Pîslaru did not call them to negotiate even after they threatened that more than 60% would leave the system

The healthcare system in Romania is on the brink of a major crisis as thousands of medical professionals threaten to walk away from their jobs unless urgent changes are made to the new salary law. According to recent reports, over 60 percent of employees in the health sector have considered leaving the system if the proposed legislation remains unchanged. This alarming statistic has been highlighted by the Federation "Solidarity in Health" (Sanitas), which warns that without significant revisions to the current draft of the salary law, the entire sector could face collapse.

The situation escalated after the Ministry of Labor, led by Minister Dragoș Pîslaru, failed to engage in negotiations with the unions despite the clear warning signs. The federation has already taken legal action, requesting a presidential decree to delay the adoption of the new salary law until a government with full powers is installed. However, this request was postponed because the government did not provide all necessary documents to the judiciary. Additionally, the Ministry of Labor has not invited the union representatives to discuss the matter, even though a labor dispute has already been declared.

According to Răzvan Gae, vice-president of Sanitas, the current salary structure is not properly established either between different categories of civil servants or within the health system itself. He emphasized that medical assistants play a crucial role in hospitals, particularly in operating rooms where they assist doctors with patients undergoing surgery or scheduled for surgery. Despite their essential role, these workers are not adequately recognized in the salary grid.

The protests have drawn a wide range of participants, including approximately 15,000 people, with at least half being medical assistants, nurses, ambulance drivers, and TESA staff. Other professional groups such as resident physicians, pharmacists, physiotherapists, psychologists, and biologists have also joined the movement. These groups have submitted their suggestions and proposed a revised salary grid that would ensure fair redistribution according to normal working conditions.

Gae explained the necessity of bonuses and allowances cut by the new project. He pointed out that medical assistants face constant risks of accidents involving sharp objects and needles, along with psychological stress and burnout caused by heavy workloads, lack of personnel, inability to fill positions, and overwork in hospitals where they often work below minimum standards, especially during periods with many sick leaves or holidays. Working in shifts disrupts the body's natural rhythm and can increase cancer risk by 15-20% due to accumulated wear and tear, according to studies cited by OSFH and European unions since Romania lacks the capacity to conduct such research.

The new salary law has triggered waves of strikes and blocked activities in courts and prosecutors' offices. The main grievances raised by the medical associations and health workers include the rejection of the new salary law launched in May 2026 by Minister Dragoș Pîslaru. Their dissatisfaction centers around several key demands.

The Federation "Solidarity in Health" has stated that the current version of the salary law is far from complete and calls for continued consultations with employees in the system. A survey conducted among members revealed that 61.3% of respondents believe they will likely leave the public system if the project is not corrected. The federation urges the government to continue consultations and delay the final decision until August 2026. After a rigorous technical analysis and public consultation with health workers, the federation issued a warning that the current form of the new salary law should not be sent to Parliament for approval.

The syndicalists highlight several major risks identified in the project, including the absence of guarantees for protecting total incomes currently in payment (non-regression principle), major distortions regarding bonuses for working conditions, night shifts, guard duties, and weekend and holiday work. There are also inequalities in the positioning of professions in the salary grid and inadequate treatment of auxiliary, non-medical, and TESA staff.

Survey results show that 93.9% of respondents demand income protection and application of the non-regression principle. 90.6% call for indexing the reference value with inflation. 61.3% of respondents believe they will likely leave the public system if the project is not corrected, with the highest risk among young staff.

The syndicalists also present specific requests, including updating information about changes made to the law project, initiating the second stage of consultations (formal consultation) in accordance with legal provisions alongside representative federations at the sector level, establishing an evaluation and analysis track for impact and error correction at the Ministry of Health level, allowing the preparation of a suitable project meeting the needs of the health system and financing possibilities, and using the available time until the PNRR deadline (August 2026) fully so that the salary reform corrects inequalities rather than perpetuates them.

They emphasize that health cannot be treated as a mere accounting issue. Given the deadline set by the PNRR is August 2026, they urge the government and relevant ministries (Labor and Health) to use the entire available time to verify the real impact and correct errors instead of hastily adopting an inadequately analyzed project. For health workers, the stakes are essential: protecting incomes currently in payment, recognizing work in shifts, nights, weekends, and legal holidays, correctly differentiating risks by specialties, and eliminating salary inequalities.

The syndicalists argue that a salary reform cannot be adopted in haste and cannot treat health as a mere accounting issue. They stress the importance of ensuring that the reform addresses the real needs of the health system and its financial capabilities, rather than rushing into a poorly analyzed project that could exacerbate existing inequalities.