Forcing participation in demonstrations and withholding wages: the practice
of the chairman of the Movement for the Quality of Government is exposed
Senior officials in the movement on attorney Eliad Shraga: "He delayed
salary to apply pressure to sign a contract with an illegal clause"
CEO Eli Solam testified that "every year there were exceptions at the level
of $400,000 for events - all at Shraga's initiative"
Author KAN11 Avishai Greenzeig
21:25 August 15 2023
[Translated to English by IMRA]
Expose: Lawyer Eliad Sharga, the chairman of the Movement for the Quality of
Government, forced the movement's employees to sign new employment
contracts, according to which they undertake to participate in the
demonstrations that began around the investigations of Prime Minister
Netanyahu. According to the affidavit of the movement's former legal
advisor, attorney Tsurya Midad Luzon, the movement even delayed the workers'
wages until they agreed to sign the new contract.
"He withheld wages in order to put pressure on the employees to sign those
contracts, until I warned in a written message to the acting CEO that it was
a withholding of wages," the legal advisor wrote. In the affidavit, Luzon
added: "The insults that were imposed every day, the violation of my powers
and my ability to fulfill my duties as the legal advisor, the violation of
employees and the insults that were hurled at us - all of these led to the
termination of my employment, as well as the termination of the employment
of a number of employees, including veteran employees."
Luzon described a case in which, after she expressed reservations about his
actions, Attorney Shraga, who has been at the forefront of defending the
justice system for three decades, and preaches to respond to the
recommendations of legal advisors, attacked her. According to her, Shraga
shouted at her in front of all the employees and claimed that her opposition
was motivated by political considerations due to her being a settler,
When Shraga was confronted in his testimony regarding the salary
withholding, and was asked if this was normal conduct, Chairman Shraga
replied: "Talk to the CEO." Later, Shraga refused to answer the question of
whether this was his directive.
In the same legal proceeding, when another former senior member of the
movement filed a civil lawsuit, Shraga was summoned to testify at the labor
court and was forced to comment on his refusal to accept the guidance of the
legal advisor regarding the coercion of the workers to participate in the
demonstrations. His answer then was laconic and evasive: "So she said. OK.
We say otherwise."
Even when the plaintiff's attorney tried to understand how his refusal to
accept the position of the movement's legal advisor is in line with the
movement's values regarding the obligation to obey the position of legal
counsel - Shraga repeatedly refused to answer. The judge made it clear to
Shraga that he has no right as a witness to refuse to answer questions, but
Shraga stuck to his refusal and the plaintiff's attorney was forced to give
The legal advisor for the movement also wrote in the affidavit submitted to
the court about the political direction in which Sharaga took the movement.
Nili Even Chen, the senior who filed the lawsuit and opposed Shraga's moves,
explained at the hearing that this move stemmed from Shraga's personal
political interests as he sought to integrate into national politics.
According to her, Shraga even suggested that she join a right-wing liberal
party that he intends to establish: "He wants to go into politics and form a
party. All he was interested in was changing the ship." Her version of
Shraga's political ambitions receives reinforcement and support from other
former leaders in the movement with whom we spoke. Shraga's lawyer tried to
prevent the issue from being brought up, but had to face the elephant in the
courtroom. Shraga denied that these were his motives, but admitted that he
considered joining Moshe Kahlon's party as number two and as his candidate
for the position of Minister of Justice.
If that wasn't enough, as part of the discussion, an allegation was made
about the movement's extravagant celebrations led by chairman Sharaga. CEO
Eli Solam testified that "every year there were exceptions that were all
initiated by the chairman. I'm talking about exceptions at the level of 200,
400,000 dollars for events in Caesarea and all, so I was sent by the
chairman to go to Morris Kahn and convince his secretary why we didn't meet
The one who was supposed to be an example and model of someone who demands
and gives turns out to be someone who demands and demands - and allows
himself to do as much as he pleases in the movement. Or as it was described
by senior members of the movement with whom we spoke, the sentence that
Shrga repeated over and over again: "No one moves from their position. You
will do exactly what I tell you."
It should be noted that the judge in the ruling accepted the movement's
principled position that it is permissible for an ideological organization
to compel its employees to participate in demonstrations, however, he
commented on the problematic legality in the movement's practice of
converting demonstration hours into vacation hours, and wrote that it
apparently contradicts the wage protection law. In the ruling, the judge
wrote that he would not address questions about the circumstances of the
departure of senior leaders and veterans of the movement.
The Movement for the Quality of Government responded: "This is a false
publication based on protocols from a lawsuit filed by a senior employee who
was fired from the movement, founded a competing organization and decided to
sue the movement - only that all her claims were rejected one by one by the
judge in the ruling, with the exception of one technical claim that will
also be clarified in the courts as legal. In any case, the movement will not
be dragged into media slander. The actions and work of the movement speak
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on