Unions recognize that industrial change is happening. Workers must be prepared and protected. However, clear distinctions between the ‘green’ and traditional economy are impossible. There are vital economic and industrial links between sectors. ‘Greening’ skills in all sectors and worker participation are key. To be sustainable, future ‘greener’ jobs must be decent and unionized.

The IMF supports the International Trade Union Confederation’s position on Just Transition. Our present jobs can, in many cases, be sustainable, but changes will come. We believe that the costs and benefits of protecting the environment should be shared fairly. Just Transition is a message of hope: decent work and social justice can co-exist with environmental protection. However, this will only happen if the world plans for it, and makes it happen through public policies that are in the public interest.

<< back

beginning

forward >>

In a series of fact sheets about the COP 15, the UNFCCC states that the following four issues on the table at Copenhagen are essential to reaching a deal.

1. Emission reduction targets for developed countries

Developed countries must accept the need to continue to take the lead in reducing global GHG emissions. In order to do so an agreement must be reached on an ambitious mid-term target for the group of developed countries as a whole, with each one making an effort of comparable scale in line with their historical responsibility and current capabilities.

To date most developed countries have announced their mid-term target for emission reductions for 2020. However despite the fact that key developed country forums such as the G8 have recognized a 2°C limit, pledges for mid-term woefully short of the IPCC range (25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020). Negotiations could raise the current level of ambition.

What are our key demands and what would we like to see included?

•    A strong legally-binding, comprehensive global agreement ensuring ambitious reduction of green house gas emissions;

•    Social justice and long-term employment policies as an integral element of climate policy;

•    Environmental protection through reduced emissions (a social cost) whilst increasing employment (a social benefit) and largest emitters should lead;

•    Sectoral concerns addressed, including a fair global carbon trading regime – climate change legislation should ensure a level playing field and eliminate the possibility of carbon leakage; and

•    Insurance that any agreement includes international competitiveness provisions that do not disadvantage those companies and nations that are first to adopt carbon pricing schemes.

2. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.

The biggest contribution to the global emissions increase over the next decades is projected to come from developing countries; though their per capita C02 emissions will remain substantially lower than those in developed country regions. In previous meetings developing countries have indicated a willingness to undertake nationally appropriate mitigation actions, provided that they receive support for such actions.

A major concern for developing countries is that mitigation could distract resources away from their overriding policies, which are poverty eradication and economic growth. The Copenhagen deal could build on domestic mitigation actions underway or planned in developing countries, and identify how they can be enhanced with international support.

What are our key demands and what would we like to see included?

•    Sustainability which integrates environmental, social and economic concerns. For labour the social dimension is crucial and must promote trade union values of economic development, a fair distribution of wealth, social welfare, equity, peace and human rights, thereby creating a complete framework for sustainability;

•    Technology transfer that allows for a fair regime for the transfer of advanced technologies for materials and processes, and use of an international fund for research and development and largest emitters should lead; and

•    Developing programmes which ensure a requirement that companies and corporations use best available technologies when they move production.

3. Scaling up financial and technological support for both adaptation and mitigation

Adequate financial, technological and capacity-building support is the engine for advancing international cooperation on climate change as well as national action. An essential part of a comprehensive deal at Copenhagen is identifying how to generate new, additional and predictable financial resources and technology. Resources that are needed for both adaptation and mitigation have been estimated to up to USD250 billion per annum in 2020.

Start up funding is essential and the financial challenge is unique and stark. At the moment adaptation costs are primarily borne by the affected countries, including poor vulnerable communities which have no responsibility for emissions. Kick starting the action initiated in Copenhagen requires start up funding in the order of USD10 billion.

What are our key demands and what would we like to see included?

•    Modification of WTO rules to ensure that trade rules including those governing intellectual property do not undermine environmental objectives;

•    Sharing science which allows developing countries to effectively measure emissions;

•    Ensuring significant public and private investment in education and training, as well as research and development innovation; and

•    Worker participation in the formulation and implementation of these programmes, as well as information and consultation rights on the sustainable development of companies.

