The new management strategies being introduced in companies under labels
like "lean production" (team work, continuous improvement, new remuneration
systems, flexibilisation of work, subcontracting and outsourcing, increased
dependency of suppliers) result in rationalisation and attacks against
workers. The intensification of work makes people ill and leads to job
losses. These strategies are linked to efforts to win the hearts and the
minds of workers. Management tries to make workers co-operate voluntarily
in rationalisation and to gain control over them. These efforts are based
on claims that only by becoming more competitive than workers in other
companies and countries, can we secure our salaries, our employment and
our lives. The companies demand that society as a whole accepts these strategies
Rationalisation is taking place in a period of permanent and massive unemployment,
and leads to even more unemployment. Unemployed workers and people on social
security are considered a burden, they get poorer and poorer, and are pressurised
to accept any available job. Workers face growing competition and are forced
to accept the new ideology.
Rationalisation is a symptom of problems with exploiting capital, and these
have intensified since the end of the seventies. "If you want to discuss
employment and unemployment, you have to tackle global relationships of
money and capital" (E. Altvater).
The crisis developed in the seventies with cycles of growing unemployment.
Internationalisation of production and commercialisation which is facilitated
by electronic data processing/micro-electronics and accelerated by free
access to former east bloc countries.
Production investment decisions, and even government decisions regarding
social policies and finances, are increasingly called into question by
an uncontrolled speculative monetary global market. Deregulation and social
division becomes a project of capital forces.
Managers describe their situation as a "world-wide competitive war". Their
competition for maximum profit is an expression of the fact they are have
to maintain and multiply their capital. It they don't stand their ground
in this competitive struggle, they lose their capital and power.
This forced competition makes it impossible for employers to have consideration
for their local production sites. They decide to use their capital wherever
profits can be made. The interests of workers and job seekers in cities,
regions or countries where they want to live are not taken into consideration.
Forced competition aims to multiply capital for its owners. It forces all
people who have to sell their labour for a living, to compete with each
other. This trend is intensified by continuous and massive unemployment.
Employers use forced competition:
- to stimulate competition within plants, between groups and departments.
This is done by stimulating workers of the same company to attack
and blackmail each other and by playing them off against each other.
- managers of multinational companies also use forced competition to play
suppliers off against each other and to blackmail them. The suppliers
then pass the pressure on to the workers.
forced competition is also used as a way of blackmailing local, regional
and national governments. In this case the aim is to get subsidies and
If workers accept this forced competition imposed by employers and management
(as if competition were a natural fact), then it is not possible to strive
for "full employment". Neither is is it possible to defend "the own site"
(in the sense of the place where wage dependents live and in the sense
of their standard of living), nor can we struggle for an ecological, economical,
intelligent and humane production and distribution process that aims to
satisfy the needs of the people.
Trade unions adapted themselves in a disastrous way to this development.
Decades of social partnership and consensus led to the helplessness of
unions and their inability to cope with changed conditions. Their proposals
are based on a wrong analysis and must lead to wrong conclusions:
the competitiveness problems of employers cannot be attributed to the "wrong
policy" of the government (according to the IG- Metall). The hated "deregulation
orgy of the eighties" was not the cause of "the growing importance of international
financial transactions" (also IG-Metall), but a reaction. A trade union
policy that aims at national salvation, in "the defence of Germany", is
a completely hopeless reaction to pressure and strategies imposed by capital.
trade unions say "The government stands idly by while other countries ...
hermetically seal off their markets ... and now the Koreans are launching
themselves onto the world market", etc (according to the IGM), a worse
and more dangerous nationalism is propagated as a "way out". This ideology
links the hopes of union members to the defence of the profits of "German"
employers on the world market. Meanwhile, the source country of multinational
companies becomes more and more unclear. In addition, such a union strategy
opens up the possibility of getting rid of members in 'non-German' companies,
for example in Toyota, General Motors and Ford ...
