Dutch court forbids dutch public transport strike

[Enragé]

The strikes, organised by the FNV union, were aimed to shut down all public transport (except trains) during morning rush hour in three big cities (incl. amsterdam). This was in response to government plans to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. The judge went along with the public transport companies' reasoning that it was a political strike, would cause much 'harm to the public', and was 'premature' since 'other options had not been exhausted'.

A 65 minute strike across the country between 11.55 and 13.00 tomorrow is still set to go on, under claims of the government the union 'went to the means of strike too fast'. Which is rather ridiculous because the union bureaucracy is if anything wavering. Only because the membership would lose any faith in them were they not to act even now, is something happening. In a number of cities there will also be manifestations.

-

On a broader note; the court forbidding the strike (public transport used to be in government hands) shows here a good reason why government would want to privatise companies. Political strikes can be deflected, claiming that the people who 'suffer' (company owners) are not the ones against whom the strike is directed (the government)

[An archist]

They can forbid strikes in the Netherlands? What the hell?

[FSL]

Strikes are ruled out illegal here too all the time, probably the majority of them.

Apparently, wanting a decent salary is considered "excessive demands" and "damaging to the public" by judges.

[Q]

They can forbid strikes in the Netherlands? What the hell?
It happens when the union starts accepting the state as "impartial".

[Comrade Gwydion]

I hope there will be many 'naughty' busdrivers ignoring the ban.

[Uncle Ho]

If the union movement had any spine left, they'd not only go on strike, but form lines around the bus station to shutdown traffic and prevent scabs from going to work, preferably with force.

[Q]

The Netherlands soooo needs a red union :(

The FNV is completely bankrupt. In the Netherlands we have a socalled "Social Economic Council" (SER) in which the unions (three federations: FNV, CNV and MHP), bosses organisations (VNO-NCW, MKB and LTO) and the government have a seat. Half a year ago they got the task of coming up with an alternative against raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. The catch of course was that every party in the SER had to agree for such an alternative, thus it was doomed from the start because bosses and government want to raise it, the unions (and most vocably the FNV) did not. The deadline was on 1 October and it was a failure, the biggest one on the side of the FNV and unions in general as they believed to achieve a deal until the very end...

What the SER effectively achieved was to split the front of the unions. The christian CNV federation gave in and accepted a retirement raise months ago. MHP I'm not sure of. But this isolated the FNV very much.

Now, the "65 minute" action for today was on the agenda for a long time, as somewhat of a failsafe. But there was exactly zero organisation before the deadline on 1 October and only in the last week have there been some ad hoc mobilisation... These union leaders are going to put the pressure on in the government? Yeah right.

So yes, we need a red union to the model of the IWW. No reliance on the state! No formal "discussion structures" with the bosses! Death to the "poldermodel"! Down with bureaucrats in the FNV and even more treacherous CNV!

[Comrade Gwydion]

@Q

Well then, what's going to be the strategy? Entryism or building a new one from the base? ;)

[Outinleftfield]

How can they ban strikes?

In a strike workers refuse to work. So doesn't that mean that banning strikes is forcing people to work i.e. slavery?

I know this is about the Netherlands but here in America where slavery is unconstitutional you'd think this would keep any strikes from being banned. Why hasn't someone went to the Supreme Court with this argument?

[Q]

@Q

Well then, what's going to be the strategy? Entryism or building a new one from the base? ;)
That is a very good question. I think it is inevitable to work inside the FNV for now for the simple reason that there is no alternative. However, to effectively organise the leftwing of that (centered around "Vecht voor je Recht"), it needs to drop its reformist demands (read their newsletters here, where they give out those demands at the end of each one (http://www.fnvvechtvoorjerecht.nl/informatie/)) and organise around more clear revolutionary demands. Furthermore it needs to give up any illusions into "pressurising" the union bureaucrats into moving to the left and instead organise an alternative structure inside the unions, for example like the English NSSN (http://www.shopstewards.net/), kinda like the IWW-structure (http://www.iww.org/culture/official/obu/index.shtml) as a "shell" inside the FNV. This has then the potential to organise a huge layer of people.