4. An effective institutional framework with governance structures that address the needs of developing countries

Copenhagen needs to deliver on an efficient mix of financial instruments with effective means for disbursement and for measurement, reporting and verification. Much of the available funding has not reached developing countries in a way that is regarded as efficient or beneficial. It is critical that the funds are agreed as part of the Copenhagen outcome. In addition, governance principles must be founded on equity, respecting the interests and needs of developing countries, and that includes them as equal decision-making partners.

What are our key demands and what would we like to see included?

•    Recognition that although all countries have a responsibility to mitigate climate change, it is clear that the greatest responsibility lies with the largest industrial nations;

•    Financial and environmental crisis must not be used as an excuse for cost and job cutting or delaying action on environmental protection. The so-called "free market" will not create solutions by itself; and

·    Emissions-trading is insufficient in isolation from

other policies.

Jargon Busting for Copenhagen:

Green house gases
The atmospheric gases responsible for causing global warming and climate change. The major GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20). Less prevalent, but very powerful, greenhouse gases are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).

Climate change
The United Nations Convention on Climate Change defines climate change as "a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."

Carbon Footprint
A Carbon Footprint is a measure of the amount of green house gases produced as a result of particular human activities.

Carbon Leakage
Carbon leakage refers to the part of emissions reductions that are made in one of the countries bound to reduce emissions, which are offset by an increase in emissions in a country that is not bound to reduce emissions. For example this can occur through relocation of energy-intensive production from a country that controls emissions to a country that does not.

Carbon Offsetting
The idea is to reduce the impact of carbon dioxide emissions from everyday activities such as driving cars, heating homes and flying. The emissions from such activity are calculated by a carbon offsetting provider and then paid for through a donation to a project that reduces carbon by the equivalent amount.

Jargon Busting for Copenhagen:

Emissions trading
scheme (ETS)
The ETS is a "cap and trade system". Countries are given a national allocation of how much carbon dioxide they can emit, which is then divided up among the companies covered by the scheme. If companies emit more than they are allowed they must purchase permits to make up for the excess. If they emit less, they can sell their unused allocations.

Border adjustment
Border adjustments, also known as Border Tax Adjustments or Border Tax Assessments, are import fees levied by carbon-taxing countries on goods manufactured in non-carbon-taxing countries. For example a product manufactured in a country that adopts an ETS scheme should not be cheaper in a non-ETS country as a result of the extra costs for emissions trading. A tax would be applied to level the playing field.

Green Jobs
According to the International Labour Organization green jobs reduce the environmental impact of enterprises and economic sectors, ultimately to levels that are sustainable. However many traditional jobs such as steelworkers could also be considered green as alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and wave all have major steel components.

In October 2009, the International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF), International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers’ Unions (ICEM), European Metalworkers’ Federation (EMF) and the European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation (EMCEF) organized a conference in Germany entitled "Cutting Emissions, Transforming Jobs". The meeting discussed the position industrial workers will take at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Copenhagen Denmark.

Photo: Anita Gardner/IMF

United Steelworkers joined with other unions and environmental groups in a nationwide Made in America jobs tour in 2009, highlighting the benefits to American workers and businesses of transitioning to a clean energy economy that will create millions of jobs.

Photo: Steven Dietz/USW

GERMANY: On November 24 and 25 the fourth International Siemens Meeting, organised by IMF, IG Metall and the Central Works’ Council of Siemens took place in Munich. For the first time this meeting took place on company premises (Siemens location in Munich-Neuperlach), the company took over costs and was represented by Professor Dr. Russwurm, who is a member of the management board.

The representation of workers in Europe was based on the new cluster organisation of Siemens. From outside Europe, workers’ representatives from the U.S., Brazil, India and China participated.

Prof. Dr. Russwurm informed participants of the global strategy of the company as an integrated technology company with business activities in 190 countries. Based on forecasted trends such as demographic change, urbanization, climate change and global economic growth, Siemens focuses its activities on three sectors: Industry, Energy and Health Care. Siemens IT Solutions and Services and Siemens Financial Services serve as cross sector activities.

With a workforce of 427,000, Siemens had a turnover of 77.3 billion Euros in 2008.  Fifty-five per cent of the revenues are in Europe, the CIS countries and Africa, 26 per cent in the Americas and 21 per cent in Asia. Sixty-nine per cent of the workforce is employed abroad.

