S. Zetor
2nd January 2009, 13:51
The Finnish Metalworkers Union (MWU) decided some time ago, that the membership gets to vote on whether the MWU is abolished, and all its resources and members become part of a massive industrial union, TEAM.
MWU has 165.000 members, and it would make up half of TEAM's membership (330 000). Other unions that are thinking of merging are Chemical Workers Union, Railroad Workers Union, Communications Union, Electricians Union, and Wood and Special Trades Workers Union.
It's extraordinary that the MWU is organising a membership vote. The last time this was done was in 1990, when the membership got to vote on whether to accept the collective agreement that the leadership had negotiated. The agreement was rejected, but the leadership signed it nevertheless, and now it's been nearly 20 years without membership vote on issues like this. According to union rules, a membership vote is the primary means to decide whether to accept a deal, but the social democrats (SD) who are in the majority won't allow it.. it would be too likely to break the national front of labour and capital..
Another reason is that only the MWU and the Chemical Workers are doing ok financially; the rest cannot cover their expenses with their membership fees. Now I don't know whether their problems are due to undestandable and acceptable reasons (and thus some solidarity would be in order), or whether they've made too "ambitious" investments into buildings or free-time facilities etc. Who knows. But at least it explains why these four small unions have stayed on board, unlike the Construction Workers and the Paper Workers, who are doing fine on their own, and have dropped out of the merger project.
But now there's a vote in the MWU (and in the CWU, too). As I found out on a Metal Workers Youth seminar, the reason is not a newfound respect for democracy, but because to abolish the MWU you need 3/4 majority. The SDs don't have that big a majority, so the membership vote is their only chance to appeal to the opposition (the left-wing SDs and communists) to vote for abolition.
In the TEAM proposal, the time between congresses would be lenghtened from 4 to 5 years, and the number of representatives elected would remain roughly the same (around 600) even when the membership will double, i.e. representation is cut to a half.
It seems clear from the proposal that the reason behind the merger is, on the one hand, to strenghten centralisation (because that's been taking place on the capitalist side too) and, on the other, to prepare better for taking more things to be agreed on to the shop floor (instead of having it set in collective agreements).
Localising some the negotiations means worse terms for the workers in question, because at present there's no reason why some workers couldn't agree on better terms with their employer even now. Downward flexibility is what is looked for here.
Bureaucratic centralisation, where the membership gets to vote only every five years on congress reps, and not on collective agreements (raises included), makes it easier for the SD leadership to sell the industrial peace of more workers to the capitalists.
In an unofficial vote on the MWU website, 87% of voters (of whom there were ~700) said no, and I think it will be rejected in the actual vote this February, too. I hope it will, because it will not improve membership democracy one bit.
It's good that they organise the vote, never mind that the reasons for it aren't too good. It is the only way to decide issues like this.
MWU has 165.000 members, and it would make up half of TEAM's membership (330 000). Other unions that are thinking of merging are Chemical Workers Union, Railroad Workers Union, Communications Union, Electricians Union, and Wood and Special Trades Workers Union.
It's extraordinary that the MWU is organising a membership vote. The last time this was done was in 1990, when the membership got to vote on whether to accept the collective agreement that the leadership had negotiated. The agreement was rejected, but the leadership signed it nevertheless, and now it's been nearly 20 years without membership vote on issues like this. According to union rules, a membership vote is the primary means to decide whether to accept a deal, but the social democrats (SD) who are in the majority won't allow it.. it would be too likely to break the national front of labour and capital..
Another reason is that only the MWU and the Chemical Workers are doing ok financially; the rest cannot cover their expenses with their membership fees. Now I don't know whether their problems are due to undestandable and acceptable reasons (and thus some solidarity would be in order), or whether they've made too "ambitious" investments into buildings or free-time facilities etc. Who knows. But at least it explains why these four small unions have stayed on board, unlike the Construction Workers and the Paper Workers, who are doing fine on their own, and have dropped out of the merger project.
But now there's a vote in the MWU (and in the CWU, too). As I found out on a Metal Workers Youth seminar, the reason is not a newfound respect for democracy, but because to abolish the MWU you need 3/4 majority. The SDs don't have that big a majority, so the membership vote is their only chance to appeal to the opposition (the left-wing SDs and communists) to vote for abolition.
In the TEAM proposal, the time between congresses would be lenghtened from 4 to 5 years, and the number of representatives elected would remain roughly the same (around 600) even when the membership will double, i.e. representation is cut to a half.
It seems clear from the proposal that the reason behind the merger is, on the one hand, to strenghten centralisation (because that's been taking place on the capitalist side too) and, on the other, to prepare better for taking more things to be agreed on to the shop floor (instead of having it set in collective agreements).
Localising some the negotiations means worse terms for the workers in question, because at present there's no reason why some workers couldn't agree on better terms with their employer even now. Downward flexibility is what is looked for here.
Bureaucratic centralisation, where the membership gets to vote only every five years on congress reps, and not on collective agreements (raises included), makes it easier for the SD leadership to sell the industrial peace of more workers to the capitalists.
In an unofficial vote on the MWU website, 87% of voters (of whom there were ~700) said no, and I think it will be rejected in the actual vote this February, too. I hope it will, because it will not improve membership democracy one bit.
It's good that they organise the vote, never mind that the reasons for it aren't too good. It is the only way to decide issues like this.