Read this article in:
17 September, 2001Klaus Zwickel is the toolmaker from Heilbronn, near Stuttgart, who became president of the German IG Metall and the International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF). His way of being was coined by the red sixties.
BY STIG JUTTERSTRÖM
Klaus Zwickel lights a big cigar and the interview begins. He has been on the front pages of not only the German newspapers the day before, but also the international ones. IG Metall has rejected a proposal from the Volkswagen management to create 5,000 new jobs in exchange for longer and more flexible working hours. Zwickel is criticised for "exceptional arrogance" in a business newspaper. "Zwickel back in the saddle," says the leading Frankfurt newspaper. "IG Metall chairman Klaus Zwickel, the stubborn class warrior with the quick tongue for pithy remarks, polished his image in the aborted negotiations for a new labour-management model at Volkswagen... It was classic Zwickel. After appearing to be more reflective and even self-critical in recent months, the chairman of the world's mightiest industrial union found himself back in his role of fighting on behalf of the working class against the capitalists."
"That's part of the business," is Zwickel's own comment on the headlines, but he doesn't seem to be unhappy with the publicity. With regard to the 5,000 new jobs at Volkswagen, he says frankly: "In reality, it was 3,500 jobs and 5,000 in the propaganda. If IG Metall had accepted the proposal, in a few months the whole automobile industry would demand the same. We would have 3,500 new jobs at Volkswagen, but on the other hand get 350,000 dismissals elsewhere."
THE TOOLMAKER FROM HEILBRONN
Klaus Zwickel is the toolmaker from Heilbronn, near Stuttgart, who became a fulltime trade union activist in the red sixties and came to IG Metall headquarters in the politically magic year of 1968. On the question of influences from the left in 1968, he says: "I wasn't a well-known activist, but I participated and of course it coined my way of being. We believed that it was possible to create a different and better world. And I never gave up that hope."
Q: The unions are strongest at the national and relatively weaker at the global level. But the challenges from the transnational companies (TNCs) are global. They shift investments around the world and make plants compete with each other. Can national unions counteract this? What global structures are needed?
A: The only global structure we have is the IMF. I cannot think of anything else, except for the fact that in globally active companies we need representation of the workforce on the global level. This could be Works Councils; this could be other forms of interest representation -- it doesn't matter. The important thing is that there is a structure. And it would be an illusion that it's possible to solve the problems in the companies from the outside, through the IMF. The exciting question is how to make it possible to focus the actions from the IMF more on the concrete problems. It is no question that the IMF does a very good job. In the metal sector, it is the only organisation trying to create a joint orientation and discuss common goals. It is creating information exchange and supporting workers in countries where the political situation doesn't allow trade unions. This is one side, a very positive side. On the other side, because of globalisation, there is a lot of demand on the IMF to shift from solidarity support to practical support. The concrete question is: what can the IMF do in the highly industrialised countries, to coordinate politics in the so-called triad (America, Japan and Europe)? To criticise myself -- we are still talking a lot here.
ONE OF THE MOST GLOBAL INDUSTRY SECTORS
Q: The IMF has taken certain initiatives in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector. What do you expect from this?
A: Finally, the IMF started some activities. I'm so to speak one of the initiators. The first aim was to find out whether we could cooperate with another international trade secretariat, the Union Network International (UNI), to use know-how already existing and not waste resources. It didn't work out so we have to do it ourselves now. The IMF has to put more priority on this.
Q: Why do you think the ICT sector is so important?
A: It is one of the most global industry sectors, but at the same time trade union organisation has the lowest rate. Our task is to be accepted as partners, and we have to offer attractive services to ICT workers. We could develop possibilities to make global comparisons in income, working time, working conditions and so on. We have good experiences for this in IG Metall. It is not easy, but the problems can be solved.
Q: Has the IMF done enough for the non-manual workers?
A: As president of the IMF, I have to say yes.
Q: The IMF has not yet signed any agreement on Codes of Conduct. Other international trade secretariats have done so. Isn't it time to get such agreements?