The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are generating the highest growth within the company. Therefore these countries play an important role within the strategies of Siemens for the next decade.

The participants also discussed the structures and strategies of existing bodies of workers’ representation, like the Central Works’ Council in Germany and the SEC (Siemens Europe Committee) and pointed out the necessity for a worldwide structure of union cooperation within this global company. Also the possibility of an International Framework Agreement was raised, a question which received a positive signal from the management representative.

The stepping up of efforts to intensify the cooperation between plant / company-based workers’ representatives and existing unions in different regions and countries and the installation of a functioning information network, as well as the necessity of unionizing projects (the degree of unionization – especially outside Europe – is not very high) were other items on the agenda of the meeting.

COP 15 refers to the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP), which this year takes place in Copenhagen. The negotiating process on climate change revolves around the sessions of the UNFCCC, which meets every year to review the implementation of the convention. The COP adopts decisions and resolutions, published in reports of the COP.

The COP also serves as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) which also adopts decisions and resolutions on the implementation of its provisions. Participation in COP15 and CMP 5 is restricted to duly nominated representatives of the parties, observer states, accredited observer organisations and accredited press/media.

Thousands of participants including government representatives and observer organizations have attended previous climate change conferences. The sessions in Bali, Indonesia (COP13) attracted over 10,000 participants, including 3,500 government officials, over 5,800 representatives of UN bodies and agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and nearly 1,500 accredited members of the media. This year in Copenhagen the figure may be even higher with 20,000 people expected and at least half of them will be from civil society.

More than 180 trade unionists have already registered to attend the meeting and the union delegation is being coordinated by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in close cooperation with LO-Denmark. In addition to the negotiations, a number of major trade union activities have been planned, the largest of which is the World of Work Pavilion (WOW) in the LO-Denmark building on December 14 to 16. During this activity a whole series of events will take place to promote the views of trade unions and what we believe any future agreement should contain.

<< back

beginning

forward >>

In 1979, the inception of today’s modern day climate programme began, and the first world climate conference was held in Geneva, Switzerland. This conference was the first to recognize climate change as a serious problem. The mainly scientific gathering explored how climate change might affect human activities in the future. It also endorsed plans to establish a World Climate Programme (WCP) under the joint responsibility of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). It also led to the creation, by WMO and UNEP, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s awareness of the issue of climate change was beginning to develop and a number of intergovernmental conferences took place and, together with increasing scientific evidence, these conferences helped to raise concern about the issue. Gradually the issue of global warming and its potential impact on life on earth began to move up the political agenda.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its first Assessment Report in 1990. Approved after a painstaking peer review process, the Report confirmed the scientific evidence for climate change. This had a powerful effect on both policy makers and the general public at its release and provided the basis for negotiations on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was adopted at the "Rio Earth Summit" in 1992, and entered into force on March 21, 1994.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the foundation of global efforts to combat global warming. The Convention on Climate Change attempts to set an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. It recognizes that the climate system is a shared resource whose stability can be affected by industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The ultimate objective of the treaty is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent human interference with the climate system. The Convention enjoys near universal membership, with 192 countries (the parties) having ratified but contains no enforcement mechanisms and in that sense is considered non-legally binding. In reality the fact that it was not binding probably helped its universal membership.

Since the UNFCCC entered into force, the parties have been meeting annually in the Conference of the Parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change, and beginning in the mid-1990s to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, has 184 Parties of the Convention having ratified its Protocol. The major feature of this Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community to reducing their emissions by an average of five per cent by 2012 against 1990 levels. The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize Green House Gas emissions (GHG), the Protocol commits them to do so.

The Protocol also recognizes that industrialized countries are principally responsible for the current high level of GHG in the atmosphere due to 150 years of industrial activity and is based on a cap and trade mechanism. So the Protocol also places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", which were listed and identified in Annex 1 of the UNFCCC and thereafter referred to as Annex 1 countries.