But this also will inevitably cause conflicts. Once you start this process of refusing to acknowledge the authority of the bureaucrats, you have two options: either you kick out the bureaucrats or you split away and setup a new union. While in theory it is possibly to "coup" a union, I think it is much easier and more efficient to just start a new union once some critical mass has been achieved.

[Bitter Ashes]

The rules on legal strikes are very tough here in the UK too, probably tougher.

- Firstly the union has to be recognised by the employer which is a massive ordeal in itself and very very easy to block.
- Secondly the strike must be in direct response to working conditions that the employer is responsible for. Political strikes and solidarity actions are illegal.
- Thirdly, there is a tonne of rules and regulations about pickets and ways for employers to get a court to ban them. If you continue to picket afterwards then you and/or the union can be found in contempt of court. Stuff like picketing outside of anywhere but the workplace you work at is illegal
- A ballot is always required and the ballot papers must contain a very specific phrase that says something like "You may be sacked for taking part in a strike", even though it's false. Unions are forbidden to correct this phrase.
- The strike must only be called by somebody in the union with "proper authority"
- Several weeks notice must be given to the employer so they can arrange scabs.
- Certain workers are totaly forbidden to strike like the Police.
- The strike cannot be related to any illegal undustrial action. e.g. You cant have a wildcat strike, the employer sacks the employees and then have a legal strike to protest it.

Break any of these rules and the strike is deemed to be illegal. The unions are told to condemn the strikes or suffer fines of up to £250k. Individual members of the public can apply for an injunction to prevent them recieving goods or services from that buisness too. If they refuse to pay, then the money is sequestered. Employees lose any legal protection for striking and can be legaly sacked for taking part. Also, pickets can be moved by the police and failing to move is deemed a criminal offence and can result in arrest, imprisonment and a criminal record that you have to declare to every place you look for a job afterwards.

So, folks. That's how you "ban" a strike. You judge it to be illegal and threaten the union and its members with collosal economic sanctions and sometimes even a criminal record for going ahead against the court's ruling.

Thank you very much Margaret Thatcher! :(

[Q]

Wow, that is amazing. Why hasn't there been there been an outcry by the masses and an effective campaign against such extreme police state measures? I mean, I always got the impression the militancy in the UK working class is quite high.

[Bitter Ashes]

Wow, that is amazing. Why hasn't there been there been an outcry by the masses and an effective campaign against such extreme police state measures? I mean, I always got the impression the militancy in the UK working class is quite high.
Actualy, by the looks of things, the militancy in the Netherlands is much much higher. Most workers in the UK have become apathetic, with only something like 10% in unions now. France, Spain and the USA are the West's militant places.

The unions would have made a lot of noise, but I think more people were worried about Thatcher's poll tax at the time.

[Omi]

If the militancy of Dutch workers is much higher than in the UK, you guys are in deep fucking trouble...:blink:

[Niccolò Rossi]

In response to the OP; Recently we have seen similar events in Sydney with Bus Drivers' in Sydney's West carrying out illegal, wildcat strike action, outside and against the unions, over the issue of timetable reform. If the transport workers' currently struggling in the Netherlands are to have any hope of winning a victory (in an immediate sense), it must provide both a reference point and a lesson for them. Namely, the need for workers' to take the struggle into their own hands (outside and against the unions) and more than this, to generalise and spread the struggle.

Here (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/09/sydney-bus-drivers-strike) is an article I wrote on the struggle last month.


The Netherlands soooo needs a red union

[...]

we need a red union to the model of the IWW

The same red unions that have been reduced to historical re-enactment societies?

The same red unions that, were they have any real and meaningful existance as unions are no different from their yellow counterparts?

The same IWW that has a membership of less than a few thousand internationally?

