BY JESPER NILSSON Strategically placed in the middle of Europe, Austria has played a role in the international trade union movement that is larger than you might first expect. Austria was one of the seven countries which founded the IMF in 1893, and today the trade unions there are playing an important role in bringing together the West and the East. In a few years, tracking the mergers within the Austrian trade union movement will almost be like charting mergers in the automobile or aerospace sector. In January 2000, the trade union Gewerkschaft Metall-Textil (GMT) was created out of two other unions. In September last year, a decision was taken that the Agricultural and Food Workers’ trade union and the Private Employees’ trade union should create a new union together with the GMT in 2005. In the beginning of this year, the trade union for Print, Journalism and Paper as well as the Chemical Workers’ trade union decided to join the merging process. Though he, himself, would deny any such description, one of the main actors in this work is Rudolf Nürnberger, president of the GMT. Q: Your trade union has gone, and will go through tremendous changes. Is this necessary? A: Developments in our country — with concentration processes in the commercial and industrial areas — show that it is necessary to cooperate, and ultimately to merge with other trade union organisations. This is a necessity, if we want to be able to represent our members in an effective way. Q: And most of the work is still ahead of you… A: The biggest challenge now is a project, based on a yearlong discussion within the trade union confederation, to remove the division between blue- and white-collar workers. You know, there was always the discussion: Who is blue, who is white? And why has one group got different social benefits and rights from the other? So, now we have taken the decision to create a totally new trade union, organising both categories of workers. And in about 2004-2005, a totally new union will be born, with more than 500,000 members. Q: How would you describe the purpose of this upcoming giant trade union? A: The objective will be to be able to provide its members and constituencies — representatives, works’ councils, shop stewards – with services in a more efficient way than today. It’s a very ambitious project. And I assume that when the IMF opens its Congress in Vienna in 2005, the host for the Congress will be this new trade union. Q: It cannot be an easy task to create this huge organisation? A: We’ll have to solve many problems. And we must put all emphasis on members’ acceptance of these plans. It’s a huge task, but we are approaching it with great commitment and engagement. Q: Traditionally, in many countries, there has been an almost tangible division between blue- and white-collar workers. Is that also true for Austria? A: Of course. But there was much more of that in the past than now. And since January 2000, in the collective agreements for the metal industry, there are no longer any differences based on blue-white criteria. And already since 10 years, the employees’ and workers’ trade unions have been acting as one tariff bargaining team in the yearly negotiations. Q: But the issue of bringing two cultures or two groups together is not solely about technicalities, about agreements and formal cooperation. It is also about psychology. Is there already some acceptance of your merger plans from the different member groups? A: The acceptance grows by the day. And many of our elected representatives in the works’ councils are relieved at the fact that there will be no more division between workers and employees. Q: And the employers, how do they react to your plans? A: With less of an earthquake… They see that in the future they will have to deal with a larger and stronger trade union. But positive voices have also been heard. Some employers might appreciate that they will have to deal not with two or three bargaining partners, but one. Q: Without these planned mergers, in what shape would your organisation, the GMT, be in a few years from now? A: One of the most important processes going on in society is that more and more work is carried out as services. With a constituency of solely blue-collar workers, we would lose many members, especially the most skilled. So, this step we are taking is the only logical thing to do. It is a necessity! The experience from other countries, like our neighbour Germany, is also that trade unions must create larger and more powerful structures. Q: Let us shift focus. You are not only a trade union leader, but also a politician and a parliamentarian… A: Yes, for 20 years I’ve been a member of the Austrian Parliament, representing the Social Democratic Party. Trade unionists being very active in political parties is a long tradition in our country; it has been like that since 1945. Trade unionists use this opportunity to influence legislation in favour of their members – not only when a proposal is submitted to the parliament, but already when it is being prepared. Trade unionists provide arguments in the interest of the working people. Q: But this arrangement, doesn’t it make it difficult for you — the trade union leader — to criticise