The European trade union movement: between national isolationism and a European counter-offensive
Vasco Pedrina, Vice President of the BWI (Building and Wood Workers’ International)
It is time to re-examine our strategy, if we do not want to watch over an irreversible decline of the European trade union movement. Put simply, the ongoing debate on this matter within the trade union movement is seeing the emergence of two tendencies. One advocates a strategy of “renationalising political action”. This “strategy of withdrawal” contends that because the EU is heading towards ultraliberal destruction, the only realistic answer is the formation of resistance networks for the defence of the social state within each nation. The other tendency advocates an “offensive strategy” of Europeanising social struggles, based on the defensive, national struggles. The thesis it maintains is that the only positive alternative is a quantitative and qualitative leap in political action and joint mobilisation in Europe. The time to achieve such a leap is limited. Indeed, there is a serious risk that the Euro and Fiscal Pacts as well as the austerity plans will cause such an increase in imbalances between and within countries that social and political tensions become unbearable, as a result also of the rise of populist right-wing forces. A corollary could be a catastrophic paralysis of the labour movement.
Where are we today?
The neoliberal and neoconservative steamroller that is shaking Europe continues its work of social dismantlement, even challenging the very principles that have hitherto founded the European social model, not to mention democracy itself. The end of the tunnel is not in sight. In Greece’s case, what is underway amounts to “social devastation”. A comparative study of the labour legislation reforms in the various countries (ETUI, 2011) reveals the unprecedented scale of attacks on workers’ rights and against trade unions, especially in the deficit countries of Southern and Eastern Europe. That has enabled Mario Draghi, president of the ECB, to declare that from now on the “European social model” is dead.
Despite a worrying weakening of trade unions in many countries, at the national level, the number of mass demonstrations and strikes has increased. In some cases, their scale has been impressive. But their impact so far has been quite limited. In no country has it been possible to stop the downward drift and bring about a change of course. In fact, only a movement towards mass mobilisation, co-ordinated over time at the European level and coupled with a change in the political context, could achieve such a change. But unfortunately we are far from that point. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has managed – since its Congress in May 2011 – only to organise, on February 29, one European day of action, of symbolic nature. By way of illustration, only the Spanish colleagues staged a truly mass action on that day, with 400,000 workers in the streets. The DGB succeeded only in organising a demonstration of 150 trade unionists outside the headquarters of the ECB in Frankfurt, and the contribution of the Swedish colleagues was to write a protest letter to their own government. A first step in the right direction, but far from what would be needed.
Why do we have this European trade union paralysis, and what can we do to get out of this dead end, at least in the longer term? The trend towards a “national withdrawal” of trade unions appears to be continuing in an almost inexorable manner. On the one hand, everyone is caught up in national defensive struggles. On the other, the highly uneven developments between the so-called surplus countries and the so-called deficit countries, along with their political repercussions, are undermining the basis for solidarity. On top of that, there are the differences in both trade union demands and culture and traditions, or in the objectives and rhythms of mobilisation. That can be shown by our debate on how to counter the “Euro Plus Pact”, the “Six Pack Pact” and the “Fiscal Pact”.
For a minimum wages policy and for closer co-ordination of collective bargaining policies in Europe
Two developments are making European wage issues particularly urgent:
– on the one hand, all across Europe, inequality, the incidence of low pay in relation to job insecurity, the number of working poor are constantly on the rise,
– on the other hand, through the “Euro Plus Pact” and especially the “Six Pack Pact”, the European Commission has recently acquired effective instruments to – especially in the countries in distress – call free collective bargaining into question and to impose so-called “wage moderation”, in fact, a fall in wages.
This confronts the trade union movement with a double challenge: that of developing a European minimum wages policy and that of responding to the EU authorities’ co-ordination of low-wage policies with closer trade union co-ordination of collective bargaining policies so as to constitute a real countervailing power.
Regarding the first challenge, despite repeated discussions since the 2006 ETUC Congress, Seville, it has not been possible to agree on a joint counter-offensive in the minimum wages field. Within ETUC, the only progress achieved is a green light for a recommendation to the affiliates to engage in their own countries to obtain at the national level either by collective agreement or by legislation an effective minimum wage of not less than 50% of the average wage or 60% of the median wage. The Italian confederations and those of the Nordic countries continue to oppose any joint initiative for fear of being subjected to downward pressures in their own countries. However, no study conducted to date has been able to prove that the introduction of a minimum wage has had such an effect. In the context of an offensive European trade union strategy, this issue represents a key component. It will remain on the agenda, especially as the EU Commission has just taken up the issue – by proposing the setting of “adequate” minimum wages at the national level – in the framework of its “Plan for Employment”.