Signatories to the UNFCCC are split into three groups, Annex 1 (Industrialized countries) Annex 2 (countries that have a special obligation to provide financial resources and facilitate technology transfer to developing countries, these include the 24 original OECD members plus the European Union) and Annex 3 (developing countries not expected to de-carbonize their economies unless developed countries supply enough funding and technology). So far 137 developing countries (including India and China) have ratified the Protocol but none of these nations are obliged to reduce emissions.

Under the treaty, countries must meet their targets through national measures. However the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additional means of meeting their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms. They are:

Emissions trading schemes (ETS)

Known as "the carbon market", emissions trading is a market-based scheme for environmental improvement that allows parties to buy and sell permits for emissions or credits for reductions in emissions of certain pollutants.

Clean development mechanism (CDM)

A Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows Annex 1 countries to buy carbon credits by investing in sustainable projects in developing countries, such as energy from waste power plants or wind farms, which will reduce GHG emissions in those countries. These credits can then be counted towards an industrialized country’s emissions targets. Understandably the CDM has proved to be highly controversial as an easy way out for industrialized countries without tackling the problems at home.

Joint implementation (JI)

Any Annex I country can invest in emission reduction projects (referred to as "Joint Implementation Projects") in any other Annex I country as an alternative to reducing emissions domestically. In this way countries can lower the costs of complying with their Kyoto targets by investing in greenhouse gas reductions in an Annex I country where reductions are cheaper, and then applying the credit for those reductions towards their commitment goal.

The aim is for these mechanisms to help stimulate green investment and help parties meet their targets in a cost effective way.

However, the Kyoto Protocol was not without problems as the United States, at the time the world’s largest emitter, would have been required to reduce its total emissions by an average of seven per cent below 1990 levels, however neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration sent the Protocol to Congress for ratification. The Bush administration explicitly rejected the Protocol in 2001.

While the Kyoto agreement accomplished little in terms of slowing emissions it has however been successful in making the heads of 90 per cent of the world’s governments acknowledge that climate change is a real problem. The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012 and in Denmark the COP 15 will attempt to hammer out the details and construct a final agreement for the period 2012 to 2020 to be signed in Copenhagen. This needs to be done by December in order to allow national governments time to prepare for implementation beyond 2012. The signs of achieving this however do not look positive.

<< back

beginning

forward >>

Text / Rob Johnston, IMF Executive Director

We live at a pivotal time in human history. This year will be a defining one for the climate. In December, governments will meet in Copenhagen to agree a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. Climate change is the great transformational issue of our time. Industrial unions believe that by cutting emissions and transforming jobs we can meet this challenge. We must set out a new green economy which addresses workers’ concerns, but in order to do so it is vitally important that we get our message across and understood by governments, policy makers, businesses and communities.

Climate change is an issue that is moving up the political agenda in the majority of countries. Both the politics and policy are incredibly difficult. Whether you believe in the science of climate change or not, the fact is that the will of the majority of people seems to be for some global action on this issue. This means trade unions face a choice: we can try to argue against change, to fight against the majority view; or, we can influence the debate and the outcome to the benefit of ordinary working people. The simple fact is that the best people to represent industrial workers in a fair and balanced way are industrial workers themselves through trade unions.

For the International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF), our journey began at the IMF Congress in May 2009 where a resolution was passed calling on the IMF to develop a common position and represent the views of metalworkers in Copenhagen. The resolution also called for the IMF to seek discussions with other Global Union Federations in order to facilitate coordination of climate change policy across industrial sectors. On October 15 and 16 in Germany the IMF, the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers Unions (ICEM), the European Metalworkers’ Federation (EMF) and the European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation (EMCEF) held a joint meeting to develop common demands that could be presented in Copenhagen.

forward >>

Peter and Gordon at Astrium agree that technology can’t solve climate change on its own. "The technology exists to do all these wonderful things, but having the technology and using it are different things," says Peter. "At the moment, the majority of technology we need to monitor climate change and fix it is already there, but we need someone to direct it."

They both believe that the key is international cooperation on climate change. "We need an international organization," Gordon says. "But it takes political will and money!"

