Slowing the treadmill for a good life for All? German trade union narratives and social-ecological transformation

The treadmill and “the good life:” common sense and the structuring of the unsustainable everyday

The insights of Antonio Gramsci provide a key to understanding how the “treadmill of production” (Schnaiberg, 1980) system is upheld despite increasingly visible environmental destruction and social contradictions, especially in the wake of neoliberal flexibilisation in the 1980s (Eversberg, 2019). Gramsci’s work, turning away from Marxist orthodoxy, helps to understand not only the material basis but also a cultural aspect to hegemony, which allows for better understanding of the continued support for the treadmill (Snir, 2016). ¹ Hegemony arises from the manufactured, active consent of people via the ideology of “common sense” and the state-civil society nexus (Burawoy, 2012: 192; Gramsci, 2011). The ideology of common sense, “the spontaneous philosophy of the multitude which has to be made ideologically coherent", normalises and justifies historically unique and socially created power relations, oppression, and ways of living, as the “law of nature” (Crehan, 2011: 284, 276). Common sense is not necessarily expressed as an explicitly held belief system, “but may be in the form of implicit, self-evident consent” (Snir, 2016: 4). It is through quotidian, everyday practices that the capitalist logic comes to be naturalised, as it “provides a heterogeneous bundle of taken-for-granted understandings of how the world is that make up the basic landscape within which individuals are socialized and chart their individual life courses” (Crehan, 2011, 287). According to Gramscian analysis, the coalition of actors in the state-civil society nexus, including trade unions, constitute a “historic bloc”, which supports and reinforces the ideology of common sense (Burawoy, 2012: 192). The historic bloc in the service of the treadmill has been called the “growth coalition” (Schnaiberg, 1980: 205). As long as the coalition and the ideology of common sense are intact, hegemony persists (Bond et al., 2020).

Agreement amongst the historic bloc/growth coalition has helped to elevate the benefits of the treadmill system to societal common sense (Gould et al., 2004). Schnaiberg (1980) explains that labour, state and business have had different reasons for supporting the treadmill.

“For capital, two major concerns are: (1) ensuring that expanded production will in fact be consumed by labor; and (2) ensuring that sufficient profits will result to protect the enterprise from competitors and permit future expansion. For labor, the concerns include: (1) the increased availability of jobs and wage income; and (2) an improvement in life conditions, including both consumer comforts and qualitative shifts in their social environment (better schools, health services, recreational facilities). For the state, production expansion implies: (1) an increased flow of revenues from the private sector (capital and labor taxes); and (2) an increased ability to satisfy the demands of both constituencies for economic and social programs.” (Schnaiberg, 1980: 211)

The common sense of the treadmill on behalf of the growth coalition has been built on 1) the cultivation and valorisation of consumer desire for an ever-increasing array of goods, promoting overconsumption as TGL; 2) the glorification of productivity and work; and 3) the side-lining or negation of the environmental and social contradictions of the treadmill.

Common-sense narratives of TGL as consumption have stabilised the treadmill while the consumption habits and modes of living of the Global North (and the elites in the Global South), have justified the treadmill system globally. This holds true not only for the wealthy, but includes average, globally affluent citizens (Wiedmann et al., 2020). Brand and Wissen (2012, 2021) conceptualise this as the “imperial mode of living” (IML), a narrative of TGL based on material affluence, dependent on the exploitation of humans, non-human animals, and natural resources, notably in the Global South (Brand and Wissen, 2012). Labour and trade unions have supported the common sense of consumption as TGL, in many cases protecting the treadmill against transformative sections within their own ranks as well as environmental movements (Schnaiberg, 1980: 203). Gould et al. (2004) and Schnaiberg (1980) criticise narrow, individual, consumption-focused solutions to the environmental crises, which do not challenge the treadmill. Challenging the treadmill will require non-elites to take direct or indirect political action as workers and citizens – not consumers (Gould et al., 2004: 303). Crucially, however, for this to be possible, a new positive shared vision of TGL beyond overconsumption – a “solidary mode of living” (Brand and Wissen, 2021) – is necessary (Kreinin, 2021). Therefore, rather than individualising responsibility for unsustainable consumption patterns, the question is rather how modes of living could be altered through societal imaginaries.

