Abstract
Bernadette Segol, ETUC General Secretary, was interviewed for Transfer by Denis Grégoire, ETUI Communication Officer, on 24 January 2012.
This treaty provides no solutions. We know that enshrining the famous ‘golden rule’ in the national constitutions or legislations is not going to get us out of the crisis. There is absolutely no certainty that it will be ratified by all the Member States. We are opposed to this treaty for two essential reasons: it was not democratically drawn up and it offers no prospects for employment.
Of course we are in favour of balanced public finances, but balance has to be restored gradually over a much longer period and on the basis of policies that will allow the economy to get properly back on its feet. Our first demand is for the economy to be given a boost by means of sustainable investment. We are in favour of European bonds, taxes on financial transactions, measures to eliminate tax fraud and better distribution of taxation. And there is a need also for determined action by the European Central Bank in the search for a solution.
There are, we believe, a tremendous number of things to be done in the area of ‘green growth’, with regard, in particular, to investment in sustainable infrastructures, renewable energies and transport. Sustainable investment policies would enable development of European industry to be fostered in this sphere, would encourage the acquisition of expertise that will prove extremely valuable at the international level. In my opinion, in industrial policy terms, Germany has set a good example. It has succeeded in retaining a hi-tech industry and this was tremendously important in helping it to keep afloat in the aftermath of the crisis. We naturally do not support the way pay restraint has been enforced in this country where there has been a strong increase in sub-standard forms of employment. It will be extremely difficult to rebuild an industrial sector in those cases where it has disappeared completely.
Medium-sized firms have an important role to play in this industrial redeployment. They are frequently key to local development and, in my view, not enough is done to support them. What is more, it should not be forgotten that the manufacturing sector also generates jobs in the services sector. A solid industrial policy for the future necessarily entails the development of this sustainable energy and transport sector. To put the brakes on all forms of investment, as is happening at present, amounts to constraining us within a downward spiral.
The Commission is in a state of imbalance. Ideologically speaking, the majority of Commissioners are not on our side. This is the result of political developments in individual countries that we, the ETUC, are hardly in a position to affect. On the part of some members of the Commission I do observe a slight change in attitude. The idea that austerity is not the solution is gaining ground. A year ago you would hear statements like ‘austerity will suffice to enable the markets to regain confidence’. You don’t hear that any more. Now you hear that growth is also necessary, except that, from the Commission angle, this growth will necessarily entail liberalization of the labour market, i.e. structural reforms of the labour market and implementation of the internal market along lines that are hardly likely to promote social concerns and the interests of workers.
But the main problem lies in the fact that the intergovernmental approach has come to prevail over the European approach. This is a backward step. And so, vis-à-vis the Commission, we need to keep repeating the point that the European Union is not an exercise in applied economics. It is the people living in Europe who are vulnerable to the consequences of the crisis and who do not understand why they are being punished. Theoretical expositions on economic systems will do nothing to alter people’s circumstances. It is absolutely necessary for European leaders to realize that if they want support for European integration they need to take account of the real situation in which workers find themselves placed. All that Europe is delivering for the time being is austerity, and more and more labour market flexibility. Yet support for the European Union is not something that can be taken for granted as it could a few years ago. This is a message we repeat to the Commission at every possible opportunity and little by little it is beginning to sink in. Of course there is a need to take account of the election results in individual countries which determine the direction taken by the European Union and the attitudes we can observe within the Commission.
It is indeed a major problem. Perhaps the sociologists will explain it by the fear of change, or the need to seek protection once more within the nation, since this kind of a nationalist stance is frequently found on the political right. I think it is essential for the ETUC and its members to decipher the reasons for this crisis and put them across in a manner that the citizens of Europe can understand. It is a very difficult job, because you come up against reactions like ‘Well if that’s Europe, we’ve had enough of it!’ We try to decipher and show our affiliates and their members the reasons why the deregulation at work since the 1980s has given rise to a staggering increase in inequality. These messages will be developed in the campaign that we are launching. It is necessary for them to be relayed at the national level and adapted to what is happening in each country.
‘Solidarity’ is indeed an essential term in the trade union vocabulary. But it is not just a concept, it is something that has to take place in practice. For example, when we talk about European bonds, these entail an element of solidarity between a German worker and a Greek worker. But it’s necessary to have a proper understanding of what is meant. This means that we have to be capable of explaining to German, Dutch, or Austrian workers that, while Eurobonds are likely to push up interest rates in their countries, at the same time, if one of the other European countries were to default, whether it were Greece or Italy, the problem for them would then be much worse.
