Trade union strategy 
against a corporate Europe

Asbjørn Wahl

I have been asked to speak on trade union strategy against a corporate Europe. My background for doing so is that I have been working in the trade union movement for about twenty years. Most of these years I have spent in the Norwegian trade union movement, but for some years in the middle of the 1990s, I worked at the Head Office of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) in London. Soon after I left the ITF office (in 1997) I was elected Vice Chair of the Road Transport Workers’ Section of the ITF, a position which I am still holding. Over the last few years in Norway, I have been working on building alliances to fight privatisation and deregulation, and to defend the social achievements which were won through the welfare state. Norway is, as you surely know, not a member of the European Union, but we are part of the same neo-liberal economic and political development and the same power structures anyway, so in this regard it does not make much difference.

If we are going to develop a trade union strategy in today’s Europe, which is increasingly dominated by corporate interests, it is decisive that we have a correct understanding of the current situation, as well as of the problems and the state of play in the trade union movement. I went to a couple of trade union meetings yesterday here at the European Social Forum, and experienced two types of contributions. Some were very militant ones from small, but non-representative groups. Another type of presentation was made by a representative from the German IG Metall, who wanted to open the struggle for the 30 hours' week. He did not mention, however, that the same union negotiated an agreement with Volkswagen only a year ago, which undermined existing wages and working conditions in order to make the company set up its new factory in Germany. As far as I am concerned, none of these trade union representatives addressed the real problems of the trade union movement in Europe today. It is necessary to do that as a basis for developing a trade union strategy.

The current situation
As trade union strategy is my topic, I have not got much time to elaborate on the current situation. So let me just mention some few, important points. Over the last 20 years, we have been confronted with an immense offensive from market forces. Capitalist interests have gone on the offensive, and we have seen an enormous shift in the balance of power between labour and capital. Multinational companies have, of course, been at the forefront of this development. An important part of this development is the attempts by the multinational companies and their political servants to institutionalise their newly achieved power positions and to bring it further ahead. This is being done through international institutions and agreements, like for example the World Trade Organisation and the GATS agreement, and through regional power structures like the European Union. The following analysis is therefore based on the concept that the European Union of today is the way in which the predominant neo-liberal social and economic model is being institutionalised in Europe. The European Union and other regional and supranational institutions are being constructed on the basis of the new balance of power and cannot be considerably changed, democratised or defeated before we are able to shift the current balance of power in our direction. That means the mobilisation of popular and class power. This is therefore the main long-term task of the trade union movement today.

Challenges and problems in the trade union movement
This leads me to an analysis of the current state of play in the European, or mainly Western European, trade union movement. I think that we can easily agree that the trade union movement in Europe is on the defensive, and it is for the time being not able to fill its role of defending the immediate economic and social interests of its members. Trade unions have lost ground in all sectors and industries. To understand this development, we do also have to look at the history of the European trade union movement.

I will do this be means of some few key words. Of reasons which I am not going to elaborate on any further, the trade union movement, during the 20^th century, gradually developed a sort of peaceful cohabitation with capitalist interests. During the 1930s this cohabitation started to become institutionalised in some parts of Europe when the trade union movement stroke accords with capital interests, particularly in the North, and after W.W.II in most of Western Europe. This social pact between labour and capital formed the basis on which the welfare state was developed and wages and working conditions were gradually improved. From a period characterised by confrontations between labour and capital, societies entered a phase of social peace, bi- and tripartite negotiations and consensus policies. Due to the important achievements in terms of welfare, wages and working conditions, this policy gained massive support from the working class, and the more radical and anti-capitalist parts of the labour movement were gradually marginalised. Social democratic parties became the bearers of this policy of class compromise.

It is important to realise that this social partnership between labour and capital was a result of the actual strength of the trade union and the labour movements. The employers and their organisations realised that they were not able to defeat the trade union movement. They had to recognise the trade unions as representatives of the workers and to negotiate with them. The radicalised labour movement which came out of the economic and social crisis of the 1930s and the W.W.II was met by a rather conscious strategy by its capitalist counterparts. They voluntarily entered into social pacts and gave in to many of labour’s social and economic demands in order to win time and de-radicalise the labour movement. Seen from a position more than 50 years later, we can say that this corporate strategy proved to be quite successful.

Today’s trade union movement, organisational structures and cadres were developed in this historical phase of social pacts. It led to the depolitisation and deradicalisation of the labour movement and the bureaucratisation of the trade union movement. An important part of the social pact was the existence of national regulation of capital and markets. Capital control was the order of the day in all countries. Settlements between labour and capital were made in rather orderly and peaceful ways within national borders. As an important result of that, the trade union movement became very nationally oriented. Internationalism in the trade union movement had for a long time already had tendencies of developing into a sort of diplomacy in international bodies (like the ILO) and even into different forms of trade union tourism, with little or no connection with the immediate needs and interests of the members, even though some of the internationalist political rhetoric remained in place.

Most of the current leadership of the trade union movement in Western Europe has had all its education and experience in this environment of class compromise and social peace. When the neo-liberal offensive took off some twenty years ago, and the employers gradually broke with the policy of social partnership, the only answer most of the trade union bureaucracy was able to come up with, was to continue its consensus policy. Some trade unions have almost been begging rather hostile employers for a continuation of the consensus policy. This policy has been fuelled by the strong national orientation of the trade union movement. Rather than reorienting themselves towards confronting the gradually more aggressive capital interests, their narrow national orientation and strong social partnership ideology have led great parts of the trade union movement into an alliance with, and consequently a subordination under, “national” capital in a struggle for better conditions of competition (“Standort Wettbewerb”).