The same IWW that, in the US, has signed no strike clauses in the shops it unionises?

[Q]

In response to the OP; Recently we have seen similar events in Sydney with Bus Drivers' in Sydney's West carrying out illegal, wildcat strike action, outside and against the unions, over the issue of timetable reform. If the transport workers' currently struggling in the Netherlands are to have any hope of winning a victory (in an immediate sense), it must provide both a reference point and a lesson for them. Namely, the need for workers' to take the struggle into their own hands (outside and against the unions) and more than this, to generalise and spread the struggle.

Here (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/09/sydney-bus-drivers-strike) is an article I wrote on the struggle last month.
Indeed, this must be the focus of our propaganda right now.




The same red unions that have been reduced to historical re-enactment societies?

The same red unions that, were they have any real and meaningful existance as unions are no different from their yellow counterparts?

The same IWW that has a membership of less than a few thousand internationally?

The same IWW that, in the US, has signed no strike clauses in the shops it unionises?
Don't understand me wrong, I share your critiques. I don't think that a red union by itself is going to have an impact in the long term in the sense of moving workers to socialism, but a red union is a "school of communism" as the phrase goes because union members are pro-actively busy with their own fates, as opposed to a yellow union where the members pay dues to pay for a professional layer to solve the problems for them. I think the adding ingredient here is the need of a revolutionary party as a point of reference.

[cyu]

If the union movement had any spine left, they'd not only go on strike, but form lines around the bus station to shutdown traffic and prevent scabs from going to work, preferably with force.

If they had any spine left, they would still go to work, but instead of handing over the fares to the higher-ups at the end of the day, decide democratically among themselves how to split the money.

[cyu]

That's how you "ban" a strike. You judge it to be illegal and threaten the union and its members with collosal economic sanctions


I see strikes as civil disobedience anyway, regardless of whether pro-capitalists call it "illegal" or not. I'd even say democratic takeovers of your workplace are still civil disobedience, even when you use weapons for self-defense.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It happens when the union starts accepting the state as "impartial".


The Netherlands soooo needs a red union :(

The FNV is completely bankrupt. In the Netherlands we have a socalled "Social Economic Council" (SER) in which the unions (three federations: FNV, CNV and MHP), bosses organisations (VNO-NCW, MKB and LTO) and the government have a seat.

[...]

So yes, we need a red union to the model of the IWW. No reliance on the state! No formal "discussion structures" with the bosses! Death to the "poldermodel"! Down with bureaucrats in the FNV and even more treacherous CNV!

So what about my "legal service" proposal, then? :confused:


Actualy, by the looks of things, the militancy in the Netherlands is much much higher. Most workers in the UK have become apathetic, with only something like 10% in unions now. France, Spain and the USA are the West's militant places.

The unions would have made a lot of noise, but I think more people were worried about Thatcher's poll tax at the time.

That's what I said about the USA, indeed. In spite of lower union membership and the lack of a labour party, the seeds of worker discontent are much stronger in the US than in the UK. I don't expect socialist revolution to start in the UK at all, despite the vocal arrogance of left groups that head international fan clubs from that country.

In fact, I'd like to see the breakup of that country and an EU encirclement of Euroskeptic England (after an independent Scotland decides wisely to still be part of the EU along with a 32-county Ireland).

[Q]

So what about my "legal service" proposal, then? :confused:
It's a stupid idea really :)


That's what I said about the USA, indeed. In spite of lower union membership and the lack of a labour party, the seeds of worker discontent are much stronger in the US than in the UK. I don't expect socialist revolution to start in the UK at all, despite the vocal arrogance of left groups that head international fan clubs from that country.

