strike nor do they allow imposing its cancellation by themselves.

The Ministry can also monitor labor conflict and gather information within its competencies. Participation estimates, administrative communications, and public assessments do not constitute a legal declaration about the legality of the strike.

Minimum services and security services

The guarantee of essential services corresponds to the competent governmental authority, which does not have to be the Ministry of Labor. Depending on the service and territorial scope, other state departments or regional authorities may intervene.

Minimum services must be justified and respect proportionality: protecting essential community needs does not allow emptying the right to strike of its content. Not every public service is automatically essential, nor does essentiality require maintaining its ordinary operation.

Additionally, minimum services must be distinguished from security and maintenance services necessary to protect people, facilities, and the subsequent resumption of activity. Their purpose and regime are not identical.

Inspection and limits of administrative control

The Labor and Social Security Inspection can investigate possible labor infractions related to the strike, including employer behaviors that obstruct its exercise or violate workers' guarantees. Inspection actions may lead to sanction proposals but must respect procedure and distribution of competencies.

This does not make the Inspection an authority that authorizes strikes, nor does it grant the Ministry a general power to resolve any controversy arising during them. Maintaining public order corresponds to the competent security authorities, not the labor administration merely because a conflict exists.

The decision on legality

The resolution of disputes about the legality of a strike and its consequences corresponds to the competent judicial bodies. Administrative decisions on minimum services are also subject to judicial review.

In summary: the Ministry receives communications when competent, can mediate, and performs labor monitoring and inspection functions; it does not grant permission to strike nor has a general power to prohibit it. No useful documentary information has been found in the consulted sources to accompany this general explanation with verified references.

The consulted sources identify three nationwide 24-hour general strikes held between October 20, 2016, and October 20, 2026, but do not allow presenting that figure as an exhaustive total. The count changes if feminist calls, regional strikes, or partial stoppages are included. Regarding their legal consequences, there is no record of a labor reform directly attributable to the three identified calls.

Which calls have been identified

• November 24, 2023: Solidaridad called a strike against amnesty and investiture agreements. There is no record that it caused a modification of labor legislation.
• September 27, 2024: CGT and Solidaridad Obrera promoted a strike in solidarity with Palestine. The consulted sources do not identify changes to the Workers' Statute or strike regulation derived from this call.
• October 15, 2025: CGT, Solidaridad Obrera, ASC, and the Intersindical Confederation called a 24-hour strike for Palestine. CCOO and UGT called two-hour stoppages per shift: these are different modalities within the same day, not additional general strikes. See Demócrata's information.

The retrospective by Demócrata on these mobilizations also recognizes stoppages linked to the feminist movement but does not offer a complete list allowing their inclusion in a closed count. Therefore, three is the number of calls individually identified here, not a definitive figure of all general strikes in the period.

Additionally, it is necessary to distinguish a held strike from a registered call: on October 19, 2026, the strike for the upcoming November 11 was presented, according to Demócrata. It is registered within the period but has not yet taken place and no subsequent consequences can be attributed to it.

Main legal consequences

1. Effects on the contract. Legitimate participation suspends the contract but does not terminate it. The salary corresponding to strike time is not paid, and legitimate participation cannot justify a sanction or dismissal. These are effects of exercising the right, not reforms produced by each protest.

2. Essential services and substitutions. Legally established minimum services must be respected. The prohibition of irregularly substituting those who support the strike also applies. The framework continues to rely on article 28.2 of the Constitution, Royal Decree-Law 17/1977, and its constitutional interpretation, as noted by Eurofound.

3. Debate on political purpose. Regulation restricts strikes with purposes unrelated to professional interest. However, a political or solidarity claim does not automatically determine its illegality: its connection to workers' interests matters. STC 11/1981 eliminated the requirement that this connection be necessarily direct, a matter explained by Demócrata on the Gaza strike. This is prior doctrine, not a new consequence of that day.

4. Relevant criminal change, without proven causality. Organic Law 5/2021 repealed article 315.3 of the Penal Code, related to coercion to initiate or continue a strike. It was an important change in the period but not a consequence of the 2023-2025 calls. Nor is there evidence that these caused the 2021 labor reform. Confusing temporal coincidence with causality would exaggerate its legal impact.