May 9, 2006 9:16
|by Doug Nicholls
highlighting the significance for unions across Europe of the fight
by Swedish builders against a wage-cutting Latvian firm.
Britain, Ireland and Sweden were the only three European Union
members to open their immigration doors completely to workers from
new EU members when it expanded to the east last year. The Gate
Gourmet and Irish Ferries disputes took place almost immediately.
At Gate Gourmet, eastern European labour was brought in to replace
British workers. At Irish Ferries, Irish crews' jobs and wages were
replaced by eastern Europeans on the minimum wage. There are at
least 200,000 Polish workers looking for work in England and 100,000
in Ireland. Capital is flowing east and labour west, causing new
problems.
In Sweden, building workers whose collective agreements give them
145 krone an hour were told that they had lost a contract to a Latvian
firm which would pay its workers 35 krone an hour.
The Swedish labour movement is not prepared to let this happen and
the significance of its case has been realised by the United Left/Nordic
Green Left group of MEPs (GUE/NGL), which organised a solidarity
conference last month.
Swedish industrial relations rely heavily on collective bargaining.
Ninety per cent of workers are covered by such agreements and eighty
per cent of workers are in unions. When the Latvian company Laval
won a Swedish contract to rebuild a school in Vaxholm, it signed
an agreement with the council that included the negotiated building
workers' pay rates. However, unlike most employers in Sweden it
refused to sign anything with the trade union. It then paid Latvian
workers brought in to do the job much less and told them that they
would be sacked if they spoke to the union.
Trade unions boycotted the site and forced it to close. They had
the full support of the Latvian unions in their struggle and deployed
secondary action with electricians to really hurt Laval. Meanwhile,
the Employers Federation of Sweden thought that the principles involved
- creating greater wage competition - were so important that it
challenged the trade union in the courts. Even EU commissioner Charles
McCreevy said that the union should be taken to court.
But the Swedish labour court said that the builders' union had
acted legally in trying to protect collective bargaining. However,
Laval has persisted. It says that the union action violates Article
12 of the European treaty on equal treatment and Article 49 on the
free movement of services. It also says that the strike against
it restricts the fundamental clauses of the EU about the free mobility
of goods, services, labour and capital. The case has now been referred
to the European Court of Justice.
The Swedish trade union centre, the LO, was once strongly in favour
of the EU project. It is now saying that, if the case is lost, it
will campaign for a withdrawal from the EU altogether. This is necessary
simply because, if the EU backs Laval in bypassing the whole system
of recognition and collective bargaining in Sweden, the country's
entire nationally based structure of industrial relations will crumble
and foreign and domestic companies will ride roughshod, as the EU
intends.
Swedish building workers' union representative Gunnar Ericson explained
that employers have been trying to discriminate against imported
labour by creating a race to the bottom in wages. Dan Holke of the
Swedish Trade Union Confederation clearly demonstrated that, if
the EU sided with the employers in this case, it would, effectively,
be saying that all national collective bargaining arrangements and
rights to industrial action, as enshrined in domestic law throughout
Europe, would be jeopardised.
GUE/NGL parliamentary group leader, French MEP Francis Wurtz, linked
the attack in Sweden and elsewhere to the new neoliberal tidal wave
that has been sweeping through Europe as the European Commission
and the right-wing-dominated European Parliament sought to further
liberalise markets in labour and capital. The group's vice-president
Eva Britt Svensson showed how the latest reports on public services
sought to keep the momentum of the slightly amended Bolkestein directive
going and to open up more public services to competition.
Taking the example of pensions, I sought to demonstrate that all
of the problems faced by workers throughout the continent can be
rooted in the undemocratic decisions of the EU as dictated by the
European Round Table of Industrialists, the lobby group that most
effectively dominates the EU on behalf of the major employers.
For the EU to say that workers must work longer and harder for
less in retirement and pay more into pensions in the process is
one of the clearest expressions that, as in the Vaxholm building
workers case, it has no plans for the long-term welfare and collectively
agreed wages, deferred or otherwise, of workers.
It is time to seriously consider where the EU really is going and
if its bitter pill can ever be sugared.
Doug Nicholls is secretary of Trade Unionists Against the EU
Constitution (UK). The group has produced a new leaflet on the origins
of the pensions crisis in the EU. For further details contact TUAEUC
301 The Argent Centre, 60 Frederick Street, Hockley, Birmingham,
B1 3HS. This article first appeared in The
Morning Star
See also
http://www.spectrezine.org/global/McGiffen.htm