biggest dutch trade union federation disbands, aims to become more confrontational

[Sasha]

Potentially promising developments: http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/biggest-union-federation-be-overhauled

[Comrade Gwydion]

More confrontational? I hope so. Didn't seem that way though. People were enraged when it was suggested that perhaps Klijnsma, frontfighter fór the raise of the legal retirementage, wasn't the best candidate.

:(

[Revolutionair]

Confrontational union, PvdA will guide us! :laugh:

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah, the Pvda's (labour) leader said he hoped for a stronger trade union--it's already co-opted!

But trade unionism from the bottom-up sounds pretty progressive don't it? I've always detested the FNV for its top-down bureaucratic collaboration bullshit, so this would definitely be a step in the right direction.

[Sasha]

Confrontational union, PvdA will guide us! :laugh:

to be fair this is a win for the SP grassroots organizers vs the PVDA "only in it to become part of the oldboys network" federation boardmembers using it as a stepping stone for politician positions (and after that board member at banks or accountancy firms).
sure its only a win for protectionist traditional social-democracy but thats still the far lesser evil....

and ofcourse its still remains to be seen whether the "more attention for precarious workers" means a further attack on collective agreements or really an attempt to modernize syndicalism based on the lessons learned after the cleaners strike (http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/best-strike-action-award-dutch-cleaners, http://www2.iisg.nl/esshc/programme.asp?selyear=12&pap=9763)

[Ravachol]

I'm not very optimistic about this restructuring, after all 'giving members a greater say', what the hell is that even supposed to mean. The very fact that they get a 'greater say' as opposed to the 'small say' they have now is telling enough about the FNV's class-collaborationist bureaucracy.

"Building from the bottom up" can mean a lot of things and it most certainly isn't the same as base-unionism, let alone revolutionary syndicalism :laugh:
What it most likely means in this case is that they will split the union into a more sectorial approach (which is always a bad thing for those striving for class-unity, even those who still cling on to the nonsense of reforming the trade unions) and offer some token voting moments.

Keep in mind that one of the 'scouts' for this process who advised this reformation was Herman Wijfels (form banker, director of the social-economic council and representative of the worldbank). Most likely the union bureaucracy and their state and employer allies hope to diffuse dissent within the union, offer some bullshit tokens of 'influence by individual members' and hope to strengthen the bargaining position of the FNV and in turn it's control over the workforce in order to guarantee industrial stability in the face of a deepending crisis.

According to their own website, the goals of this development are:


Het faciliteren van de oprichting van de nieuwe vakorganisatie.
Het beslechten van domeindiscussies tussen de bonden.
Het investeren in mensen en middelen in (nieuwe) sectoren en beroepsgroepen.
Het formuleren van een agenda voor het centrale niveau, lokaal, nationaal en internationaal.
De bevoegdheid om op centraal niveau afspraken te maken met betrekking tot sectoroverschrijdende belangen.


Which doesn't sound a lot like the approach to a more combative trade union but more like a turn towards centrally-guided sectorialism.



De mogelijkheid wordt gecreëerd om rechtstreeks lid te worden van de nieuwe vakbeweging. Organisatieprincipe is 'bouwen van onderop'. Vakorganisaties zijn autonoom maar opereren binnen een verbindende structuur van de nieuwe vakvereniging.


What they probably mean with 'building from below' is that every union associated with the federation gets to decide matters internally and then have an elected official in the federation council, but the essential union bureaucracy doesn't get dismantled in this fashion at all, 'from below' in this case refers to the relation between the unions associated with the federation and the federation itself.

Call me a pessimist but I won't be surprised if during the coming period of austerity measures/strike responses the 'newly rejuvenated' FNV will carry on as it always does, perhaps offering some initial support only to diffuse the social tension later on (as happened during the cleaners' strikes).

[Q]

Many details are still unclear to me. Will the current 19 unions of the federation merge to become one? Or will it just be a rehashing of the federation's setup? Linked to this: Why is bosses representative Wientjes positive about this development and urging for it to move on as quickly as possible?

Either way, what it does do is to open a window to wage a debate on what we need to union for and how it should be organised. I'm sure the bureaucrats want to model the new union in their interests, but this is something we can and must oppose, where we argue for more democracy, election of all officials (something which only happens on paper right now), fulltimers on normal workers wages and term limits of all officials.

I personally would favor the FNV to become a single union, thereby overcoming its sectional nature for an important part and become a much heavier political factor in society for this reason as such a new union would deal with all of society. Of course this wouldn't make it into a party though, as unions are, in the last analysis, primary defense organisations of our class.

[u.s.red]

I have a question about international "relations" between unions.

Several European companies, e.g., BMW, have factories in the U.S. and use non-union labor. The factories are usually in the U.S. south where education is reactionary and labor unions are demonized.

What is the position of the European unions on this issue? Why don't European unions demand that BMW use only union labor? I know U.S. unions are very nationalistic. Marx addressed this problem in the "Inaugural Address of the International Working Men's Association" in 1864:

"Past experience has shown how disregard of that bond of brotherhood which ought to exist between the workmen of different countries, and incite them to stand firmly by each other in all their struggles for emancipation, will be chastised by the common discomfiture of their incoherent efforts. This thought prompted the workingmen of different countries assembled on September 28, 1864, in public meeting at St. Martin’s Hall, to found the International Association."

Is it even possible for workers to form international unions or associations any more? I know there are associations which call themselves "international" , but
are there really any international unions in the Marxist sense?