In fact, I'd like the breakup of that country and an EU encirclement of Euroskeptic England (after an independent Scotland decides wisely to still be part of the EU along with a 32-county Ireland).
Breakup of the country? I think that is a step in the wrong direction. As communists we should favor the greatest possible unity of the working class. The national question regarding Scotland is very much opportunistically inflated by capitalist politicians added on an unfair distribution of the wealth in the UK. But given the existing consciousness I think we should adopt the old formula of fighting for self-determination of the Scottish people on the exploiter side of the border (English) while fighting for unity on the exploited (Scottish) side of the border.

But this shouldn't be new to you ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's a stupid idea really :)

How so, besides more elaborate comments made about the bias of the state?


Breakup of the country? I think that is a step in the wrong direction. As communists we should favor the greatest possible unity of the working class. The national question regarding Scotland is very much opportunistically inflated by capitalist politicians added on an unfair distribution of the wealth in the UK. But given the existing consciousness I think we should adopt the old formula of fighting for self-determination of the Scottish people on the exploiter side of the border (English) while fighting for unity on the exploited (Scottish) side of the border.

But this shouldn't be new to you ;)

Yeah, Lenin the Russian and Luxemburg the Polish citizen all over again! :D

My perspective is more or less based on two conditions: that the breakup doesn't lead to states outside the EU (perhaps besides stubborn England), and that there is no Balkanization going on (unlike the states of the former Yugoslavia in the EU).

The immediate re-entry into the EU by Scotland would signal that nationalist visions of socialism and even social democracy (per recent correspondence) are bankrupt.

[Q]

How so, besides more elaborate comments made about the bias of the state?
Because it gives the capitalist state more power than it already has, which is stupid.


Yeah, Lenin the Russian and Luxemburg the Polish citizen all over again! :D

My perspective is more or less based on two conditions: that the breakup doesn't lead to states outside the EU (perhaps besides stubborn England), and that there is no Balkanization going on (unlike the states of the former Yugoslavia in the EU).

The immediate re-entry into the EU by Scotland would signal that nationalist visions of socialism and even social democracy (per recent correspondence) are bankrupt.
Isn't that taking a detour though? Why not simply oppose the break-up from a Scottish point of view and argue for a socialist republic of the UK and Ireland (and eventually Europe and World)? Your approach only hightens nationalist ideas on the Scottish side, which is a bad idea.

[Devrim]

Actualy, by the looks of things, the militancy in the Netherlands is much much higher. Most workers in the UK have become apathetic, with only something like 10% in unions now. France, Spain and the USA are the West's militant places.


That's what I said about the USA, indeed. In spite of lower union membership and the lack of a labour party, the seeds of worker discontent are much stronger in the US than in the UK. I don't expect socialist revolution to start in the UK at all, despite the vocal arrogance of left groups that head international fan clubs from that country.

I think that this is a complete misreading of the situation. Yes, the level of class struggle in the UK today is much lower than it was in the 70s and 80s, but it is starting to show an increase upon the terrible years of the 90s, which is something that we believe is an international tendency.

The US, however, has an extremely low level of struggle compared to the UK. Opening today's Guardian and New York Times gives us an example. The lead story on the Guardian concerns a potential strike. The only mention of the word strike on the NYT refers to a bomb blast. The UK is seeing a slow return to working class militancy. Varios strikes including two rounds of wildcat construction strikes, tube strikes and postal strikes confirm this. The developments in the US are unfortunately slower.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just because the US media doesn't report things (which they're notorious for, in favour of overrated crime bits and celebrity news) doesn't mean that it's there. Also, just because the UK media reports things doesn't mean something is overrated.


Isn't that taking a detour though? Why not simply oppose the break-up from a Scottish point of view and argue for a socialist republic of the UK and Ireland (and eventually Europe and World)? Your approach only hightens nationalist ideas on the Scottish side, which is a bad idea.

I forgot to add a third condition, perhaps embedded in the Balkanization: we are facing the direct breakup of an imperialist power, as opposed to any ordinary nation-state.

[Devrim]

Just because the US media doesn't report things (which they're notorious for, in favour of overrated crime bits and celebrity news) doesn't mean that it's there. Also, just because the UK media reports things doesn't mean something is overrated.