is it true that "mismanagement" is the reason for national and global problems
of capital exploitation (according to IGM), although unions continuously
say so. Measured against their task -- maximising profits -- we can conclude
that most managers have done their job extremely well ...
does rationalisation mean that the workforce "overcame the tayloristic
division of labour" and "the decentralisation of labour". It also didn't
lead to more decision-making power with "more responsibility of employees
in matters of supply and demand of their labour and with a stronger involvement
of workers in the planning of the company." Some conclude on the basis
of this statement that "workers and works council members become more and
more co-managers" (DGB-board); thus they try to link employees to company
propaganda. There is an element of wishful thinking in that line: as if
"co-determination" were linked "automatically" to new rationalisation strategies
... They recognised long ago that this kind of co-determination -- "co-management"
-- consolidates the power of the employers. "Co-determination, the way
it is represented by the IG-Metall, accepts the political function of profit
and competitiveness", says Peter Hartz, VW board member responsible for
human resources, based on his experiences with the IGM.
Practical consequences of the wrong analysis for current union policy are:
The unions have to redefine their objectives. We can read this for example
in the first resolution of the IG-Metall congress in 1992: "It is evident
that capitalism in its current form ... cannot be a model for the future.
It is still ... indispensable that we develop a counter-force which promote
the interests of the people: social justice, equal opportunities and ecological
rejuvination. A "just world order" and "international solidarity" cannot
be demanded by a union which also wants to be a partner in the struggle
for the victory of the "German economy" on the world market.
Currently the concept of union counter-power (even the concept of a co-regulatory
power that facilitates equal competition opportunities for several sectors
and which can be understood positively in a capitalist sense) is renounced
in favour of the so-called "shaping power" (according to the DGB-boss).
But when national states give up their pretension to "shape" -- in the
sense of social regulation through anticyclical business and employment
policies -- in the context of the globalisation of the economy, then also
the union loses its function as a nationally recognised "shaping power".
power" is then reduced to a joint effort to improve the competitiveness
of employers and to secure profits. In the current world market context
this means that the union is only working towards its own destruction and
will be a burden for wage dependents.
slogan "the union as shaping power" is extremely important for the preparation
of the next step towards lean production: the factory divided up, the virtual
company, industrial production as a temporary project, organised like a
film production. It goes without saying that national collective agreements
are impossible here and unions are already abandoning them.
the factories this strategy of "joint shaping" has several consequences.
In the dual system of German workers' representation (union/works councils)
all responsibility is delegated to the works councils. According to law
they have to pursue peace in the company and strive for consensus. This
means they are forced to help maintain the "competitiveness" of the company,
as this is a part of management economic logic -- the slogan they use is
"defence of the own plant". This leads to agreements by company - instead
of collective agreements - that are often full of enormous concessions.
words: increased productivity by working during breaks, continuous improvement,
wage concessions (only some increases provided by the collective agreement
are implemented), salary loss as a result of a reduction of working hours
or new salary systems, standard maintenance work on Saturdays "in order
to facilitate investments", etc. Often the existing collective agreements
are undermined at the company level.
The result of all this is that union leaders give up the idea that the
union has to be an organisation representing the common interests of workers.
The number of union members is decreasing. On top of this members feel
discouraged because they are forced to consider the capitalist world order
as the only alternative; according to union leaders the only possible struggle
is a competitive war in which other wage dependents are the losers.
This leads to several challenges:
The need for unions was based on the fact that it was an organised coalition
of wage dependents struggling against competition among workers. According
to us solidarity is not only a principle, it is essential.
unions base their activities on competitive advantage. Therefore "workers
are trapped in a treadmill, in a race that we cannot win..., it means concessions
today and more concessions tomorrow" (Canadian Auto Workers). This leads
to a downward spiral in which more and more standards that were won through
a common and organised struggle, are being taken away.
want trade unions that don't accept competition, which is the guiding principle
of capital owners.
practical consequences for us:
We have to start a discussion with workers and unions about the background
of problems of competitiveness and we have to continuously expose the so-called
"logic of the own plant" as employers' propaganda against us.