As to the second challenge, the discussion conducted in recent months within ETUC has been unable to lay the groundwork for substantially closer collective bargaining co-ordination, capable of rising to the challenge of the wage pressure mechanisms contained in the “Six Pack”. That is due to both objective and subjective reasons. Traditionally, collective bargaining systems have been highly decentralised – and for good reason, namely the desire for proximity with the workers concerned. Before being able to co-ordinate collective bargaining in Europe, it is necessary for inter-sectoral co-ordination to be established at the national level, which is not the case in the majority of countries. Consequently, the most promising approach is that of seeking closer co-ordination at the level of the European sectoral federations and at the level of neighbouring countries with a common cultural background.
The struggle against wage dumping and the dismantling of workers’ rightsWage dumping pressures and attacks on workers’ rights have increased just about everywhere, following, first, the rulings of the European Court of Justice in 2008 and, then, the proliferation of pro-market and labour legislation reforms (related, among other things, to the “Six Pack”). As this is a widely shared problem, a European campaign on this issue could be one of the major levers for a European counter-offensive by the entire trade union movement. This is in fact why the Swiss Trade Union Confederation proposed to the 2011 ETUC Congress, Athens, that a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) be launched on the subject. Such an ECI would have been aimed at pressing for the necessary legislation to anchor two closely related principles:
– the primacy of fundamental social rights over free-market economic freedoms,
– the principle of “for work of equal value, equal pay in the same place”.
The Congress chose to give preference to a counter-proposal from the DGB, Germany, and French trade unions, committing ETUC to conduct a campaign entitled “equal pay – equal rights”, in effect, without an ECI. Meanwhile, a working group has turned this into a campaign aimed primarily at improving public opinion’s image of ETUC. Let’s hop it won’t stop there!
The doubts formulated against the idea of a trade union ECI take as their pretext the negative experiences made with the 2009 petition on public services (with the related fear of failing to collect a million of signatures), doubts about the legal effect of such an instrument, and the lack in many countries of a trade union tradition in this field. What is underestimated is an ECI’s potential, as a lever for decentralised efforts, to raise awareness in workplaces and on the streets, as well as for political pressure activities on a trade union objective that is shared throughout Europe.
That the question of an ECI remains relevant is shown by the fact that at the ETUC Executive Committee in March 2012, the ÖGB, Austria, tried to re-open the subject, that the FNV, Netherlands, has launched a petition for the respect of the right to strike, and that the EPSU (public services) has launched an ECI against the privatisation of water services.
With or without an ECI, the need for a European trade union campaign on the above principles and the right to strike is growing ever more urgent, given not only the effects of the various “Pacts”, but also the new draft directives and regulations under parliamentary consideration: draft directives for a better implementation of the directive concerning the posting of workers and of the Monti II regulation on the right to strike, draft directives on “inter-company transfers” and on immigration, etc.
For an alternative to the “Fiscal Pact” …
The most important challenge today is probably that of a union strategy towards the “Fiscal Pact”. At least there is a fairly broad consensus within ETUC that recognises that the successive Pacts are and will be a source huge misery. Without an alternative, the pre-announced death of the European social model will become a reality, even more quickly than anyone might imagine.
