Ten days that struck Denmark (a little)
Lean Production: A Capitalist Utopia?
• £4/$5/35FF. Cheque payable to P. Rousset, lIRE, Postbus 53290, 1007 Amsterdam, Netherlands
Large parts of the private sector struck for ten days at the beginning of the month, demanding a sixth week of paid vacation, and other benefits. In doing so, they rejected the latest cosy deal between employers and trade union leaders. There was surprisingly little reaction when the Social Democratic government imposed a proemployer settlement on May 6th. But the strike has contributed enormously to the regeneration of the working class movement. Jørgen Arbo-Bahr The conflict was unusual, given the organised and stable class collaboration that social democrats and the trade unions have developed over the last 100 years.
With 75-80% of the workforce unionised, the Danish Trade Union Confederation (LO) has enough strength to secure decent pay and working conditions for most workers through nation-wide Agreements with the employers organisations. This effectively limits strikes to the short period every second year preceding the re-negotiation of the general agreement for each industry. Since almost all other strikes are in defiance of these agreements, the trade unions refuse to support them.
The trade union leadership has tried to zoid conflict at almost any cost. Since the
1985 general strike, they have succeeded in steering through each re-negotiation and obtaining general agreements without conflicts. This is partly due to the pacification of the working class after 1985, particularly through mass unemployment, which rose steadily after 1985 and only began to fall again in 1994.
This strike was particularly unusual because, for the first time since 1956, workers rejected an agreement approved and recommended to them by the trade union leaders.
Declining unemployment since 1994 has meant an increased self-confidence and will to fight in the working class. Workers show wider awareness of the existence of common demands, particurecent years. In 1997, shareholders of the largest Danish companies received 18% in returns on their shares. The value of shares rose from 500 to 776 billion kroner. (US$115bn.) in 1997. This increase in wealth for the owners of capital was as large as the entire amount spent on wages for the industrial, transport, trade and construction sectors during 1997. A traditional "No!" campaign...
In the months before the vote on this year's accord, the "No!" campaign was not especially larger or different than in previous years. It was organised by the left wing of the trade union movement, particularly the 30 to 40 local unions that coordinate most opposition to the leadership.
This particular "No!" campaign was dominated by members of construction unions: the General Workers Union, the Timber Industry and Construction Workers Union (TIB) and the Metal Workers Union. The 55,000-member TIB is tradilarly concerning the redistribution of
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION labour time through longer holidays and shorter working hours. A growing number of Danish workers see this as the best way to benefit the employed and unemployed.
No-one is forgetting that Danish employers have made record profits during
Tony Smith
* Denmark tionally a "Yes!" federation.
This positive addition to the "No!" coalition was balanced by the switch to the "Yes!" camp of the traditionally progressive 25,000-member Graphical Workers Union and the 30,000-member Restaurant and Brewery Workers Union.
Perhaps more than in previous years, the campaign was influenced by representatives from the local unions, rather than shop-stewards from the major workplaces. This reflects the continued influence of militants from the old Danish Communist Party (DKP) in the union movement. Although the DKP has disintegrated, its former members are still the largest current to the left of the social democrats within the trade unions.
With male workers in their 50s comprising 90% of campaign activists, the campaign seemed in many ways very "traditional." ...with unexpected success
The final rejection of the accord by a majority of workers, even in industrial and transport sectors, where the left is weak, testifies to a split between the members of the largest federations and their leaders. Presidents of the 53,000-member Women Workers Union, the 123,000-member Metalworkers Union, and the 208.000member Unskilled Workers' Union had massively recommended a "Yes!" vote. About 60% of their members said "No!"
In other words, the vote reflected a genuine rank-and-file revolt, rather than an expression of left-wing strength in the
The size and impact of the strike should not be exaggerated. It only involved 20% of the country's 2.5 million workers. While it closed down much of industry, transport and construction, it did not involve public-sector or retail workers.
While the conflict bit hard into employers' profits, it hardly touched the everyday life of the general population. Public transportation kept functioning, and the shops remained open.
Restricting the strike in this manner was part of a deliberate attempt to maintain broad public support. But the invisibility" of the strike made it harder to build enthusiasm and activity among the strikers. This contributed to the failure to put sufficient pressure on employers to reach an agreement, and the inability to prevent the government from intervening. Inside the strike movement
Once the strike started, social democratic labour leaders - many of whom had recommended acceptance of the Agreement - tried to gain an important place in the leadership and dominate protest activities. They did so by declaring that they respected the democratic right of their members to vote down the Agreement, and promising to now work for a
They succeeded in taking over the leadership because - especially outside the capital, Copenhagen - no realistic alterna8 International Viewpoint #301 tive was posed. Very few unions succeeded in actively involving a majority of their members in the strike. After all, even the activist layer has had little experiences of active struggle in the 13 years of "industrial peace"
But the success of the social democrats in regaining the initiative also reflects the solid support for this new alliance by the ex-CP current that provided so many leaders of the "No!" campaign.
The result of all this was that the real leadership of the strikers' movement and protest activities was the self-appointed coordination committee in Copenhagen and the local LO branches in the provinces. It also meant that at no time was there room for shop stewards from the larger workplaces in the leadership of the movement.
This was reflected in the central activities during the strike. Before the government intervention on May 6, calls were issued for two "days of action" with demonstrations in the largest cities. Speakers lists at the April 28 and May 5 demonstrations were dominated by representatives from LO and union federations that had been recommending acceptance of the Agreement!