your own party? Your party has governed this country for long periods, and its policies cannot always be in line with the trade union movement. A: We’ve had some situations… I remember the discussion about how to form a government after the parliamentary elections in the year 2000. The plans to form a coalition between the Social Democrats and the Conservative Party failed, one important reason being the trade union veto — expressed partly through me — against the coalition. The policies in the field of social security which the Conservative Party wanted to pursue through a coalition were simply not acceptable for us. We have never compromised. I admit that being a member of Parliament, in some situations you might be faced with a conflict of interests. But my mission as a trade unionist, representing the members, is always at the fore. Q: Now your party is in the opposition. Does that give you different perspectives in political life? A: It has, of course, meant a huge change. As a trade unionist and parliamentarian for the ruling party, you always had contacts with every minister in the government. Which could be of help. All that is now gone. To that comes this new government pursuing a very non-social policy. This has created enormous strains on and impairments of the social security system. So we must make all possible efforts to ensure that in the next elections there will once again be a change of government and that once again a more socially-aware and employee-friendly policy will be pursued. Q: Your trade union plays a significant role in assisting trade unions in countries applying for membership in the European Union. Explain why. A: One reason is obvious: they are bordering us. Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary — since decades we have strong links with these countries. Our engagement also includes the countries which formed the former Soviet Union; the former Republic of Yugoslavia and Albania. We’ve been able to help trade union colleagues in these countries with courses, seminars, financial aid… I think that we have contributed with a small, yet significant part of the internationalisation of the trade union movement. And this is of course something we want to continue with in the future. From an Austrian point of view, we also see that when it comes to the enlargement of the European Union eastwards, many members express fear – a fear which is exploited by certain political right-wing parties, xenophobes, etc. I see the enlargement as an economic necessity and, at the same time, a chance for us as Austrians. But many people fear that jobs will move east, or that eastern people will come here and take away jobs. A lot of enlightenment must be carried out here, by the trade unions. We’re talking about information, communication, education. It is not easy! Especially when one of the coalition partners in the government abuses this issue in its campaign work. Q: You often mention European-level trade union work. Is there a risk that you’ll forget the global level? A: No, we do not forget the rest of the world. As an example, since a couple of years we have established contacts within the People’s Republic of China. We arrange mutual exchange programmes with them; every year Chinese trade union representatives come here to attend seminars and receive training. We also have good relations with the American trade unions, at first hand with the Machinists and the Autoworkers. But we are a small union and must prioritise. And, by tradition, the priority is with our neighbouring countries. It is also for natural reasons. European trade unions must concentrate on European problems and issues. Political power is transferred to a European level, employers organise on a European level, and so the trade unions must play the game in order simply to be able to act as a counterpart when it comes to bargaining and collective agreements on a European level. That’s why our main emphasis lies there. Q: The basis of all trade union work is organising. Do you have the experience most trade unions seem to have, that it is difficult to attract new members? A: Unfortunately, yes. To convince young people of the necessity of a trade union is one of our most difficult tasks. This is true, above all, for people with higher education, men and women from the internet generation who want to work individually at the computer. It is very difficult to convince these people about the benefits of joining a trade union. Is it possible? It’s workable, but it could be better. Here I really must be self-critical. Q: Please, develop your self-criticism… A: The question of how to organise young people is very hard, I would say difficult, to answer. And we have asked ourselves over and over: How do we reach the young people? How do we reach the people in small and medium-sized enterprises? We have been trying for years, if not decades, and always with new methods. These have not, to put it bluntly, been successful. I must admit that. The proper recipes are not at hand. And there are some sectors, some companies, where trade unions simply don’t have a foothold. But please, don’t ask me why and how to resolve this. Were we to know, we would have done it in the past.