A first question that is causing differences was raised publicly in March 2012 by the European socialist parties: should one fight for a renegotiation of the “Fiscal Pact”, as envisaged F. Hollande, or should one accept and act only for compensatory economic and fiscal policy measures, as desired the head of the Germany’s SPD, S. Gabriel? But, parallel to that, the second question that arises is that of the contents of an alternative economic and fiscal programme. On such a programme, it should be easier to reach agreement than on the first question, although also in this regard there is no lack of obstacles. The clearest example is ETUC’s demands for Eurobonds and an at least partial sharing of the sovereign debt, a central point of any genuine alternative economic policy. The trade union confederations of a good number of “surplus countries” are either flatly opposed to the idea or agree to it without clearly saying so. That said, ETUC’s other proposals for qualitative growth and employment could constitute a sufficient basis for effective joint action:
– The ECB should become the “lender of last resort” for sovereign debt,
– The EU should press for the construction of a properly regulated financial sector, in the service of real economy,
– There is a need for a ‘year of healing’ with a temporary freeze on new fiscal austerity in 2012, combined with an adapted and longer time frame for reducing deficits below 3% of GDP,
– A European investment plan focused on structural investments rather than on structural reforms, financed with new taxes such as the FTT and with anti-dumping fiscal harmonisation measures,
– Decent jobs with decent wages to support domestic demand, and a stop the current dynamic of social deregulation in all directions. Effective measures to fight youth unemployment are, in this context, the priority.
But what needs to be done to make those proposals prevail?
… for a “New European Social Contract”?
In December 2011, on the initiative of Spanish trade unions, eight national trade union confederations launched in a press opinion piece a call for a “new social contract for Europe”, including “jobs, wages, collective bargaining autonomy, pensions, unemployment benefits, education and health”. The debate on this initiative is in progress and is expected to be concluded by a concise text to be adopted by the ETUC Executive Committee in June. Faced with the demolition of the ongoing European social model and with the global challenges posed by the emergence of the BRIC countries, the aim is, in the words of M. Sommer, DGB president, to launch a public debate on our perception of Europe, by focusing on the fundamental values of a “Social Europe”: rule of law, democracy, a system of public infrastructures and services, a state system of social security benefits, free collective bargaining, and strong trade unions. To that should be added a “social rescue plan” for the countries in distress.
The idea of a “new social contract for Europe” is good if it is designed and developed with a view to highlighting clearly – to begin with in our own ranks – the vision of the Europe for which we are fighting, at a time when the disappointment and disbelief that greets anything coming from the EU is throwing large sections of the workers into the arms of anti-European right-wing populism. The idea would be even better if it were designed within a logic of mobilisation. The discussions within ETUC show that this will not necessarily be the case. The ETUC secretariat and a number of national union confederations want, fairly quickly after the publication of such a draft “contract”, to enter into negotiations with the EU authorities and the employers. But, as pointed out the FGTB, Belgium, negotiations only make sense if from the outset we obtain guarantees that such a social pact is not going to be drowned in the “Fiscal and Budgetary Pact”, which will inevitably happen unless we build a favourable power relationship. One does not reasonably see why, without first being subjected to strong pressures, the EU authorities and the employers, just a few months after the adoption of the “Fiscal Pact”, would join us in signing a “Social Contract” with the opposite intentions! But how do we change the power relationship?
For a Europeanisation of social struggles and political-trade union action
Those possible trade union campaigns cannot replace the existing efforts to Europeanise social struggles. True, the 2011 ETUC Congress did adopt a motion from the Spanish confederations CC:OO and UGT calling for serious consideration of the feasibility of co-ordinated strikes, or even a European general strike, but without much conviction. In response, the UNI Europa and EFBWW sectoral federations, at their Congresses last winter, floated the idea of a longer term campaign, which would begin this year with a European Action Day based on the idea of ‘European trade unions sounding an urgent alarm’. The demands would be related to the slogans “Jobs – Wages – Rights, Not Speculation and Austerity Orders”, “For Equal Work, Equal Pay”, “Yes to Europe, but A Different Europe!”. With an adequate preparatory phase, the aim would be to succeed in at least partly reducing the wide gap between the large general strikes in countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy, and the limited capacity or willingness for struggle in a good many other countries. That would require that all confederations undertake to achieve a qualitative leap in their own actions, while taking into account their national traditions and effective potential.
So far, the result has been the ETUC Day of Action of 29 February. The brief period of four weeks for preparation prevented the realisation of the desired qualitative step forward; as things stand now, it would take, beyond a real political will, at least four to six months. To all those who are committed to the project of a “Social Europe”, the questions remain: around which claims, with which instruments, in which ways is it possible to put and end to “national withdrawal”, to go beyond the almost exclusively national framework of trade union action, and to overcome the isolation of the big mobilisations in Southern Europe, to give them a European dimension capable of reshaping the situation? And what alliances at the social and political levels can be woven to foster such an outcome? For trade union power alone will not suffice to stop the present adverse drift.