The common-sense narrative of TGL as consumption is coupled with the narrative of praising work (Komlosy, 2018: 33). The work process is the mediating link between society and the economy and the driver of the treadmill (Obach, 2004). The effects of work are ecologically damaging – average working hours have a strong positive correlation with carbon emissions, especially in manufacturing and industry (Fitzgerald et al., 2018; Hoffmann and Paulsen, 2020). This suggests the need to consider what type and quantity of work are necessary to promote human and environmental welfare: a consideration missing in the original treadmill theory (Hoffmann and Paulsen, 2020). The current unequal organisation of work in society (paid and unpaid) is harmful to societal and individual welfare – this makes the re-evaluation of societal organisation of work a question of liberation (Graeber, 2018; Hoffmann and Paulsen, 2020).

During the rise of environmental movements, the German unions sided with business and state, “praising work”, fighting for the “right to work” as the right to a good life of consumption, and bolstering workers’ purchasing power “to encourage rampant consumerism” (Komlosy, 2018: 33). This orientation, based also on the social partnership system in Germany, separated unions from, and placed them in opposition to, the more radical student and environmental movements of the 1970s. These movements argued for “overcoming work” and “transforming work” as societal goals, sufficiency rather than overconsumption, communal struggles rather than individualisation, and the reduction of working hours as an alternative to the treadmill (Komlosy, 2018: 33). Interestingly, this was in line with previous conceptions of TGL – facing challenges communally, reinstating the importance of community and life beyond work – that workers’ movements fought for at the start of the 20^th century (Eversberg, 2019; Schneidewind and Zahrnt, 2014). The narrative of praising work thus helps normalise the treadmill system while hiding the social and environmental devastation inherent in the current forms of organising work.

The short-term material welfare of workers in the current system is entrenched with the aims of the treadmill, as many “working men and women across the planet find themselves in conditions of servitude at work” (White, 2019: 198). A strong union movement was key in fighting for improved living standards and a bigger share of the treadmill’s profit for workers in the post-war era. Since Schnaiberg (1980) first elaborated on the theory, the global hold of the treadmill has increased exponentially (Gould et al., 2004). Worker interests, on the other hand, have been displaced and marginalised due to (threats of) offshoring, the highly energy-and-materials-intensive replacement of human labour with technology, and the decline of the trade union movement due to assaults by capital and the state in the service of capital (Eversberg, 2019; Gould et al., 2004). The declining position of organised labour in the treadmill has overwhelmed unions with short-term crises and direct material challenges to workers’ welfare, making it difficult to focus on long-term crises and to politicise the environmental crises (Kreinin, 2021). Another complication for union environmentalism has been societally accepted narratives of climate delay. After initially denying the effects of the treadmill on the environment, actors in the growth coalition have supported different narratives of climate delay (Lamb et al., 2020) in the so-called “sustainable development historic bloc” (Bond et al., 2020: 3). Trade unions in Germany have also propagated the idea that green growth and technological fixes would be enough to stop the environmental crises, while keeping jobs and the material interests of the workers safe (Kalt, 2021).

These difficulties mean that unions have followed different approaches to dealing with the multiple crises of society. Some have sided with business and the common sense of the treadmill against the environment, others have tried to compromise and support technological-fix solutions without addressing the treadmill, to avoid conflict, and a few have challenged the environmental crises head-on and opted for a social movement framing that sees workers as citizens with wider societal responsibilities (Hampton, 2015; Kreinin, 2020, 2021).

Slowing the treadmill: The role of labour in the social-ecological transformation

While organised labour has been a key treadmill actor, labour’s role in the treadmill is more complex. Labour is its “weakest link”, offering the greatest possibility for redirecting the treadmill of production. The question is whether organised labour is capable of challenging it and how this may be brought about (Obach, 2004: 338).

According to Räthzel and Uzzel (2011), a union’s environmental orientation is influenced by outside institutional conditions, its membership heterogeneity/homogeneity, union identities and histories, as well as the sectors in which they operate. Unions’ power in taking up environmental concerns has been dependent on their capacity to resolve conflicts between the different groups of workers they organise (Jahn, 1988). Some homogeneous unions in high-impact sectors have avoided conflict in the short term by adhering to the common sense of the treadmill, narrowly focusing on aligning the interests of their members with economic goals and neglecting the long-term challenge of the environmental crises. Heterogeneous unions have found it more difficult to avoid the conflict of the environmental crises as they try to balance the concerns of environmentally aware members with members expecting higher income and consumption from their unions (Jahn, 1988). This is reflected in the case study at hand: the more homogeneous IG BCE has focused on economising the environmental crises, while ver.di, with a more heterogeneous membership divided on the issue, has had to contend with environmental questions and finding a balance. They have done so by promoting the narrative of environmental action while side-lining change to avoid internal political clashes (Prinz and Pegels, 2018). Industrial unions have been more likely to focus on technological-fix narratives, while unions with a history of political involvement have been more likely to use social movement framings (Räthzel and Uzzell, 2011). Accordingly, the more society-oriented IG Metall and ver.di have taken social movement framings, e.g. with IG Metall organising marches for the social-ecological transition, and the more market-oriented IG BCE has focused on technological and infrastructure improvements in their environmental discourses (Prinz and Pegels, 2018; Silvia, 2013).

