Five Days of Unpaid Labor: Reports from the Bereket Iodine Plant Raise Questions About Systemic Violations of Labor Rights in Turkmenistan

Five Days of Unpaid Labor: Reports from the Bereket Iodine Plant Raise Questions About Systemic Violations of Labor Rights in Turkmenistan On July 30, 2026, the independent media outlet Turkmen.news published an investigation into conditions at the Bereket iodine plant in Turkmenistan’s Balkan region. What journalists and plant employees describe goes far beyond an isolated allegation of corruption. If the reported information is confirmed, it could point to an entire system of exploitation at a state-owned enterprise involving unpaid labor, the possible misappropriation of wages, the use of state resources for private benefit, and the effective absence of protection for workers who attempt to report abuses. Turkmenistan is one of the world’s leading producers of iodine, with a significant share of the country’s production concentrated in the Balkan region. Yet according to the Turkmen.news investigation, behind the official production figures lies a very different reality — one in which workers reportedly describe themselves as “rightless slaves.” Five Additional Days Without Pay According to Turkmen.news, iodine production takes place at the Oylygushluk facility, approximately 85 kilometers from the nearest populated area. Employees work on a rotational basis: they arrive for a 15-day shift and are then supposed to return home. However, the outlet reports that for some employees, a 15-day rotation effectively turns into 20 days. After completing their regular shift, workers are allegedly required to remain for another five days for what management calls a subbotnik — a term traditionally used for supposedly voluntary unpaid work. This is not a matter of several hours of community work. According to the report, employees perform five additional full days of labor — effectively an extra working week for which the workers themselves receive no payment. An even more serious allegation concerns what happens to the wages for those days. Sources cited by Turkmen.news claim that these working days are recorded in the company’s accounting documents and that wages are formally calculated for them. The workers, however, reportedly do not receive that money. If this information is accurate, a fundamental question arises: Where does the money allocated for work actually performed by these employees go? Can This Really Be Called a “Subbotnik”? Simply calling work a “subbotnik” does not make it voluntary. When a person works for several additional days, receives no wages for that labor, and risks losing their job if they refuse, the situation requires examination not only under domestic labor law but also under international standards prohibiting forced labor. Turkmen.news reports that employees who expressed dissatisfaction were essentially given one response: if you do not like it, submit your resignation and leave. But how free is a worker’s choice when refusing unpaid labor may mean losing the source of income on which that worker and their family depend? The allegations therefore warrant examination in light of Turkmenistan’s international obligations, including International Labour Organization standards on forced labor and the protection of workers’ wages. A State Enterprise as a Family “Fiefdom”? The investigation contains other serious allegations. According to Turkmen.news, the enterprise was headed for more than ten years by Guvanchmyrat Veliyev. Following his death, another employee initially assumed the managerial position, but the post subsequently went to Veli Veliyev, the late director’s son. A source cited by the outlet alleges that the transfer of the position involved corrupt arrangements. This is a serious allegation that requires independent verification. However, the situation itself raises questions about transparency in the appointment of managers at state-owned enterprises and whether effective mechanisms exist to prevent conflicts of interest and nepotism. A public position is not an inheritance. A state-owned enterprise cannot become the property of a single family. More Than 60 Alleged “Ghost Employees” Even more troubling are reports concerning the possible existence of fictitious employees on the company payroll. According to sources cited by Turkmen.news, approximately 240 people actually work at the plant, while official documents list 305 employees. This could mean that more than 60 alleged “ghost employees” appear on the payroll. The outlet reports that these individuals are listed in payroll records with salaries of approximately 3,000 manats, while the funds are allegedly transferred to bank cards that are not controlled by genuine employees. Turkmen.news further alleges that the money is subsequently withdrawn and distributed. If confirmed, these allegations could indicate a significant scheme involving the possible misappropriation of funds belonging to a state-owned enterprise. Such claims require a comprehensive financial investigation, including an examination of bank transactions, payroll records, employment contracts, and the actual presence of every person officially registered as an employee. A Private Farm at the State’s Expense A separate part of the investigation concerns the Eshretli Toprak farming enterprise, which Turkmen.news reports is linked to the Veliyev family. According to the outlet, the farm’s products — including meat, dairy