In Copenhagen, the central perspective of the co-ordination committee was to maintain organisational and political cooperation between the social democratic leadership of the labour movement and more progressive union leaders.
This was also expressed in the formulation of strikers' demands. Although it was obvious that an overwhelming majority of members wanted to stick to the demand for a sixth week of paid annual holiday, union leaders announced that the priority was "starting" the sixth week. Throughout the dispute, the co-ordination committee shitted ambiguously between these two formulations. Positive long-term results
Nevertheless, the dispute has given many strikers some positive experiences ot using the strength of the private sector trade union movement. It has brought some concrete benefits in a number of industries where the trade union movement is weak, with many unorganised workers and many others labouring under conditions worse than those accorded in the general agreements. In these sectors, effective and militant blockades were organised during the strike, which meant that many employers were forced to sign agreements to hire only union labour from now on.
For many youth, this was the first time they saw the labour movement as a means to obtaining gains, and a tool in the struggle for social justice and progress. This opens up the opportunity to renew the union leadership, which is dominated by the generation of (formerly) active leaders from the 1973-1985 period.
On May 6 the government introduced legislation to end the strike. Although the entire labour movement -from the national trade union leadership to the co-ordination committee of the recent private sector strike- was against state intervention in the strike, only a minority wanted to carry on centralised action against the governGovernment intervention
Social Democratic Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen said parliament must intervene in the conflict because chaos was threatening Danish society. "This was simply not true," observes Red-Green Alliance MP Søren Søndergaard.* "The strikers had taken all the necessary steps to maintain essential services for the
"Employers, however, were certainly hit hard by the strike. Even some major foreign companies, like the Swedish car maker Saab, had to stop production because of the strike in Denmark. At the same time, the strike created increasingly greater support among the population for the demand of six weeks holiday. The employers were loosing - economically and politically."
The deal agreed between the Social Democrats' minority government and the opposition Liberal and Conservative parties gave workers one extra day holiday, and two parental leave days for those with children under 14. Starting next year there will be three such "family days.
The conflict started with two central demands: a sixth week of paid annual vacation, and a greater contribution to holiday, social security and health insurance benefits from the employers. On both points, the government intervention meant the employers had it their way.
The imposed deal was "cost-neutral" for employers, Rasmussen assured parliament. In other words, it cost exactly the same to employers as their original offer. This was because the deal reduced planned increases in employers' pension contributions, and scrapped plans for a new sickness benefit tax on employers. The plan adds 4.5% to total wages, the same as the employers' and union bosses' original proposal.
While employers are relieved, most workers have been angered by the deal. The extra vacation will be paid at lower than ordinary pay, and those without children under 12 will not benefit from the "family days."
Seasonal workers, and those who change workplaces often (like construc ton, hotel and restaurant workers) will not get any extra holidays at all. The extra vacation day is restricted to those who have nine months continuous employment, and the "family days" only go to those with six months continuous employment.
In global terms, most of the strikers will not see any improvement in their conditions, and a large minority will be worse off than under the agreement they voted The left response
The only parliamentary parties to vote against the deal were the left social democratic Socialist People's Party (SF) and the Left-socialist Red-Green Alliance. These
two groups won 10% of votes in parliamentary elections in March (see April issue of International Viewpoint).
The Red-Green Alliance considers the government intervention a clear attack on democracy. Danish workers expect a system in which trade unions negotiate the collective bargaining agreement, which workers must approve through voting, and with the right to use strikes to reinforce bargaining tactics.
Unfortunately, the SF said they would be ready to support any "socially acceptable" state intervention to end the strike. By taking responsibility for "society's economy," the reformist SF effectively accepts that the right to make profits and the right of the capitalists to produce are more important than the right to strike.
The government intervention was met with anger at all levels of the workers' movement. Trade unions accused the social democratic government of working for the benefit of the employers. They argued that the intervention was an attack on collective trade union rights. Many called the intervention "scandalous" and experiences of struggle must be accumulated before the understanding necessary for a national organising of shop stewards on a rank-and-file-level emerges.
The coming months will see local negotiations in many workplaces. Many workers will say that "we will take back what the government gave to the employers". If salary and vacation demands are expressed in a collective framework, there is real potential to build links between workplaces.
There is also an organisational and political basis for creating local co-ordination of shop stewards, including representatives from the larger workplaces and progressive unions, to co-ordinate support for strikers, and prepare struggles around the next round of collective agreement
Hopefully, the lessons will be learned in time for the 1999 negotiations for new general agreements for public sector, agricultural and other workers not covered by
Bad news for Brussels
The Danish and European bourgeoisie rightly fears that the goverment intervention increases the likelihood of a "No? vote in Denmark's May 28 referendum on the European Union's Amsterdam Treaty.
On May 7, Germany's main conservative newspaper the Süddeutsche Zeitung. praised the Danish Prime Minister for putting an end to this struggle," but warned that "it could happen that frustrated union members will now repay their Europe-friendly Prime Minister and try to turn the vote against the EU Agreement." "Let's hope they succeed," comments Søndergaard. "Some times it's worth just saying "No'!"
Whatever happens on May 28, this 10day conflict has undoubtedly deeply affected the Danish class struggle. The big strikes in 1985 were the culmination of a 10-year rise in the class struggle. AprilMay 1998 is only the beginning of a new
"a disgrace"