Business-oriented unions in Hyman’s (2001) typology have, according to Hampton (2015), also borrowed the neoliberal pro-treadmill language of employers regarding the environment: competitiveness, employment, profitability, and carbon leakage. This is visible in the case of the market-oriented IG BCE, which has supported a jobs-first mentality and oriented its interest and narratives towards management– fighting for higher wages for already relatively secure members, excluding precarious temporary workers, focusing on deals with management, and clashing with environmental movements in the mining sector (Moss et al., 2015). IG BCE has weaponised the term “just transition” (Prinz and Pegels, 2018), using it to argue for workers’ continued high consumption rights in the sunset sectors, rather than environmental justice (Kalt, 2021). IG Metall, the market- and society-oriented union, has also often used the term to fight against job loss in the car sector due to the move to e-vehicles (IndustriAll, 2019; Prinz and Pegels, 2018). Like most union framings of a “just transition”, this is based on the technological fix framing, or fighting for a fairer, green treadmill, rather than challenging the treadmill in and of itself (Clarke and Lipsig-Mummé, 2020; Kreinin, 2020).

Few unions have taken a so-called class-/society- or social-ecological-transformation-oriented position on the environmental crises – the only position to challenge the treadmill and the causes of the environmental crises (Hampton, 2015; Kreinin, 2020, 2021; Räthzel and Uzzell, 2011; Stevis and Felli, 2015). Although ver.di, and to some extent IG Metall, can be considered a society-/class-focused union in Hyman’s (2001) typology, this has not directly translated into a society focus when it comes to the environment. IG Metall, the largest union in Germany, has achieved union renewal through “borrowing the rhetoric and techniques of social movement unionism from English-speaking countries”, and gaining members on the grassroots level, especially amongst young people (Silvia, 2013: 8). Nevertheless, this society focus has been more difficult to translate to environmental concerns, where the membership’s interests are more heterogeneous – leading to internal debate and clashes, as well as the need to keep the peace between different factions (Jahn, 1988; Prinz and Pegels, 2018). Like IG Metall, ver.di has also sought to extend its political power by appealing to grassroots and wider societal goals, but has likewise remained relatively decentralised with varying policies and foci through having to appeal to a heterogeneous and divided membership when it comes to environmental issues, as explained above (Keller, 2005; Silvia, 2013).

Unions’ difficulties in taking up positions oriented towards social-ecological transformation are partially explained by the strength of the ecomodernist growth coalition and the difficulties of challenging the treadmill, especially in labour’s weakened position. Additionally, this has been attributed to the failure of environmental movements themselves in standing up to ecomodernist climate delay narratives (Gould et al., 2004), moving beyond middle-class environmentalism (Barca, 2019; Hampton, 2015), and the failure to appeal to the material interests of workers (Jakopovich, 2009; Savage and Soron, 2011). Furthermore, the lack of a common, positive vision of the future past a greenwashed treadmill on the one side, and climate apocalypse on the other, has limited labour’s possibilities for action (White, 2019).

New positive visions of TGL – a “solidary mode of living” or the “good life for all” rather than the “imperial mode of living” (Brand and Wissen, 2021) – are needed to form a counter-hegemonic historic bloc, able to challenge societal practices and understandings that together make up common sense (Burawoy, 2012: 192). Common sense already carries certain elements that a transformation can rely on within itself (Snir, 2016, 4). These parts of common sense, in Gramsci’s original conception, “representing the practical experiences of the dominated classes” are termed “good sense” (Snir, 2016: 4). A coherent common-sense future narrative of TGL within planetary boundaries, the good-sense building block for counter-hegemony, is currently missing – yet commonly accepted visions of TGL as IML are undergoing change. Eversberg (2019: 103) contends that this might lead to a new common sense and transformation of the treadmill, whether from the right or left: “most of the visions of a better life currently being put forward express desires for a slower, calmer, less fragmented and communal way of life[…] At present, however, these visions of the good life are highly fragmentary, socially particular and torn by contradictions”. There has been an increase both in the narratives of overcoming work as well as societal narratives of transforming work. These include demands for relative gender equality in the household division of labour, a refocus on family life and mixed models of work, calls for using technology as a way to liberate labour instead of increasing exploitation, more creativity, self-actualisation, and co-determination in work, and the liberation of work itself (Komlosy, 2018: 42). Both discourses of overcoming and transforming work can thus be considered part of good sense, or counter-narratives to the dominant common sense (Komlosy, 2018).