In other words, great parts of the trade union movement have been drawn deeper into business unionism and legal formalism rather than shifting towards a strategy based on class relationship and an assessment of the balance of power. The struggle of the German trade union movement for a “unity for work” (“Bündnis für Arbeit”) during the middle of the 1990s is one good example of this policy of national alliance with the employers (although failed because the employers felt strong enough to turn away the “offer” of a formalised, social pact). In the same way the struggle for minimum labour standards in the WTO is an excellent example of the legal formalism which is developed completely independent of an analysis of the balance of power between labour and capital.

It is important to notice that this very defensive and deteriorating development effected more strongly trade unions in the manufacturing industry than in the public sector and in transport, among other things because the manufacturing industry is more strongly and directly exposed to international competition. Thus the setback of the trade unions and the political and ideological shift to the right have been more prevalent in the manufacturing industry than in any other part of the movement.

This disastrous continuation of a policy of social partnership, in a situation in which the economic and social basis for this partnership is fading away, is being pursued by most of the current European trade union bureaucracy – in particular the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). Thus, over the last years, we have seen growing activities in the form of consultations, negotiations, lobbying and so-called social dialogue between the social partners on the labour market. The result so far is a strengthened topdown development and the growth of a huge European bureaucracy in the trade union movement. A real trade union response, where unions organise and mobilise their strength, based on active rank and files and their ability to put power behind their demands, has not so far been a feature at the EU level, even though we have seen tendencies in this direction at the national level (France 1995, Italy 2002).

Everybody who has been involved in trade union struggle at the national level, knows that without the right to take action, there is not much to achieve at the negotiating table. This is the fundamental problem within the EU today. «Negotiations» at the EU level take place without the right to take industrial action. Thus, this process has so far given very little trade-off. Employers who know that their counter-parts have no way to put force behind their demands, are understandably not very accommodating at the negotiating table.   

«Negotiations» in this form were introduced in the EU constitution by the Maastricht Treaty and further developed in the Amsterdam Pact. It says that on relevant areas, the “social partners” should first be given the opportunity to negotiate. Should they agree, the Commission could transform the agreement into formal EU legislation (directives). Should they not agree, the Commission could propose a directive on its own initiative. So far, this process has produced three general directives – one on the right to maternity leave, one on part-time work and one on temporary work. They are all about minimum standards. The shipping, rail and road transport industries also have negotiated agreements on working hours, which have been turned into directives.

At company level, European Works Councils have become the bureaucratic answer. These councils of workers' representatives in transnational companies give the workers practically no real influence, although the bodies can be useful for information and trade union contacts. The councils give much less influence than the similar institutions which in the post-war period were developed in the Nordic countries and in Germany, but the workers' representatives have lost real influence in the companies in these countries also as market forces have gained ground.

The depressive results of these policies have been that the dominant part of the trade union movement has accepted a gradual reduction in welfare and working conditions. Through negotiations trade unions have gradually accepted an increasing flexibilisation of work. One important effect of this development has been the demoralisation of workers and a reduction in trade union membership, as the trade unions have not been able to protect the interests of their members. A fuelling of the growth of right wing populist parties is probably the most dangerous result of this trade union policy of indulgence.

Strategy
So what can the trade union movement do in order to confront the corporate Europe of today? The first thing is to realise that it has to be confronted. There are disagreements and contradictions on this position in the trade union movement today – at the national and local as well as at the international level. We will therefore have to build new alliances based on the best parts of the trade union movement. Even if there are many exceptions, these labour organisations are mainly to be found in the public sector, in transport, in some of the private service sectors, and in a number of local branches across the trade union movement.

One of the main struggles around which this alliance will have to be built, is the struggle against the ongoing corporate take-over of our public services. This means fighting against privatisation and competitive tendering, and to defend the achievements which were won through the welfare state. The corporate take-over of these parts of society represents exactly some of the most important means which today contribute to the shift of the balance of power between labour and capital in our societies.

Another important part of a progressive trade union strategy is to challenge the dominant thinking (ideology) of the trade union bureaucracy – the ideology of social pacts, or the peaceful cohabitation between labour and capital. We will have to have hard, but friendly internal discussions on this particular subject within the movement. These discussions should be based on the understanding that the policy of social partnership is not the result of conspirations or treachery, but the result of a specific historical development. We need new analyses, analyses which can explain to people how the historical compromise between labour and capital was realised and why it has broken down. People’s discontent with current developments has to be taken seriously, their anxiety and dissatisfaction should be politicised and channelled into trade union and political interest-based struggles for their working and living conditions. That is the only way to break away from the current trend where many of these people are being mobilised by right wing, populist parties.

We should focus on welfare and working conditions, on the brutalisation of work which is taking place as a growing part of the economy is exposed to market competition and workers’ influence over their working day and control of the work process are being reduced.

It is important to realise that this also has a lot to do with people’s self-confidence. Workers’ dignity is systematically being attacked – in the work places, in the media, in the general public debate and in the social and cultural climate of a society dominated by middle-class thinking and values. This can be changed only by reclaiming the notions of productive labour, class relationship and class identity. It cannot, however, be imposed upon the working class from outside, it has to be developed as a part of, and during, the social struggle.

Finally, we do have to build alliances with the new, global movement against neo-liberalism – for democracy, global justice and solidarity. This global movement of movements is currently more political radical and system-critical than the trade union and the labour movements, even though its knowledge of class relations is rather poor. The trade union movement needs the radicalism and the militancy of this popular movement in order to break with a future which is no longer there. If this alliance is developed constructively and correctly, the two movements could reinforce each other and bring the struggle to a higher level.

(Contribution at a seminar organised by Corporate Europe Observatory at the European Social Forum, Florenze, 8 November 2002 .)