A: Yes, and for the moment we are negotiating with Volkswagen. I believe that by the IMF Congress we will have an agreement on this matter so that we can publish it in Sydney in November.
A MIXTURE OF SERVICES AND PRODUCTION
Q: The importance of manufacturing is going to be one of the issues at the Congress in Sydney. How important is manufacturing in a modern economy?
A: It would be a false message if the Congress only set its focus on manufacturing. It would harm us. In reality it is not like that. The IMF Action Programme does not concentrate only on manufacturing. There is no manufacturing as one trade. The metal industry is a mixture of services and production. In reality more than half of the people in the metal industry are working in services. Everything the IMF does is oriented towards services and production. But obviously we, ourselves, have a problem to put this forward. As president of the Congress, I don't want to talk only about blue-collar workers, but workers in general, white-and blue-collar workers.
Q: But it is also a reality that workers in industrialised countries are worried about manufacturing industries moving to cheaper countries. And developing countries are worried that they will not attract industrial production.
A: Production will be everywhere in the future. It will always shift. I don't believe that there will be one side with production and the other without production. We have examples where production has shifted to so-called cheap countries, but after all it doesn't take long before they are not the cheapest anymore.
EUROPE IS HERE
Q: What has to be discussed at the European level by the trade unions? What has to be transferred from the national level?
A: Trade unions are continuously discussing at a European level because Europe becomes more real from day to day. The next big step is the introduction of a single currency. We won't have German marks in our pockets; we will have euros. Some people still put "Europe" in quotation marks but they will realise on January 1, 2001, that Europe is here. In the real discussion, we are not there yet. A lot is still oriented towards the national level, and it will remain this way for a long time. The question is still open as to what the political construction will look like. Is Europe going to be a confederation, a federation or a single country? Politicians have very different opinions on what has to be transferred to the European level, and trade unions are even farther away in this discussion, but it should be different.
Q: What are the trade unions doing at the European level?
A: We have the European Metalworkers' Federation and the trade union secretariats. They are important and necessary, but these are basically verbal activities. It has to do with the problem that on the political scale it is not clear what has to be done where. For example, some people dream of a European collective agreement, but I cannot think of a such an agreement because we don't have a partner to negotiate with. There is no employers' organisation at the European level.
Q: Does this mean that you want a European collective agreement if it would be possible?
A: It should be that way, it will be that way. But we are far away from achieving it.
Q: What is IG Metall prioritising today -- the European Works' Councils (EWCs) or the IMF World Company Councils?
THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EU
A: It's a practical question. We need both, and both are important. The priority for the moment is on the EWCs because the preconditions are better. We are closer to achieving common standards for the workers. And it's easier to solve logistic problems on a European level. It's easier to arrange a meeting when people are coming from Stockholm, Paris, Milan and Frankfurt than doing the same with people coming from Toronto, South Africa and India. We also have to consider that even in Europe the ideological differences are big. Imagine how it is on the global level.
Q: Do you welcome the enlargement of the European Union (EU)?
A: Yes, without buts. From the first hour, the German trade unions were supporters not only of a political and economic but also a social united Europe.
Q: How long a transitional period is needed for the new EU members?
A: We support the view of the German government of a maximum seven years. But we don't think that this period should be fixed. According to the development, it could be shortened.
Q: Seven years is a long time for the new member countries. Why is it necessary?
A: It's simple. There are huge differences in the social and economic conditions between the old and the new member countries. People in the old member states fear social dumping. The transitional period is good because social dumping creates protests against the enlargement. This is a threat against the whole process. The new members should have enough support to adapt to the new situation. The differences will become smaller, which decreases the pressure on people to move to the West.
IG METALL DEBATING THE FUTURE
Q: IG Metall has initiated a "Future Debate". What are the main reasons for this?
A: In the last ten years, the challenges in the world have changed a lot with economic globalisation, new information technology, the end of the Cold War and the national unification here in Germany. That means that the trade unions also have to change. We have three main aims with the "Future Debate". Firstly, to create a very broad debate with our members and also with non-members. Secondly, to find how we can adopt alternative trade union activities to those changes. Thirdly, to prove our attractiveness for our members and for society as a whole.