We have to react to management blackmail by asking concessions in order
"to guarantee investments". We have to spread information as broadly as
possible about which investments are planned by management, their consequences,
and what concessions and in which plants management is trying to get.
We have to publicise how workers are played off against each other, when
possible in collaboration with our colleagues in other companies and countries.
We have to agree that we jointly refuse concessions and demand the support
of our unions.
For joint resistance against concessionary blackmail, we have to organise
public support as broadly as possible, because many people in cities and
countries are also affected by investment decisions.
In open conflicts about the introduction of "lean production" we have to
use the fact that employers need "jointness" to achieve their goals, as
well as the motivation and the engagement of workers. If we attack "lean
production" in a consistent and targeted way, and if we are able to mobilise
resistance, workers will realise much sooner that the permanent intensification
of labour and staff reduction are unbearable and worthless. We have to
give them courage, and we can do that by talking about positive examples
of resistance all over the world. This approach is exactly what unions
and companies generally don't do; their guiding principle is competitiveness.
We have to recognise again how important it is that affected workers develop
their own activities. We have to change the way we behave as "representatives",
especially as members of the works council. We have to openly confront
capital within the companies in an aggressive way.
We need to think about how to mobilise our colleagues for this struggle.
We have to reflect especially about how to involve younger colleagues.
We also have to make sure that the demands are not exclusively concentrated
on immediate wage demands.
In doing so we have to change the unions into organisations representing
the interests of all people who have to sell their labour force in order
to survive. This is all the more important now that the number of workers
with "normal" employment is falling.
practice this means, for example:
we have to involve as many groups and people as possible in trade union
demands and activities, also groups from outside the companies -- "An injury
to one is an injury to all". The other way around we have to feel involved
in emancipatory social movements: we must introduce those experiences in
debates within companies and trade unions. Movements outside the workplace
and outside the unions have a special importance since they can stimulate
ideas about working and living in a common social movement.
outsourcing, subcontracting and the new rigid relationships between suppliers
and their workers and the manufacturing firms, prove that the principle
of sector trade unions has to be questioned. Demanding a unified trade
union -- in the sense of a political and organisational strengthening of
the DGB -- will in any case lead to fundamental and difficult conflicts
within the unions.
at the same time we will have to tackle the problem of the the bureaucratisation
of trade union work.
How do trade union members, for example, evaluate the daily work of works
council members? Often they are considered as an extension of the human
resource department instead of the organisers of trade union resistance.
Works council members hold their positions for years and years. They have
financial and labour privileges (exemption, office jobs, seminars and trips,
conscious of being a representative and a specialist, etc). Furthermore
the distance between them and the daily experiences of workers is growing.
Their attitude towards life and their life-style are very remote from most
of their colleagues. Is it not true that workers don't consider them as
one of their own group any more?
This is also true when we make a critical analysis of trade union bureaucracy.
During the early post-war years, the union leadership reneged on the political
debate about alternatives to capitalism and concentrated on lessening the
pain caused by market economics. This development coincided with a "legal
incapacitation of the lay members" (Oskar Negt). Many officials in the
higher levels had their successes with their bargaining power. The members
were patronised more and more and had to react to the strike whistle. The
content and the concessionary lines adopted did not result from discussions
with the shopfloor or of their combat-readiness, but were decided on the
basis of capitalist feasibility. "We don't mobilise in order to enforce
our demands, but in order to facilitate a compromise that supports what
we consider just and justified (H.J. Arlt, DGB- board)". "This means a
lack of democracy among the members which we still face today" (O. Negt).
the official committees relations are ritualised... Suppressed conflicts
which are not settled are examples of successful communication. When conflicts
arise, loyalty and betrayal are the value standards used by the opponents...
threats, moralising and correction determine the climate." (H.J. Arlt)
(How far do people go out of fear of losing their function, how often does
forced "loyalty" exist already in works councils and shop stewards committees?!)
officials show by their life-style that they think they belong to this
system and not to the opposition". (O. Negt). These union leaders, often
on the company and local level, imitate the life-style of politicians,
bankers and managers. This attitude is the result of the ideology of co-determination
and is often based on feelings of inferiority. The consequence is "a kind
of narrow-mindedness that was also enforced in the unions."
the fall of Franz Steinkühler an isolated case? We don't have to be
surprised about the fact that he had no consciousness about injustice.