BY ROBERT STEIERT In a number of countries, the aircraft and aerospace industry has developed into an important industrial sector. Creating high value-added products, this sector offers workplaces for highly qualified staff in research and development and in the production of all types of aircraft and even satellites. In 2000, about 1.22 million employees were occupied in this sector worldwide. By far, the highest proportion of workers were employed in the USA and the European Union, followed by Canada, Japan and a number of other countries. For years, this industrial sector has been growing at an average rate of 5%. Recessionary phases were always followed by growth phases, partly reaching double figures. This development might be interrupted, or at least weakened, due to the events of September 11, 2001. The aircraft industry and the airlines immediately felt the effects of the attacks in New York and Washington. Passenger numbers plummeted, especially on flights from and to the United States. Airlines parked many aircraft which could not be filled with passengers anymore in the Arizona desert. Aircraft orders which had already been placed with manufacturers were cancelled, or at least postponed. U.S. airlines, in particular, sacked thousands of pilots and flight attendants. Unpopular measures
The events of September 11, however, did not trigger off the downturn in the aircraft industry. Cyclical fluctuations have repeatedly occurred in the aircraft and aerospace sector. The current slump was already looming on the horizon before that date. However, the attacks have intensified this development, and they have given a number of companies arguments for unpopular measures. The conceptual differences of the two large passenger and freight aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus are shown in their response to this development. Whereas Airbus is trying to retain its highly-qualified workforce by implementing different instruments of personnel policy, such as short-time work, accounts of working hours, etc., in order to be prepared for another upswing, Boeing is reacting in what many consider to be the typical U.S. manner of hire and fire. Shortly after the first cancellations of orders, the corporation announced the dismissal of at least 30,000 employees. The two manufacturers are also implementing different policies in the field of industrial relations, acting differently towards workers and their trade unions. A few months ago, the newly-founded company EADS, which among other things also produces the Airbus, and the European Metalworkers’ Federation (EMF) concluded an exemplary agreement on the establishment of a “European Works Council” (EWC). The contents of this agreement go far beyond the regulations of other companies hitherto considered to be exemplary. And it even leaves behind the minimum standards required by the 1996 EU-Directive on the European Works Council. The EADS-EWC has the right to meet four times a year. During at least two of these meetings, the company’s management is also present. The EWC establishes an economic committee which has the right to consult the company’s board of directors. The agreement also regulates that sub-committees for the central functional areas of the company, such as Airbus, Eurocopter and others, may be established. This model agreement is rounded off by an array of other options, such as the right to consult experts. In so doing, EADS has set a standard for the development of a cross-border workers’ representation in this corporation. A similar development or even a discussion in this direction cannot be detected with Boeing. The two companies also have different market and production strategies. Whereas Boeing has given up its plan to build a jumbo-jet stretch version 747X and is now pursuing the concept of the supersonic aircraft, Airbus is determined to build the A380, a giant-jumbo meant to transport up to 600 passengers. Orders and options placed so far seem to confirm the latter company’s expectations. This aircraft will not only have an impact on the production organisation of Airbus but, above all, will cause considerable investments into airport logistics, as airports already now are often “bursting at the seams”. Growth will continue
Most analysts and experts are expecting that the sector will continue to grow in the next few years. The margins of profit might be slightly lower than in the past. What is assessed slightly differently is how fast the current downturn in the cyclical growth curve will be left behind. In its “Current Market Outlook 2001”, Boeing is expecting to double its total fleet, from approximately 14,500 aircraft in the year 2000 to almost 33,000 in the year 2020. The number of airfreighters is also expected to double, from roughly 1,700 at the moment to 3,500 aircraft. The proportion of airfreighters in the total fleet will, however, remain at a stable 12%. Together with the enlargement of passenger and freight aircraft fleets, an increase of turnover in commercial aviation support services is expected, rising from the current $95 billion to a good $226 billion in 2020. Maintenance and repairs amount to roughly 50% of this volume. In its “Global Market Forecast 2000 — 2019”, Airbus is expecting an average annual growth rate of 4.9% over the next 20 years. Concerning airfreight traffic, the report predicts an annual growth rate of 5.9%. Airbus estimates that 15,400 new planes will be put into operation during the next 20 years, a slightly more moderate assessment than the one of Boeing. 1,200 of them are estimated to belong to the segment of the “big jumbos” (A380). This means a total delivery of 730 new aircraft every year. About 35% of these new aircraft are expected to go to North American airlines, while European airlines will buy roughly 30%, followed by Asia-Pacific with 34%. The remaining 11% will go to Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. Increasing workforce
The rising number of airplanes, and thus the rising number of takeoffs, flights and landings, will lead to a considerable additional strain on the environment. It is in particular the suppliers, mainly the manufacturers of jet engines, who must face this challenge. Jet engines that are less noisy and at the same time more efficient, and even new drive concepts are in demand. that could not be filled with passengers anymore No matter whether one follows the more optimistic or the less optimistic prediction of the sector’s development, there will be considerable demand for new aircraft. The resulting turnover offers enough margin to at least maintain, or even increase the workforce in the sector. The same applies to the supplier industry. Concentration will go on