Q: Do you feel that the trade unions have become less attractive?
A: Unfortunately, this is the case, even though the trade union movement is one of the last bastions against neo-classical market ideologies. And we don't have a lot of support from the media, which has a great impact on people.
Q: How is the "Future Debate" organised and how long will it take?
A: In the first phase, we are asking members and other workers about what they expect from a trade union. In a second phase, we are going to make a summary, a Future Report, which will be a basis for discussion on different subjects. We will ask politicians and scientists to participate in this discussion. The aim is to achieve a Future Manifest which will be debated at the Future Congress in June next year. We will use the year between this congress and the ordinary congress in 2003 to make up our minds how we should proceed.
Q: Do you have any ideas what will be kept and what has to be changed in IG Metall?
A: No. Our principle is to be really open. We want to reach as many people as possible to participate. We will not go into this with a finished answer.
THE COMMUNIST UNION WAS OBSOLETE
Q: What has the German unification meant to the trade unions in Germany?
A: We wanted to have the unification. It is one of the greatest results with the end of the Cold War that the unification was possible. At the beginning there was a lot of hope for a quick economic success, but soon the problems turned out to be much bigger and more difficult than people had thought. There was an almost total breakdown of the industry in the East, with huge unemployment as a consequence. But this unification was necessary and the problems had to be solved. For the trade unions it was and it is a great challenge. We practically had to build up a new trade union movement in eastern Germany. The old communist trade union was obsolete. We had to explain to the employees what trade union representation meant in a capitalistic economy.
Q: Do you feel that you are one union today?
A: We not only feel that. We are one union. But, on the other hand, there are different feelings. We have different biographies and different experiences. The people in the East feel that the West is taking over too much, that only a little is left of their own identities and that hurts them. They hardly ever talk about it openly, but you can feel it when you are in direct contact with people, and after a second beer. You cannot ignore that; you have to take it seriously.
Q: You said that they feel that the West is taking over too much. But is it like that?
A: The West is dominating in every respect. Klaus Zwickel's cigar is finished and the interview is over.
Klaus Zwickel lights a big cigar and the interview begins. He has been on the front pages of not only the German newspapers the day before, but also the international ones. IG Metall has rejected a proposal from the Volkswagen management to create 5,000 new jobs in exchange for longer and more flexible working hours. Zwickel is criticised for "exceptional arrogance" in a business newspaper. "Zwickel back in the saddle," says the leading Frankfurt newspaper. "IG Metall chairman Klaus Zwickel, the stubborn class warrior with the quick tongue for pithy remarks, polished his image in the aborted negotiations for a new labour-management model at Volkswagen... It was classic Zwickel. After appearing to be more reflective and even self-critical in recent months, the chairman of the world's mightiest industrial union found himself back in his role of fighting on behalf of the working class against the capitalists."
"That's part of the business," is Zwickel's own comment on the headlines, but he doesn't seem to be unhappy with the publicity. With regard to the 5,000 new jobs at Volkswagen, he says frankly: "In reality, it was 3,500 jobs and 5,000 in the propaganda. If IG Metall had accepted the proposal, in a few months the whole automobile industry would demand the same. We would have 3,500 new jobs at Volkswagen, but on the other hand get 350,000 dismissals elsewhere."
THE TOOLMAKER FROM HEILBRONN
Klaus Zwickel is the toolmaker from Heilbronn, near Stuttgart, who became a fulltime trade union activist in the red sixties and came to IG Metall headquarters in the politically magic year of 1968. On the question of influences from the left in 1968, he says: "I wasn't a well-known activist, but I participated and of course it coined my way of being. We believed that it was possible to create a different and better world. And I never gave up that hope."
Q: The unions are strongest at the national and relatively weaker at the global level. But the challenges from the transnational companies (TNCs) are global. They shift investments around the world and make plants compete with each other. Can national unions counteract this? What global structures are needed?
