Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Strife over Labor in the German Left

by DoDo Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 08:01:31 AM EST

The two top stories in Germany over the past few days were the locomotive drivers' strike and proposed improvements to jobless benefits.

But on neither issue is the Left united: the first is controversial among unions, the second within the Party of German Social Democrats (SPD).


Locomotive drivers face problems like increasing work-hours and less flexible free-time, unpaid overtime, and limited wages. With radical demands for improving the situation, the German Locomotive drivers' Union (German acronym GDL) called a strike last Thursday (SPIEGEL story with photos). As they achieved the cancellation of about half of local trains, management sat down for talks about a separate and exclusive wage agreement.

Herein lies a problem: it's not just locomotive drivers who have it bad, and by going it alone, GDL abandons the wider solidarity community. Thus GDL didn't only got a bad media coverage, but was publicly attacked by other big trade unions. On the other hand, GDL thinks competition between trade unions was already going on, at their expense (e.g management recognised their rivals who agreed to much less).

Furthermore, would GDL fail in the end, the damage would extend to other unions, too. Management currently tries to wear out its opponent in the talks, and force it into bickering over details.


Meanwhile, labor minister Franz Müntefering (SPD), is refusing to talk about extended jobless benefit payment periods -- advocated by his own party. Note that "Münte" created an image of a leftie within the party, say with the famous "locusts" speech, though (as I told) in reality he was a loyal soldier of third-wayist Schröder. As shown by the current case: he is explicitely defending the previous governments' 'reforms'.

Today, after talks with his own party boss Kurt Beck (above on right, bearded), Münte at least promised to accept the improvements if the party leadership votes so. Meanwhile, chancellor Merkel declared that any modification must be cost-neutral. (SPIEGEL story with photo)

Display:
Someone call a strike for me! I had two hours unpaid overtime each day last week...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 08:04:14 AM EST
Meanwhile the French SNCF is striking over Sarkozy's public sector pension reform plan. I'm blaming Sarkozy, not the Unions. Good old-fashioned solidarity.

So I'll be in Paris on Thursday afternoon and all of Friday. Does anyone know of any good anti-Sarko demonstrations to attend?

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 08:26:41 AM EST
Between the first and second sentences I missed the bit about "so the Paris-Irún leg of my trip got cancelled"...

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 01:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why the rise of the Left Party has cast the Social Democrats into a gloom

Why is a small party founded by east German former communists causing national ructions? One reason is that the economic upswing has left so many Germans behind. Unemployment is at its lowest level since the early 1990s, thanks partly to the reforms that Mr Beck now wants to roll back. But many of the new jobs offer lower pay and less security than those lost during the downturn, notes Markus Grabka of DIW, a research institute in Berlin. Relative poverty has jumped, with 17% of Germans earning less than 60% of the median in 2005, up from 12% in 1999. Income-tax cuts have helped the rich; the middle class has shrunk.

On these matters the Left Party is saying what most Germans seem to be thinking. According to one recent poll, 82% of Germans want to lower the retirement age from 67 (reversing another reform), two-thirds want a minimum wage and 72% think the grand coalition should do more to promote social justice. Half want German troops out of Afghanistan, but the Left Party is the only one that unqualifiedly agrees. Unlike the Greens and the Free Democrats, it has no reason to flirt with either party in the grand coalition (the SPD refuses to consider it as a potential partner at federal level). It likes to claim it is Germany's only real opposition party.

But reform is good.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 09:26:02 AM EST
a small party founded by east German former communists

That's only valid for one of its two origins...

many of the new jobs offer lower pay and less security

...while that of old jobs is constrained and benefits are reduced. And The Economist consistently uses nondefinite qualifiers, where it could have used recently much talked-about statistics about average real wage.

notes Markus Grabka of DIW

I found this quote by The Economist noteworthy. Though no radicals in any way, as far as I know DIW is a centre-left-leaning (ex-Keynesian) research institute (maybe François a Paris would call them a think-tank), and was recently excluded from the circle of institutes the government asks about projections of economic growth.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 09:40:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a good chunk of the article that describes (reasonably fairly, I thought, but maybe I'm just misinformed) the origins of the Linkspartei from the merger of the old PDS and the Lafontaine group.

Even with the qualifiers, the Economist hardly paints a positive economic situation, and clearly flags what happens when you reform - lower wages, inequality and rising poverty. I found that newsworthy (I originally intended to do a FP post with that paragraph, but as you posted this story, I added it here).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 10:31:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep, towards the second half, there is a reasonably good description, but they still go into it through more spin on ex-communists:

The Left Party is the third incarnation of East Germany's Socialist Unity Party...

It was a bust-up within the SPD that gave the Left Party its purchase in the west.

It is indeed newsworthy that The Economist gives out so much about a negative post-reform picture. But they will never go too far, and I just noted that. More in the theme: first, I suspect the picture itself comes from DIW rather than the journalist looking up data on his won. Second, towards the end:

the Left Party ... could be hurt by a more populist SPD, by greater prosperity (incomes have picked up during the revival of the past two years)

Maybe brutto and running prices. But netto real wages decreased, and netto real available income per inhabitant (AFAIK the best measure of how much people can spend) is stagnant.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 12:10:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's funny: everytime the SPD rules, a new party emerges on the left and grabs its voters.

/not historically accurate

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 12:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the past two weeks, most pollsters see the Left Party at 11% (SPD-close Forsa sees them at 13%), leading the trio of smaller parties since the summer. SPD is below 30% (strangely lowest just in Forsa's poll: 24%).

When summing the parties in parliament on the left and right (imaginary as long as no one wants to coalition with the Left Party), the saituation is about dead-even.