Good-sense narratives of TGL within planetary boundaries based on "sufficiency", rather than maximising individual consumption, have a long history in environmental and indigenous movements and scholarship, many of which originate in the Global South (i.e. "Buen Vivir"/" a good life for all" (Acosta, 2020; Kothari et al., 2014, 2018; Villalba, 2013)). As Novy (2015: 8) explains:

“The good life for all is not just about a shift in emphasis from having to being, but about a collective strategy of becoming and thus the development of the potential for a life as long, as creative, as healthy and as successful as possible for all. Such strategies differ from place to place and do not only require creativity and organisation but also collective action”.

In light of the necessity to build counter-hegemony with a broad alliance of actors striving for social-ecologically sustainable good-sense versions of TGL, it is of paramount interest to understand if and where unions’ TGL narratives provide entry points for forging alliances with environmental and climate movements, both in Germany and on the local level. Our research, therefore, sets out to advance understanding of the common sense present in union’s conception of the good life and good work as well as those aspects of good sense to be mobilised for a social-ecological transformation.

Emergent good sense?

In contrast to IG BCE, both IG Metall and ver.di– the unions oriented towards class/society in Hyman’s (2001) typology – narratives are more nuanced, challenging the treadmill of common sense to a certain degree. Ver.di and IG Metall have a higher share of statements for overcoming work, which are most frequent in ver.di but overall still marginal. This correlates with both unions’ statements linking TGL to other aspects than personal income. Neither the narratives upholding the common-sense TGL storyline through praising work, nor the counter-hegemonic narrative of overcoming work, are dominant. The latter finding is congruent with our expectations, as trade unions are institutions whose main goal is to improve, not to abolish, paid labour. However, the limited presence of praising work indicates that the multiple crises of the treadmill system are becoming evident in new expressions of TGL, challenging the common sense of praising work and high personal income – more time with family, less stress, a slower pace of life (Eversberg, 2019; Komlosy, 2018).

The analysis of transforming work narratives is interesting in terms of hegemonic storylines of TGL. It allows an assessment of the extent to which they run counter to praising work, thus providing entry points for reconceptualising TGL beyond the treadmill system. Transforming work narratives were by far the most prevalent narratives around good work, signalling dissatisfaction with the current constellation of societal organisation: rising precarity, overwork, stress, insecurity, flexible working conditions, loss of community, the disappearing welfare state, as well as the climate crisis highlight problems with the treadmill (Eversberg, 2019; Gould et al., 2004). This observation is reflected in the co-occurring codes of transforming work, where reducing working time, achieving gender and racial justice, codetermination and autonomy at work, security, the minimum wage, and climate protection, are very prevalent. The critical question is to what extent these discussions facilitate a reconceptualisation of TGL and good work within planetary boundaries. Indeed, there is some focus on increasing production, or transforming work in line with productivity and global competition, rather than sustainability.

Other points, for example, the uptake of the discussion on working time, or linking good work with climate protection, as prevalent in the IG Metall quote at the beginning of the section, can be considered avenues for counter-hegemonic narratives. They not only signal dissatisfaction with the treadmill system but also include key elements of a TGL beyond growth. This dissatisfaction is visible in the high occurrence of the narrative of security. Lack of security and the need for more security in everyday life is a strong discussion point in all union texts, revealing the precarisation and flexibilisation of work, and insecurity as fundamental crises that limit TGL. Different security narratives were mentioned in conjunction with what constitutes “good work:” the need to transform work, guaranteeing different material needs (housing, education, mobility), and other topics linked to sustainable conceptions of TGL. However, there is a certain ambivalence to these narratives. Whether they aim for systemic change or to alleviate the worst effects of the treadmill varies even within the same union, as the statements by IG Metall below illustrate:

“A lot is changing in our company: new IT, new work processes, new company structure. This change must be fair. No jobs must be destroyed. I want my daughter to have the chance to have a secure and good job. That's why I'm taking to the streets in Berlin.” (Metallzeitung, 06/2019, IG Metall: 15)