A: The only global structure we have is the IMF. I cannot think of anything else, except for the fact that in globally active companies we need representation of the workforce on the global level. This could be Works Councils; this could be other forms of interest representation -- it doesn't matter. The important thing is that there is a structure. And it would be an illusion that it's possible to solve the problems in the companies from the outside, through the IMF. The exciting question is how to make it possible to focus the actions from the IMF more on the concrete problems. It is no question that the IMF does a very good job. In the metal sector, it is the only organisation trying to create a joint orientation and discuss common goals. It is creating information exchange and supporting workers in countries where the political situation doesn't allow trade unions. This is one side, a very positive side. On the other side, because of globalisation, there is a lot of demand on the IMF to shift from solidarity support to practical support. The concrete question is: what can the IMF do in the highly industrialised countries, to coordinate politics in the so-called triad (America, Japan and Europe)? To criticise myself -- we are still talking a lot here.
ONE OF THE MOST GLOBAL INDUSTRY SECTORS
Q: The IMF has taken certain initiatives in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector. What do you expect from this?
A: Finally, the IMF started some activities. I'm so to speak one of the initiators. The first aim was to find out whether we could cooperate with another international trade secretariat, the Union Network International (UNI), to use know-how already existing and not waste resources. It didn't work out so we have to do it ourselves now. The IMF has to put more priority on this.
Q: Why do you think the ICT sector is so important?
A: It is one of the most global industry sectors, but at the same time trade union organisation has the lowest rate. Our task is to be accepted as partners, and we have to offer attractive services to ICT workers. We could develop possibilities to make global comparisons in income, working time, working conditions and so on. We have good experiences for this in IG Metall. It is not easy, but the problems can be solved.
Q: Has the IMF done enough for the non-manual workers?
A: As president of the IMF, I have to say yes.
Q: The IMF has not yet signed any agreement on Codes of Conduct. Other international trade secretariats have done so. Isn't it time to get such agreements?
A: Yes, and for the moment we are negotiating with Volkswagen. I believe that by the IMF Congress we will have an agreement on this matter so that we can publish it in Sydney in November.
A MIXTURE OF SERVICES AND PRODUCTION
Q: The importance of manufacturing is going to be one of the issues at the Congress in Sydney. How important is manufacturing in a modern economy?
A: It would be a false message if the Congress only set its focus on manufacturing. It would harm us. In reality it is not like that. The IMF Action Programme does not concentrate only on manufacturing. There is no manufacturing as one trade. The metal industry is a mixture of services and production. In reality more than half of the people in the metal industry are working in services. Everything the IMF does is oriented towards services and production. But obviously we, ourselves, have a problem to put this forward. As president of the Congress, I don't want to talk only about blue-collar workers, but workers in general, white-and blue-collar workers.
Q: But it is also a reality that workers in industrialised countries are worried about manufacturing industries moving to cheaper countries. And developing countries are worried that they will not attract industrial production.
A: Production will be everywhere in the future. It will always shift. I don't believe that there will be one side with production and the other without production. We have examples where production has shifted to so-called cheap countries, but after all it doesn't take long before they are not the cheapest anymore.
EUROPE IS HERE
Q: What has to be discussed at the European level by the trade unions? What has to be transferred from the national level?
A: Trade unions are continuously discussing at a European level because Europe becomes more real from day to day. The next big step is the introduction of a single currency. We won't have German marks in our pockets; we will have euros. Some people still put "Europe" in quotation marks but they will realise on January 1, 2001, that Europe is here. In the real discussion, we are not there yet. A lot is still oriented towards the national level, and it will remain this way for a long time. The question is still open as to what the political construction will look like. Is Europe going to be a confederation, a federation or a single country? Politicians have very different opinions on what has to be transferred to the European level, and trade unions are even farther away in this discussion, but it should be different.
Q: What are the trade unions doing at the European level?
A: We have the European Metalworkers' Federation and the trade union secretariats. They are important and necessary, but these are basically verbal activities. It has to do with the problem that on the political scale it is not clear what has to be done where. For example, some people dream of a European collective agreement, but I cannot think of a such an agreement because we don't have a partner to negotiate with. There is no employers' organisation at the European level.