All polls at Wahlrecht.de

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 09:51:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just literally minutes before I openened this post, I finished signing an online petition distributed by the US International Brotherhood of Teamsters in support of their members employed in the rail sector to limit "limbo time."  The text of that petition:

Tell Congress: Limbo Rules Are Unfair and Unsafe

Rail workers' time should be their own, but the rail corporations don't see it that way.

Many engineers and trainmen are forced to sit in limbo for up to eight hours at a stretch without pay. Even after working 12-hour shifts, they cannot sleep. They cannot read. They must sit in their trains and remain vigilant, waiting to be relieved. After 20 hours on the job, they only get eight off, before being asked to pilot tons of commodities and dangerous chemicals through American cities and towns.

These needless hours increase train crew fatigue, and fatigue is the leading cause of railway accidents.

H.R. 2095, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007, would limit limbo time by amending the laws that govern the amount of time railroad operating crews can work.

This important bill is scheduled to be voted on by the House of Representatives Wednesday, but the White House is opposing the legislation. The Bush administration's so-called "statement of administration policy" shows once again that the White House cares more about corporate bottom lines than individual rights and public safety.

Increasingly these things seem to be transnational, that is to say that the same issues are confronting workers in industrial sectors across national boundaries.  I think that there's an argument that neoliberal elites have been able to create international norms, because they are organized and hold political power. It seems to me it's about damn time the Left work to do the same creating international norms that protect worker's rights and the environment.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 12:36:40 PM EST
That's horrible! Here, the 12-hour time limit for locomotive drivers (including idle and travel time) is still an iron rule (not the least because it is a safety rule).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 12:53:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It gets worse. Camp cars.



And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 01:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bad for Western standards, but you should have seen the railwaymens' hotel I stayed in last week...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 01:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As I was reading, I got contrarian thoughts although I know nothing of the details.

What if the strike is controversial among unions because the union heads are playing politics and refused to cooperate with GDL?  GDL already feels left out.

(What if) any strike would get bad media coverage because the media is neoliberal?

What if GDL fails?  The other unions are free to keep trying separately, as they do now, calling GDL an outcast.  But if GDL wins a better contract, the others will try harder to match it and "management" will be weakened.

(As to Beck and Munte, the photo makes me want to slap both of them with some reality.)

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 02:13:21 PM EST
(What if) any strike would get bad media coverage because the media is neoliberal?

That I took as a given. The questions for "SMS polls" (which aren't really polls as we know) have a rather clear bias -- say, "should management remain steadfast?" is a more moderate one...

What if GDL fails?

My fear is:

  1. other managements will get bolder in wage conflicts;
  2. the media will declare the end of the relevance of trade unions;
  3. a majority of public opinion will follow suit.

It's not damage that can't be undone, but it would hurt.

If on the other hand GDL wins a better contract, I'll be happy for the above not happening, what's more trade unions may even gain respect, however: not much follows for other trade unions. Locomotive drivers hold critical jobs, other professions stopping work can't cause such widespread effect.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 04:33:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Locomotive drivers hold critical jobs, other professions stopping work can't cause such widespread effect.

Two words: General strike. The power of labour unions is ultimately contingent upon their ability to simply shut down an entire country for about a month. Naturally, no general strike will be permitted to actually last a month, but there is a sharp upper limit to how frequently and how heavy-handedly politicians can interfere in the organisation of labour without losing legitimacy. A limit that most politicians are fully aware of.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 06:39:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Has there ever been a general strike in the US?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 07:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the US, sympathy strikes are illegal. In other words, people are not allowed to strike for reasons unrelated to their own contracts of employment. I think the Taft-Hartley Act (1947) makes a General Strike illegal.

The last time there was a general strike in the US was in 1934, but the US has never had a strike affecting the whole country. The 1934 strikes were localised.

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 07:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I see that the UAW trained you well ;)

Taft Hartley prohibits a secondary boycott, which is to say that the reason we you're going on strike can only be economic not political.  

You can't for example go on strike to protest the government, that's illegal under Taft Hartley.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 09:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It wasn't the UAW, it was mostly chats with my office mate Toby. We were both in CASE-UAW, of course, he quickly took on the union representation in our department and I believe he ended up being a Steward for the Union. I was in the Graduate Student Government. Together we ruled the campus. Well, no. But we did have the professors in our department scared shitless. And I was a supporting witness in a dispute he had with the Campus Labour Relations.

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 at 05:00:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I knew that labour unions had been nerfed de jure stateside, but it never occurred to me that they had been nerfed quite that badly... I guess I'm going to have to add another thing to the checklist of provisions that I want in a European constitution: The right of labour to organize and engage in labour conflicts - including but not limited to strikes and blockades - shall not be infringed.

(I must admit that neither did I imagine that such a ban would be constitutional under the US constitution - I fondly imagined that such a ban would violate the right to peaceable assembly.)

But trying to get back on topic (kind of), surely the Germans have not hamstrung their labour unions that way?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 at 05:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This has nothing to do with the right to peaceful assembly. It has to do with the right to fire an employee for breach of contract.

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 at 05:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, ok, that makes more sense. I though that the law was against strikes. From what you write it's a lack of a law protecting employees from being fired as a result. Subtle difference. My bad.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 at 01:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am pointing out thet "the right to peacefully assemble" is not the same as "the right to strike" (you need to assemble to plan a strike and to picket or demonstrate, but striking can just mean not showing up for work and that bears no relationship whatever to peaceful assembly) and that "illegally striking" might be a breach of contract and grounds for termination. Also, picketing might be construed as trespassing, etc.

There are lots of ways to get you if they want to.

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 17th, 2007 at 01:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]