Read this article in:
10 October, 1999The supposedly trade union-friendly governments are not using power in the best manner for the people they represent.
Traditionally we are used to saying that trade unions and labour parties are two branches of the same tree. Indeed, we have the same roots and both are born in the same place, e.g. among the poorest and the have-nots. The objectives were the same. We wanted the power to change society for the best of everybody.
The political party was the instrument to achieve power in order to attain our common goals.
Where are we now?
In Europe, most governments are left-wing and supposedly trade union-friendly; in the USA, the Democrats have been in power for the last seven years, very much thanks to the support they received from trade unions when Americans cast their votes.
So the power is there. We have it. At least we think we have it.
Are we making any use of it? In my opinion, no. At least not in the best manner for the people we represent. Our policies differ more and more.
We, the unions, want to eliminate unemployment, and governments say they can only do it by reducing taxes for the rich and giving more benefits to the companies.
We say that the market economy can only function if there are rules and norms that guarantee a certain number of basic, fundamental rights for everybody everywhere in the world. Governments say the market economy will bring good money and freedom to everybody if there are no restrictions.
We say that the welfare state is an achievement which we have to defend to make sure that all citizens, regardless of their income, can be covered whenever needed - during retirement or illness or unemployment.
Governments would leave to companies and so-called market forces to determine everything. We want reduction of working time and better pensions, but the answer we get is more austerity in state budgets.
Ministers of so-called friendly governments accuse the trade unions of being the bottleneck of modern society. More flexibility, say the companies, supported strongly by economists and party bureaucrats.
We say modern and better and stronger labour legislation which guarantees an efficient collective bargaining system. All this requires a much better relationship between the two branches.
How is it possible that two branches develop so differently? It is not just the fault of one, of course. Maybe we have allowed parties to look too much at power as a goal in itself, rather than as an important instrument in our struggle for a better society.
Has power made the left conservative?
There is no doubt that when the left is in government we defend ourselves and never put the finger right on the problems, as we used to do when we were in opposition.
The injustices of modern society are still quite present and affect our members and their families just as much now as in the past. We think we have already solved the problems just because workers are better off now than 50 or 100 years ago. But we should not fool ourselves.
Those unemployed, those in need of social assistance, those living in the poor suburbs of mega-cities, those interrupting their schooling too early, those not covered by social insurance, etc. etc. - these are our sons and daughters coming from the working class.
For them, we need to continue to fight together. We cannot afford to continue growing from the same roots to different heights.
The political party was the instrument to achieve power in order to attain our common goals.
Where are we now?
In Europe, most governments are left-wing and supposedly trade union-friendly; in the USA, the Democrats have been in power for the last seven years, very much thanks to the support they received from trade unions when Americans cast their votes.
So the power is there. We have it. At least we think we have it.
Are we making any use of it? In my opinion, no. At least not in the best manner for the people we represent. Our policies differ more and more.
We, the unions, want to eliminate unemployment, and governments say they can only do it by reducing taxes for the rich and giving more benefits to the companies.
We say that the market economy can only function if there are rules and norms that guarantee a certain number of basic, fundamental rights for everybody everywhere in the world. Governments say the market economy will bring good money and freedom to everybody if there are no restrictions.
We say that the welfare state is an achievement which we have to defend to make sure that all citizens, regardless of their income, can be covered whenever needed - during retirement or illness or unemployment.
Governments would leave to companies and so-called market forces to determine everything. We want reduction of working time and better pensions, but the answer we get is more austerity in state budgets.
Ministers of so-called friendly governments accuse the trade unions of being the bottleneck of modern society. More flexibility, say the companies, supported strongly by economists and party bureaucrats.
We say modern and better and stronger labour legislation which guarantees an efficient collective bargaining system. All this requires a much better relationship between the two branches.
How is it possible that two branches develop so differently? It is not just the fault of one, of course. Maybe we have allowed parties to look too much at power as a goal in itself, rather than as an important instrument in our struggle for a better society.
Has power made the left conservative?
There is no doubt that when the left is in government we defend ourselves and never put the finger right on the problems, as we used to do when we were in opposition.
The injustices of modern society are still quite present and affect our members and their families just as much now as in the past. We think we have already solved the problems just because workers are better off now than 50 or 100 years ago. But we should not fool ourselves.
Those unemployed, those in need of social assistance, those living in the poor suburbs of mega-cities, those interrupting their schooling too early, those not covered by social insurance, etc. etc. - these are our sons and daughters coming from the working class.
For them, we need to continue to fight together. We cannot afford to continue growing from the same roots to different heights.