Q: Does this mean that you want a European collective agreement if it would be possible?
A: It should be that way, it will be that way. But we are far away from achieving it.
Q: What is IG Metall prioritising today -- the European Works' Councils (EWCs) or the IMF World Company Councils?
THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EU
A: It's a practical question. We need both, and both are important. The priority for the moment is on the EWCs because the preconditions are better. We are closer to achieving common standards for the workers. And it's easier to solve logistic problems on a European level. It's easier to arrange a meeting when people are coming from Stockholm, Paris, Milan and Frankfurt than doing the same with people coming from Toronto, South Africa and India. We also have to consider that even in Europe the ideological differences are big. Imagine how it is on the global level.
Q: Do you welcome the enlargement of the European Union (EU)?
A: Yes, without buts. From the first hour, the German trade unions were supporters not only of a political and economic but also a social united Europe.
Q: How long a transitional period is needed for the new EU members?
A: We support the view of the German government of a maximum seven years. But we don't think that this period should be fixed. According to the development, it could be shortened.
Q: Seven years is a long time for the new member countries. Why is it necessary?
A: It's simple. There are huge differences in the social and economic conditions between the old and the new member countries. People in the old member states fear social dumping. The transitional period is good because social dumping creates protests against the enlargement. This is a threat against the whole process. The new members should have enough support to adapt to the new situation. The differences will become smaller, which decreases the pressure on people to move to the West.
IG METALL DEBATING THE FUTURE
Q: IG Metall has initiated a "Future Debate". What are the main reasons for this?
A: In the last ten years, the challenges in the world have changed a lot with economic globalisation, new information technology, the end of the Cold War and the national unification here in Germany. That means that the trade unions also have to change. We have three main aims with the "Future Debate". Firstly, to create a very broad debate with our members and also with non-members. Secondly, to find how we can adopt alternative trade union activities to those changes. Thirdly, to prove our attractiveness for our members and for society as a whole.
Q: Do you feel that the trade unions have become less attractive?
A: Unfortunately, this is the case, even though the trade union movement is one of the last bastions against neo-classical market ideologies. And we don't have a lot of support from the media, which has a great impact on people.
Q: How is the "Future Debate" organised and how long will it take?
A: In the first phase, we are asking members and other workers about what they expect from a trade union. In a second phase, we are going to make a summary, a Future Report, which will be a basis for discussion on different subjects. We will ask politicians and scientists to participate in this discussion. The aim is to achieve a Future Manifest which will be debated at the Future Congress in June next year. We will use the year between this congress and the ordinary congress in 2003 to make up our minds how we should proceed.
Q: Do you have any ideas what will be kept and what has to be changed in IG Metall?
A: No. Our principle is to be really open. We want to reach as many people as possible to participate. We will not go into this with a finished answer.
THE COMMUNIST UNION WAS OBSOLETE
Q: What has the German unification meant to the trade unions in Germany?
A: We wanted to have the unification. It is one of the greatest results with the end of the Cold War that the unification was possible. At the beginning there was a lot of hope for a quick economic success, but soon the problems turned out to be much bigger and more difficult than people had thought. There was an almost total breakdown of the industry in the East, with huge unemployment as a consequence. But this unification was necessary and the problems had to be solved. For the trade unions it was and it is a great challenge. We practically had to build up a new trade union movement in eastern Germany. The old communist trade union was obsolete. We had to explain to the employees what trade union representation meant in a capitalistic economy.
Q: Do you feel that you are one union today?
A: We not only feel that. We are one union. But, on the other hand, there are different feelings. We have different biographies and different experiences. The people in the East feel that the West is taking over too much, that only a little is left of their own identities and that hurts them. They hardly ever talk about it openly, but you can feel it when you are in direct contact with people, and after a second beer. You cannot ignore that; you have to take it seriously.
Q: You said that they feel that the West is taking over too much. But is it like that?
A: The West is dominating in every respect. Klaus Zwickel's cigar is finished and the interview is over.