Today's newspapers were only cited as an example. Our organisation has sections in both the US and the UK, and talking to the comrades also gives a clear view of the relative strength of the class in both countries.

To be honest, I think that the situation is so clear that I am surprised it is even a topic of discussion.

Devrim

[Q]

I forgot to add a third condition, perhaps embedded in the Balkanization: we are facing the direct breakup of an imperialist power, as opposed to any ordinary nation-state.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

We should have more discussion on political positions regarding the direct breakup of imperialist powers, when they are good and when they are bad for workers. Factors to take into consideration include: military aggression, extent of subordination to one's own finance capital, and cultural superstructure (secular Calvinism more prominent in the UK and US than elsewhere).

[noway]

outcry??? workers dont care about their fate

[Enragé]

some more info about this:

according to the union approx. 30.000 people participated in various actions and strikes last wednesday. I was present at actions in amsterdam. First we went with the cleaners' from schiphol airport, train stations etc* to the headquarters of the dutch equivalent of the Labour Party in amsterdam. This labour party has been shifting to the right in the last 30 years, and now is part of the government (with the christians and the even-more-christian-christians) trying to raise the pension age.

We were greeted by a party bureaucrat inviting us in, giving us shit to eat and drink, and reassuring us that the labour party is ofcourse on the side of those who labour. This was underlined by the old election posters of the party on the wall in the office, of days long gone were they still employed a quite hard leftist rhetoric, and the statue of a guy who called for revolution in 1918 in the corner. The cleaners werent really impressed, a mood which was enhanced by the party bureaucrat not being 'able to give any guarantees' but saying that the labour party would ofcourse 'consider all options'. As one of the cleaners noted 'That we get this bread now is nice, but, i want bread as well when im old'.**

After this there was a manifestation on a square, where a number of union representatives spoke. Though not having started mobilising, until 6 days before when employers walked out on negotiations, the union top bureaucrat present ofcourse did not neglect to point to the task of all those present to put in the work to spread the opposition to the raising of the pension age. This is a recurrent theme from union bureaucrats, never do they think of blaming themselves of failures or lack of strenght in a day of action (this is always due to people 'just not showing up'), or of the demoralising effect of their constant pandering with the bosses and their being glued to the negotiation table since 1983. Ofcourse, the opposite applies when people do come out in force, then it is all their handy-work.

---

*this industry was organised by hired employees of the trade union. They are trying the same in other industries were the union isnt so strong. These organisers are for a part left radicals (even revolutionaries). The cleaners have undertaken some of the most radical actions in recent years in the netherlands, including the occupation of the offices of cleaning companies at schiphol, so gaining important victories and boosting their confidence.


**Some here might, in an instinctive reflex, condemn marching on the local headquarter's of a party who has been shifting to the right for 30 years and is basicly on par with the british labour party (i.e, policy-wise and ideology-wise, they can in no way be called leftist). This ofcourse would be done under the claim that it would put people's trust where it does not belong, and continue the false idea that that party is there for them.

On this i have 3 remarks:

1. I do not think any of the cleaners actually trusted the labour party, and i doubt they trust them more after.

2. The fact remains the cleaners chose to march on the labour party headquarters. For revolutionaries to stay clear of these kinds of actions would be to concede to an impractical purism, making any struggling alongside our class an impossibility untill the moment of revolution.

3. For reformist demagogues and those rightists-disguised-as-leftists to be unmasked, there has to exist on the one hand the alternatives to this cesspool, and on the other the active component of the working class unmasking them. Simply proclaiming them to be already unmasked does not make it so in the eyes of the masses. To go there, to that headquarters in person, not asking but demanding for them to take a certain standpoint on the basis of their proclaimed base of society (as a cleaner put it 'isnt the labour party the party for those who labour?'), and then ofcourse seeing them fail in doing just that - no pamflet or newspaper can ever accomplish this experience.