Peter and Gordon are both committed to their work as shop stewards and fully aware of the need to tackle climate change. But neither of them see an explicit link between their union membership and their commitment to prevent climate change. Nor do they believe that other workers see any such link. Climate change is an increasingly important part of Astrium’s work for the European Space Agency, but workers tend to focus on their own job rather than looking at the bigger picture.

Nevertheless, Astrium could be the place where a clear link between union membership and climate change awareness is finally forged. The relationship between union and management represents a step away from old-style British union relations. Rather than having a combative relationship, both sides work together to lobby the government for greater investment in the aerospace industry. "It’s very much a partnership between company and union," says Peter. "The idea is that we communicate the same message." This cooperative way of working underpins Astrium’s success at the cutting edge of the aerospace industry. Perhaps it also demonstrates a better way to handle industrial relations in the 21st century.

"You’ve got to cooperate," says Peter, who believes that working together is essential for addressing climate change on a political level, as well as for developing the technologies to monitor and tackle it. Many traditional union qualities are exactly what’s needed to fight climate change: solidarity, an international outlook, a proactive approach and a focus on social justice. The joint focus on cooperation and technological excellence seen at Astrium is a model for fighting the world’s biggest threat. At the moment, we don’t have an effective international strategy for climate change. There’s no global agreement on who should be doing what. But one thing we do know: the satellites will continue to do the job they were built for, spinning around the Earth and giving us the information we need to act.

<< back

beginning

"The hub could be elsewhere in Europe, or somewhere like Singapore. But if it was in the UK, then the BAs of this world would then be in a position to drive change." Bernie’s point is that an international hub airport built in the UK would produce fewer emissions than the same hub anywhere else, because British industry would build and run the airport in a lower-carbon way.

"Companies [in the UK aviation sector] constantly strive to bring new technologies onto the market. They’re striving to substantially reduce their emissions, but the green lobby wouldn’t recognize that."

So why doesn’t Unite speak out for emissions cuts as clearly as it spoke out in favour of aviation expansion? "Unite is already promoting cleaner technology. For example, Unite in Scotland is pushing for carbon capture on coal-fired power stations. There’s lots of policy bubbling along but it hasn’t been unified into a clear statement."

The most recent research on aviation and climate change suggests that improved technology won’t be enough to prevent the damage. Even with optimistic estimates of increased fuel efficiency and better air traffic management, the CO2 emissions from aviation are still set to quadruple by 2050.

But according to Bernie, we already have technology that could go a long way towards cutting emissions; the real problem is a lack of interest and investment. "Rolls-Royce has done work on a more fuel-efficient plane, and it’s ready to launch, but they don’t know if the market’s ready. The new advanced planes are 20-30 per cent more fuel-efficient than current planes, but they won’t launch because they fear they’ll be a flop in the current climate. Airlines are on their knees just now; they don’t have the liquidity [to invest in new solutions]. Any new technology is a new purchase."

Bernie also believes that many workers in the union fail to see any connection between their jobs and climate change. "It should be more linked. As unions we are here to address climate change, just as we’re here to fight fascism or show solidarity for workers in Cuba. But the drive has to come from the top."

<< back

beginning

forward >>

The traditional British image of a trade unionist is a militant figure, someone more interested in threats than in dialogue. Peter couldn’t be further away from the stereotype. In fact, his union activities brought him to the attention of management in a positive way: his skills at negotiation saw him elected as co-chair to Astrium’s European Works Council. He subsequently became co-chair of Astrium’s European Committee for Space and gave up technical work in order to concentrate on his committee and union work.

Peter believes that the union has played a role in keeping Astrium at the cutting edge of technology. When the union fights for better pay and conditions, it’s helping the company to recruit and retain the best people in the industry. EADS management clearly agrees: he is paid by the company for the time he spends on union work, as are the two other shop stewards at Astrium.

Peter also sees the satellites themselves as tools for negotiation and communication. On a basic level, a satellite is a switchboard in the sky, designed to send information back and forth. At a human level, satellites provide information that could help to solve international arguments. The example Peter gives is of competition for water supplies, a situation likely to get worse as the Earth’s climate becomes drier. If people in one area of the world try to steal the water supply from another area by diverting a river, it will be obvious from space what’s going on. Peter believes that satellites can help with arbitration of water disputes, because they provide neutral evidence of what’s going on. It’s just one example of how the technology created at Astrium can help us to deal with the effects of climate change.