Neither do we have to be astonished by the efforts of many high trade union
officials to save his function in the name of "union solidarity".
we now demand a higher level of co-determination by union members and a
more systematic approach to it, aiming at the development of a culture
of struggle and more democratic control by the shopfloor, this will most
probably lead to a grim defence by those who want to secure their jobs,
their power and their life-style.
have to support progressive social, ecological and political movements
as an opportunity to strengthen the trade union movement.
We have to use all possibilities to create networks in companies, sectors
and with the workers of suppliers, networks that go beyond the individual
unions - locally, regionally and internationally. We have to use these
networks to exchange experiences and to organise joint actions.
The future of the unions is international. A union strategy can only respond
to changed economic conditions if is not based on national or regional
(European) protection of the economy of employers.
practice this means:
We have to take systematic steps to stimulate an international union merger,
a global trade union movement. This has to be an effort of internationalism
of the shopfloor. For example:
by giving broad information about trade union struggles in other countries
and by supporting these with solidarity actions;
by exchanging information and ideas. We have to involve as many members
as possible and try to come to an agreement about common demands and actions;
"think globally, act locally" has to be our principle, as well as the reverse,
act globally for common interests so we can have local results.
The visible and global threats of massive unemployment, social pauperisation,
war and ecological disaster force us to stimulate a broad debate with our
unions and colleagues about social alternatives to the capitalist market
economy. This debate has to a substantial part of our networks.
* * * * * * * * * *
for a debate on perspectives:
are the contradictions between socialized production and private ownership
most obvious and where can we use these to our own advantage. Can the next
step in the global distribution of production process help to satisfy everyone`s
needs? We would have to redefine the term "growth"; maybe as ecologically
sound, globally emancipatory, in favour of the brood masses and in favour
of a secure global future....
can such a system be envisaged on the basis of present global networking
in the fields of technology, production and distibution?
role would the metropolitan regions, local councils and federal states
could capitalists and their political representatives be dispossessed and
deprived of power on a global scale ?
kind of democratic structures would be possible for a global society once
rid of capitalist constraints?
what extent should we members of the labour movement support global reform
groups (i.e.: peace, ecological, anti-racist and anti-sexist groups) ?
What is the position of non-government organisations such as ILO, UNO organisations
etc? And where are their limitations?
global (or even macro-regional) social state, i.e. also a project of a
global reform movement, are as utopian as the world revolution" (E. Altvater).
But on the other E. Altvater also says: "The institutionalisation of the
global state has already taken place to a certain extent in the form of
the World Bank, IWF, GATT/WTO, UNO.... but without really taking away national
state governmental powers." And: "Also at the Detroit Summit of the G 7
in March 1994 unemployment and employment policies were discussed for the
first time, - a sign that beyond of Keynesianism but also beyond of neo-classical
Market Liberalism a new political project enabling the state to regulate
and to coordinate economic competition is emerging. This is obviously aimed
to retaining a basic area of agreement in employment policy in which all
states are interested, despite fierce economic competition.“
is characteristic for the kind of contradictory hope in this "new political
project" called global regulation which seems to be spreading at present
(cf. also J.Brecher/T. Costello: Global Village or global Pillage, Boston
1994). There will be more hope for a positive perspective, however, if
we confront ourselves with the principle questions concerning the kind
of economy and society we really want. And we will come closer to finding
solutions the more people take their daily lives and our communal (global)
future into their own hands. At the end of the day this depends on us!.