It is necessary to develop this notion of solidarity by finding ways of illustrating our independence. This is not easy, but even so I am very pleased that within the ETUC a very broad majority has come out in favour of economic solidarity. In this respect, the trade unions have made an exemplary show of unity. That this economic solidarity should be accompanied by rules does not shock me in the least, but the rules of sound financial management can be accepted by the people of Europe only if they allow some room for hope. At the present time the situation is quite the opposite.
There is a need to constantly reiterate and remember the values for which we stand. These are equality, anti-racism, an opposition to xenophobia in all its forms. These are founding values of the trade union movement on which there can be no going back. It is also necessary to stress that it is an illusion to believe that the urge to return to the national level can represent a solution for employment. The countries of Europe are simply not able to develop economically behind closed frontiers. That is why the ETUC continues to defend the idea that European integration is a solution rather than a problem.
I am deeply concerned at the populist movements that are developing in several European countries. We adopt a stance of firm opposition towards these movements. It is necessary to make sure that our members understand what kind of a European policy these movements are actually advocating for, in many cases, their policies are of the ultraliberal variety. It is necessary also to demonstrate that we have built up a European culture. Is it possible to imagine today telling our children that they cannot go to live or study in a different European country, or that they will again have to start showing their passport at the borders? It is essential to explain that these policies of seeking to refocus attention on the national level will not offer solutions for employment. This is a difficult task, for populism, by definition, has recourse to slogans that are easy to understand. But in the name of our values and the economic and cultural reasons that I have outlined, the ETUC will refuse any concession in relation to these movements.
This phenomenon is, in my opinion, a matter of ideological development. In the last 30 years, the growth in neoliberalism, the idea that collective defence has become an obsolete notion, and slogans along the lines of ‘may the best man win’ have certainly done nothing to help the trade union movement. I think too that developments regarding the types of contract offered to workers also make trade union membership difficult. The more flexible work becomes, the more it becomes precarious, the more it takes place in small units, and the more difficult it is for workers to become unionized.
How to reverse the trend? First of all, people have to be made to realize that individual defence of one’s rights is not in the best interest of the majority of workers. The trade unions must also certainly be prepared to change their ways of responding to peoples’s concerns and, in some cases, to alter their structures which can be extremely cumbersome. The trade unions have to adjust to developments on the labour market which offers ever less in the way of employment security. We also have to represent the workers employed on non-standard forms of contract. We should, at any rate, stress how hard some of our members have been seeking to reverse the trend. Steps are being taken to make use of the media, and of social networks, and to respond to the concerns of the workers of today and these give us some hope that it may again be possible to redress our membership figures.
It is necessary to remind people of the fact that trade unionism is an organized and representative social force that issues demands and also represents a force for negotiation. I am convinced that the political powers should heed this message and come to realize that you don’t set aside social democracy without doing damage to democracy in general. And yet, at the present time in many countries, active measures are being taken to combat the trade unions. We see anti-trade union policies at company level, as well as attempts to dismantle social dialogue structures at national level, as is currently happening in Hungary and in Poland. The politicians responsible for encouraging these developments must be made aware that it is not possible to dispense with a democratic force that represents the workers.
Here the situation clearly leaves a lot to be desired, particularly as regards the implementation of the results of the social dialogue. One of the essential risks is that, while people may perhaps be saying some interesting things in Brussels, no real changes transpire at national level. It is absolutely essential for the credibility of the European social dialogue that it be transformed into a national dialogue with national-level implementation. Unfortunately the years when we had proposals from the European Commission that enabled us to feed extra fuel to the dialogue are now a thing of the past, as are the days of signing framework agreements.
Even if we have to dilute our ambitions to some extent, we are going to insist on the implementation aspect. The negotiation on working time has only just begun. We know very well what is at stake here, and that if this dossier goes back to the Commission or the Parliament there is a risk of extremely dangerous situations for the trade union movement, but the ETUC will not reduce its demands on the working time front. When negotiating, however, we must negotiate in good faith. That is what we are doing and what we will continue to do; we will attempt, in other words, to see whether it is possible to reach satisfactory solutions with the employer organizations. Even if the wind is against us, the ETUC will not let go of the European social dialogue because one of our jobs as a trade union organization is to conduct discussions with the employer organizations.
Translation from the French by Kathleen Llanwarne