products, and vegetables — are documented as food supplied to rotational workers, after which the plant pays the farm accordingly. However, according to workers’ accounts, the reality is different: employees are reportedly forced to purchase some of their own food while working their shifts. Turkmen.news also reports the possible use of machinery, fuel, spare parts, and other resources belonging to the state-owned enterprise for the benefit of the private farm. It is further alleged that individuals connected to the plant are involved in the farm’s operations, while the most physically demanding agricultural work is carried out by hired laborers — internal migrants from other regions of Turkmenistan. If these allegations are accurate, the issue extends beyond labor rights to the possible use of state property and public resources for private financial gain. Workers Complained. Who Protected Them? Perhaps the most important aspect of this story concerns neither an individual manager nor even the alleged financial misconduct. It concerns the state. According to Turkmen.news, employees attempted to file complaints with the trade union committee, the management of the state concern Turkmenhimiya, and law enforcement agencies in the Balkan region. However, the outlet reports that their complaints did not receive an adequate response. At this point, the story of a single factory becomes a much broader question about the functioning of the entire system for protecting labor rights. If workers cannot obtain protection from their trade union, the management of a state concern, or law enforcement agencies, an obvious question arises: Where can a citizen of Turkmenistan turn when their rights are violated? A trade union exists to protect workers, not employers. Law enforcement agencies exist to investigate possible violations of the law regardless of the position, influence, or connections of those allegedly responsible. And state-owned enterprises belong to the state and must operate in the public interest, rather than becoming a source of personal enrichment for individual managers. Institutional Silence Creates Impunity Corruption becomes systemic not merely when someone takes money. It becomes systemic when one institution knows about a possible violation and remains silent, another receives a complaint and fails to act, a third has a duty to investigate but does not, and the person attempting to defend their rights eventually realizes that there is nowhere else to turn. It is precisely this absence of independent oversight that creates conditions in which alleged abuses can continue for years. If the workers’ accounts are accurate, it is necessary not only to identify those directly responsible for any wrongdoing but also to determine why state oversight mechanisms failed — or refused — to stop what was happening. An Independent Investigation Is Needed The information published by Turkmen.news should provide grounds for a transparent and independent investigation, not for pressure against workers or sources of information. The authorities should examine working-time records and payroll documents; verify the identities and actual employment status of all 305 people listed in company records; trace the movement of funds through salary accounts; establish who actually received money allocated for the five additional working days; assess the legality of the so-called subbotniks; investigate the financial relationship between the plant and Eshretli Toprak; determine whether state-owned machinery, fuel, and other resources were used for private purposes; and establish what happened to the complaints reportedly submitted by employees. Particular importance must be placed on protecting workers, witnesses, and sources from dismissal, intimidation, threats, persecution, or any other form of retaliation. Any investigation should be conducted by a body capable of ensuring genuine independence and transparency, rather than solely by institutions whose own actions or inaction may themselves require scrutiny. A Worker Is Not the Property of a Manager This story extends far beyond a single iodine plant. It raises a fundamental question about the position of workers in a system where independent trade unions, free media, public oversight, and effective complaint mechanisms are severely restricted. A worker is not the property of a director. A state-owned enterprise is not a family inheritance. Wages earned by an employee belong to that employee. Refusing unpaid labor should not force a person to choose between defending their rights and being able to provide for their family. If Turkmenistan’s authorities are genuinely committed to combating corruption and protecting the labor rights of citizens, the Turkmen.news investigation provides an opportunity to demonstrate that commitment: conduct an independent investigation, publicly disclose its findings, protect the workers involved, and hold those responsible accountable if violations are confirmed. Silencing such allegations would only reinforce concerns that the problem is not limited to one enterprise or a handful of officials, but is far more systemic. Source and additional information: Turkmen.news, July 30, 2026 — “Iodine Inheritance: How a Family in the Balkan Region Is Building a Fiefdom at the Expense of the State and Exploited Workers”: https://turkmen.news/2026/07/30/iodnoe-nasledstvo-kak-semya-v-balkanskom-velayate-stroit-votchinu-za-shot-gosudarstva-i-podnevolnyh-rabotnikov/