[u.s.red]

I personally would favor the FNV to become a single union, thereby overcoming its sectional nature for an important part and become a much heavier political factor in society for this reason as such a new union would deal with all of society. Of course this wouldn't make it into a party though, as unions are, in the last analysis, primary defense organisations of our class.


Would you agree that the new union should contact worker's in other countries and ask for their participation and membership?

[Q]

Would you agree that the new union should contact worker's in other countries and ask for their participation and membership?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking whether the union should approach migrant workers, working in the Netherlands? Yes, of course and this is already happening.

If you're asking whether, for example, German workers working in Germany should join this new formation, I don't see the logic of that as this formation is going to be one working in the Netherlands.

If you're wondering if I would be in favor of a tight all-European union: Yes, totally.

[u.s.red]

I think the Netherlands union should approach all union everywhere and ask them to participate and join an international union based in, maybe, Amsterdam. Dont workers work in an international capitalist system and not just in one country?

[Ravachol]

Either way, what it does do is to open a window to wage a debate on what we need to union for and how it should be organised. I'm sure the bureaucrats want to model the new union in their interests, but this is something we can and must oppose, where we argue for more democracy, election of all officials (something which only happens on paper right now), fulltimers on normal workers wages and term limits of all officials.

I personally would favor the FNV to become a single union, thereby overcoming its sectional nature for an important part and become a much heavier political factor in society for this reason as such a new union would deal with all of society. Of course this wouldn't make it into a party though, as unions are, in the last analysis, primary defense organisations of our class.

First of all, why reproduce the bourgeois model of parliamentary 'democracy' inside the unions? (apart from the inherent reformist nature of normal trade-unionism and it's haggeling over the price of labour)

Full-time paid officials have a class position substantially different from workers, they are bureaucrats whose very survival and reproduction depends on the continued existence of the union and it's political relevance in the framework of the wage-relation. When such a union becomes more militant and refuses to negotiate with the bosses (or the bosses refuse to negotiate with it), their livelihood is at stake. Nevermind when a situation develops where the very existence of wage-labour and the negotiation process with the bosses disappears, ie. a revolutionary situation. They will consciously and unconsciously work against such a situation as a result of their material interest, that's what bureaucrats do.

Attempts to reform the structure of the FNV are at best well-meant futile efforts and more often than not leftist power-politics which burn out militants with no results. Even if it would be possible to restructure the unions into militant self-organisations of the class, such a process would take far more time and effort than consolidating the organs that emerge organically during periods of 'high tide' in the struggle. It's the desire for mass-revolutionary politics in times in which the material conditions do not yet allow for it that gets many militants caught in that trap. Better to inspire a general combative workers' praxis, both within and outside the union, and promote all nuclei of militant, independent workers' self-organisation, however small it may be, then to focus on fighting the futile fight, even if we ignore trade-unionism's inherent reformist flaws.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why don't the Socialist Party-aligned unions all unite under the World Federation of Trade Unions instead of the International Trade Union Confederation?

[Sasha]

The dear leader of the SP recently said they only keep the name socialist party because its an established brand but consider the word socialist tainted.
They are soc-dems through and through.

[Crux]

The dear leader of the SP recently said they only keep the name socialist party because its an established brand but consider the word socialist tainted.
They are soc-dems through and through.
What would comrade Mao say? :laugh:

[Sasha]

Mao has been sent packing ages ago, although their up and coming boy wonder in the amsterdam council did list Marx as his favorite writer in several media.

[Enragé]

Psycho, where do you get 'aims to be more confrontational' from?



Full-time paid officials have a class position substantially different from workers, they are bureaucrats whose very survival and reproduction depends on the continued existence of the union and it's political relevance in the framework of the wage-relation. When such a union becomes more militant and refuses to negotiate with the bosses (or the bosses refuse to negotiate with it), their livelihood is at stake. Nevermind when a situation develops where the very existence of wage-labour and the negotiation process with the bosses disappears, ie. a revolutionary situation. They will consciously and unconsciously work against such a situation as a result of their material interest, that's what bureaucrats do.


I get what you are saying.

But isnt there the countervailing tendency, as well, that union officials are paid out of the dues paid by members, therefore their survival depends on the members? They are in a way, the workers' employee.
Ofcourse the strength of this tendency depends on the concrete situation, but i have the feeling you are a bit one-sided in this.

Q;

I personally would favor the FNV to become a single union, thereby overcoming its sectional nature for an important part and become a much heavier political factor in society for this reason as such a new union would deal with all of society. Of course this wouldn't make it into a party though, as unions are, in the last analysis, primary defense organisations of our class.

Again, i get what you are saying, but 'one big union' would make it alot harder (if not impossible) for localised groups of radicals to do their own thing, thereby proving the validity of what they are telling the union should do (e.g cleaners).

die neue zeit;

Why don't the Socialist Party-aligned unions all unite under the World Federation of Trade Unions instead of the International Trade Union Confederation?

There is no such thing as Socialist Party-aligned unions. What you have is the biggest union dominated by PvdA (labour), although lately SP people have gotten more influence cuz PvdA outright sucks, and a smaller union which is 'christian'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My broader point is that the World Federation of Trade Unions should re-establish a presence in Europe, and that the Dutch situation presents an opportunity.

[Le Socialiste]

Until it fleshes out what exactly qualifies as "confrontational" I'll be holding my applause. I am intrigued by its insistence that the union be organized and run from the ground up, though. If it provides new ways for the union to be run by the rank-and-file, great. It's a step forward in that respect.

[Enragé]

a friend of mine in the union says this is a very sneaky coup by Labour party.