At the same time, statements related to competing narratives, aimed at needs satisfaction as the basis of TGL, are present in all unions. Education is very important, especially so in IG Metall. The need to ensure adequate education is referred to in discussions regarding transforming work and industrial transformation at large, where skills may become obsolete. Climate protection, albeit understood differently amongst the unions, is the second key element of TGL in all the trade union narratives, while solidarity is especially important in IG Metall. This is in line with the societal orientation of IG Metall and the strides the union has made in recruiting workers not included in collective agreements. This differentiates IG Metall from IG BCE, which bargains only on behalf of more securely employed workers (Dribbusch and Birke, 2019). Housing, mobility, and health needs are tied to a good life in trade union narratives, with health and healthcare being especially prominent. However, these statements often stay fragmentary and do not produce a clear narrative of the future envisaged. There are exceptions to this, such as the following IG Metall statement:

“[We must] develop concepts for the future of mobility and to work towards their sustainable implementation. Transport policy needs a fundamental new direction if we want to combine climate protection and secure jobs(…)A change in people's mobility for different needs and requirements is necessary, but also in transport systems with an alternating mobility mix and in the development and production of new drive systems(…) Public local, long-distance and freight transport is an important additional alternative from an ecological and economic point of view and must be expanded. We need holistic mobility concepts.” (Gewerkschaftstag, 2019, IG Metall: 774)

However, even in this comparatively concrete narrative, the specific problem and key points for transformation remain somewhat vague, without providing an image of what a “fundamental new direction” should look like. These progressive, yet vague, narratives diverge from the current common sense, but fall short of challenging it, which is in line with the unions partaking in the sustainable development historic bloc (Bond et al., 2020). This is different for the comparatively less frequent narrative about housing put forward by ver.di:

“Housing is a human right. The provision of housing is part of the provision of public services and is therefore a task of the state. Houses and flats are more than just a roof over our heads: they are the centre of our lives, offer us a social environment and give us opportunities to form a neighbourhood. As a rule, they are also a prerequisite for a job. The central task of housing policy must therefore be to provide decent and affordable housing for all people.” (Bundeskongress, 2019, ver.di:1032)

Here, the union develops a clear picture of the envisaged change. The turn towards public provision of housing, a departure from the common-sense TGL, provides an entry point for a vision of TGL beyond growth, based on meeting human needs (Wiedmann et al., 2020).

While these findings suggest that unions are undergoing change, there is, as expected, no unified counternarrative or good sense of TGL (Eversberg, 2019).

This is reflected by the interviewees. Although interviewees critique IML-TGL more radically than unions, accepting the urgent need for transformation, they do not develop a detailed imagery of TGL they would want to see, but rather express general ideas, e.g., “an open society […] and a liveable planet” (Interview 8), policies, or aspects they find important. For example, Interviewee 4 states:

“You cannot tailor a city exclusively to consumption. And for that reason, for example, the quality of housing in the cities, the quality of public transport, yes, that space is also provided for bicycles and pedestrians […] are some of the most pressing problems, I think.”

Interviewee 3 is an exception: their “vision is a totally different one” with a detailed account of a society in which working time reduction, together with more appreciation of reproductive work and sufficiency-oriented lifestyles guarantee TGL for all.

Overall, there are cracks in the common sense of the treadmill and TGL-IML and various narratives around the need for transformation could be delineated. This points towards the contested role of organised labour in the current transition (Räthzel and Uzzell, 2011) despite the differences in the narratives depending on their orientation towards society/class (IG Metall, ver.di) or the market (IGBCE) (Hyman, 2001). There is no strong or coherent unitary good-sense counternarrative of TGL within planetary boundaries embracing sufficiency as a societal goal. There are, however, various avenues for strengthening good-sense narratives. In this context, the discussion on material needs satisfaction rather than increased incomes as prerequisite for TGL are notable. Public provisioning of goods such as education, housing, health, and mobility, are key to a successful social-ecological transformation and welfare on a heating planet (Schneidewind and Zahrnt, 2014; Wiedmann et al., 2020). Discussions around sufficiency as security and the long-term insecurity of the treadmill are another important avenue for promoting good-sense narratives – especially those challenging the common sense of the treadmill and IML-TGL by highlighting inherent contradictions and long-term insecurity arising from ecological destruction while framing sufficiency as security. However, security can have many meanings, which are far from progressive (e.g., Frontex framing refugees as a security threat “fortress Europe” must be defended against (Léonard and Kaunert, 2020)), which urges caution in the use of narratives of security, lest they empower right-wing, rather than progressive, challenges to the treadmill. The question of security is one that is already being taken up by trade unions themselves. This can be seen by the “social-ecological contract” for a post-growth economy within planetary boundaries, being discussed at the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI, 2021). This is effectively one good-sense narrative of sufficiency as security – a social-ecological contract promises to unite many struggles (inequality, crises of work, environmental crises), while broadening the discussion and re-establishing the role of the state in providing welfare.