But on a national level Peter’s union, Unite, struggles to communicate a coherent policy on environmental issues. As a relatively new union, it still doesn’t have an official policy on climate change, let alone a strategy for how members can work together to fight it.

Bernie Hamilton, Unite’s national officer for the aerospace and shipbuilding sectors, expects the union to finalize its policies on the environment and other issues at its policy conference early next year. Since Amicus and T&G, the two unions which merged to form Unite in 2007, were both very aware of climate change issues, Bernie believes that the new union will come up with a robust policy on tackling climate change.

However, there are signs that the picture may be more complicated than that. Many of the workers represented by Unite are in high-carbon sectors such as vehicle manufacturing, passenger air travel, offshore drilling (for oil and gas) and shipbuilding.

Perhaps the most problematic sector is aviation. Per capita, British people emit more emissions from flying than any other nation in the world. If aviation expansion in the UK is allowed to continue as predicted, the British government will find it almost impossible to achieve its own targets for cutting emissions. Aviation will gobble up half, perhaps more, of the total emissions allotted to the whole country.

That’s why most of the UK’s big workers’ unions opposed recent plans to build a third runway at London’s Heathrow Airport. The unions joined with environmental groups last year to take out an advertisement in The Times that called on the government to scrap Heathrow expansion.

Unite was the only British workers’ union to come out in support of the Heathrow plans. How does this square with a commitment to protect the environment?

"The fact that the union supported the third runway is not incompatible with fighting climate change," says Bernie. "There is undoubtedly going to be more air travel and there are going to be airports throughout Europe which are aiming to be hub airports, and a hub airport is a big airport. We have to acknowledge the inevitability of increased air travel, or Britain could be left out.

<< back

beginning

forward >>

He joined TASS, an engineering union that later became part of Unite, shortly after starting the job at Stevenage, but didn’t become active in the union until 1994, when BAE sold the plant to GEC Marconi and workers had to leave the BAE pension scheme. He explains: "BAE at the time was sitting on a very large pension surplus, but they initially didn’t want to let us have any of it!" The union was instrumental in getting a much better pension settlement from BAE than the one originally proposed. A few years later, BAE bought the Stevenage plant back from Marconi and again the union successfully fought for a better pension deal.

His most important union work so far was done in 2004, when Astrium was sold to EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company). Once again, the fight was about pensions. The new management planned to replace the existing final salary scheme with a money purchase scheme that would have left older employees worse off: it would have been in the financial interests of most workers over 50 to leave and take their pension payment straight away rather than to stay at the company and defer it.

Peter sees the union at Astrium as "guardians of the pension scheme". It’s one of the few issues that staff would be prepared to strike over. But, thanks to Peter, it didn’t come to that.

He carried out negotiations in two ways. As shop steward for the UK plant, he negotiated with management at the site in the traditional fashion. But European law gave him another way of getting the company to listen. Companies of EADS’s size and international scope are obliged to establish European Works Councils. These bodies bring together workers’ representatives from all the countries the company operates in, so that they can meet with management and give their views on decisions that affect them.

Peter’s role as a workers’ representative on the Works Council gave him access to EADS senior management in France and a chance to explain the problem with the pension scheme: that a money purchase scheme would be a financial incentive for anybody over 50 to leave sooner rather than later. In other words, the company risked losing a large proportion of its most skilled, experienced employees. Senior management saw Peter’s calculations and recognized the strong business case for keeping the existing pension scheme, so they changed their plans. Existing employees would now get a final salary pension scheme that mirrored the one they’d been on before. New employees are on a hybrid scheme, a mixture of final salary and money purchase.

When EADS saw how successful the mirror scheme was at Astrium, they extended the concept to the company’s other subsidiaries, such as Airbus and McAlpine Helicopters. Peter believes that bringing a social conscience to bear on business decisions is a big part of European culture, which is why it was possible to get a good, lasting pension deal from French management. But his two-pronged approach, speaking to senior EADS management through the European forum as well as negotiating at the UK plant, must have been a major contributing factor.

<< back

beginning

forward >>