Trade Unions up Against the Globalization of Companies

Due to their presence both in the domain of companies and the domain of spaces, trade unions play a particularly significant role in the problematic which guides the second GERPISA programme. This hypothesis was backed up by event which surrounded Renault's announcement about the closure of the Belgian Vilvoorde factory, in particular with the European strike which took place. The research question set forth here is centered on Europe and based on Udo Rehfeldt's text on the role of existing European work's councils. A European directive generalized them in the transnational companies. This directive, which has been applied since September 1996, comes with the trend to integrate a social aspect to the construction of the European Union. It imposes the creation of such group committees whose functions are essentially that of consultation and giving information. In a certain number of groups where these committees have existed for a few years they began by being interpreted in a restrictive way: their existence was often quite formal without that formality causing any conflict. Their outcome was therefore quite modest, and did not give rise to an important change in relations between workers and employers.

The conflict triggered by the announcement of the closure of the Renault Factory in Vilvoorde, Belgium, is going to modify the role of central committee groups, according to Emmanuel Couvreur. Magistrates have interpreted the text in the most favorable way for the trade unions and have set a legal precedent which strengthens these committees. They are going to be considered more and more by social partners as a counterbalance on the scale of the group. This development does not offer them important powers directly, but gives trade unions a supplementary advantage in their negotiations. In particular, they could restrict managements' freedom of movement in the restructuring of companies. Thus, the legislative and legal nature of international proceedings contributes to structuring the international environment. However, one must not overestimate the importance of central committee groups in their relations between trade unions and management at an international scale. Their strength lessens when there is not a period of crisis, and moreover, European groups, even the most internationalized, still have a very strong national element. Besides the creation of this European socle of reference, the main contribution of the committee groups is without doubt to bring about an exchange between national trade unions. This tradition was even to be found in the approach which brought about international co-operation in the past. In his article Udo Rehfeldt reminds us that it was to defend American wages and employment that in the 1950's that UAW had proposed world group councils to the Europeans. At the time European trade unions especially wanted to strengthen their industry. World Councils did not appear until the 1960's, once the imbalance between the USA and Europe had lessened. This kind of difference is appearing again. Recently for example in the Volkswagen group, the German trade unions wanted their Spanish counterparts to fight for pay rises, while the latter had other priorities, namely employment. And a French Renault trade union was still fighting recently for French jobs within the group.

National differences also affect the legal domain, the different types of trade unions, the procedures and the traditions of social relations. These differences explain that, in Volkswagen, the agreement about the reduction in the working week was only negotiated and even thought of by the different trade unions for the German factories; in Spain overmanning is dealt with by reductions in employment. The central committee group has therefore allowed discussion between countries, but not the unification of unions. In certain countries, the logic of confrontation is of major importance, while elsewhere, it intervenes only along with other ways of discussion and often after they have broken down. Volkswagen has never experienced a company strike in Germany; but the social relations model in the company also implies sacrifices on behalf of the workers; therefore it supposes a high level of trust between workers and their trade union and also their company. In the same way in Belgium, mass redundancies are rare thanks to agreements with trade unions, while they are common in France and governed by the law and jurisprudence. These differences can be seen in the point of view that the trade unions in the different countries have on the role that central committee groups should play, which makes the constitution of a "European trade union actor" uncertain. Moreover European protocol strengthens these differences, by indicating that there cannot and there must not be European trade union law.

All these differences limit the effects of co-ordination between the trade unions of different countries, but do not cancel them out. Because of their strong showing, the Belgian trade union members got the support of their French and Spanish counterparts, which steadied relations between trade unions again. On a wider scale, the existence of group structures helps the development of co-operation, in the movement of struggles or the steadiness of relations. They can allow competitiveness between sites to be overcome, and to give importance to positive action. For example, at the time when Renault and Volvo were coming together, Renault workers had thought of the possibility of adopting the style of work of its partner company.

In the developments which the automobile industry in Europe is experiencing, company management often has the initiative. That should lead us to keep a prudent attitude with regard to ideas which may appear dominant. Thus current, global overcapacity raises the question of unavoidable site closures. Don't trade unions only have to negotiate the division and the modalities of these closures? Certain trade unions advocate other channels. They contest, for example, the restrictive comparison between sites, such as those based on such criteria as hours per vehicle. Or the fact that certain factories experience maximum optimization while others absorb a diversity of vehicles. Or even the excessive contrasts in activity between sites in different countries, which can create distortions in a group. Finally, while certain companies speak of closures, others commit themselves to the creation of factories. That must lead us to take other factors of inequality carefully into account besides just sectors of production.

Index of number 114 ;
All the Research Questions in La Lettre du GERPISA ;
Available numbers ;
Information on this server.