In recent years, the sector has seen a number of mergers, especially in the USA. Boeing took over McDonnell Douglas, and Lockheed Martin came into being by merging Lockheed with Martin Marietta. After a protracted negotiation process, Europe reacted to this development by founding EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company). In terms of turnover, Boeing is still far ahead of EADS and Lockheed Martin, two companies competing with each other for the No. 2 rank in the global list of leading aircraft and aerospace companies. In the next few years, the process of concentration will increase in particular in the manufacturing sector of small and medium-sized aircraft. Another concentration process will probably take place in the airline sector. It is assumed that there are currently 228 airlines with another 49 associated firms, whose operations cannot be clearly separated from the operations of their “conglomerate” or “parent” airlines. In addition to that, there are 187 cargo airlines. In the medium term, a restructuring and consolidation process is to be expected. One can also expect that in the next few years the supplier industry and the manufacturers of systems for the aircraft industry will both undergo a clearing and concentration process. Trade union needs
In the past, there was only rudimentary trade union cooperation in this industrial sector, even though the major companies of the sector are concentrated in a few countries. At least, this is true for the global level. Cooperation was mainly limited to the IMF aerospace conferences, which, however, took place only irregularly. Apart from this, there were hardly any tight union contacts at plant level between workers’ representatives of the individual companies. Already in the late ’80s, a closer cooperation of trade unions and workers’ representatives was developing in Europe. On the one hand, this development was supported by a corresponding EMF taskforce, which offered a platform to get acquainted with each other and to exchange information. The Airbus conglomerate, consisting of Aerospatiale (France), British Aerospace (Great Britain), DASA (Germany) and CASA (Spain), increased the need for coordination of trade unions and workers’ representatives in these four countries and encouraged the development of a unified position. In 1997, the demand for a unified aircraft and aerospace corporation was established in Seville in a then far-sighted resolution. In so doing, the trade unions declared their support for a European perspective of integration and consolidation. They also spoke out against national autonomist endeavours and reservations. The developments in the sector, the predominance of the two corporations Boeing and Airbus in the segment of aircraft with over 100 seats, make closer trade union cooperation more than necessary, both globally and between the workers’ representatives of these two corporations. In the past, one could sometimes get the impression that, in discussions, the union and workers’ representatives often were using the same arguments the companies were using again and again against their competitors in their competition for market shares. In the years to come, competition will increase further — and at the same time passenger numbers and replacement orders of the airlines will increase as well. In the face of such an important production, and with respect to the number of workplaces for highly-qualified employees linked to this production, various countries and governments might even intensify the sector’s competition with all sorts of incentives (from granting loans and giving guarantees to subsidising the establishment of new industries). Common strategy
The trade unions must face this situation and develop a common strategy in order to give a trade union answer to issues such as outsourcing, qualification, working hours, etc., and in order to avoid the companies playing off the workers’ representatives against each other. Outsourcing processes and the use of subcontractors to supply entire systems and large parts will continue in the future. This will partly happen because many countries demand a share in production in return for placing orders. The bigger the domestic market (e.g. China), the stronger the demand for a “local content”. This will be all but easy. It is precisely the aircraft and aerospace industry where national sentiments still play a role, even though in the meantime they have been “Europeanised” in Europe. The intensification of trade union cooperation cannot and must not be limited to the two “big ones” in the sector. Closer union cooperation is also on the agenda concerning the segment of airplanes with less then 100 seats, concerning suppliers, component manufacturers and military aircraft manufacturers. To establish the basic structure of this cooperation is precisely the goal of the IMF World Aerospace Conference taking place in Toulouse, France, in mid-June. Apart from exchanging information, an approach must be found in an open and even self-critical discussion, which subsequently can be used in smaller working groups as the basis for the development of a common position and political approach. The results of this process then can be used as a basis to formulate overall union policy for the entire sector.

SPAIN: Spanish trade unions say 10 million people followed their call for a general strike on Thursday June 20. Union leaders told a big rally in Madrid that there would be further action if the government did not back down over changes that tightened unemployment benefits. The one-day strike was aimed at causing maximum embarrassment for conservative Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar ahead of the European Union summit in Seville on Friday. The two main unions involved, UGT and Comisiones Obreras, said more than 80% of employees had stayed away from work, government sources claimed less than 20%.

CANADA: 600 members of the Canadian Auto Workers union at International Trucks (formerly Navistar) in Chatham, Canada, have been on strike since June 1, following a dispute about how to reduce costs from the operation. Navistar has threatened to close the plant – the largest employer in Chatham – if workers refuse to accept pay cuts and other impairments of working conditions. According to the CAW, the company is now trying to pick up the lost production in Chatham at their Mexico location. Union leaders have vowed to keep replacement workers out of the factory during the strike; Wednesday and Thursday’s busloads of replacement workers were turned away from the truck plant despite being accompanied by a police escort. According to Canadian newspapers, a Navistar spokesman said the company would meet with police to discuss a plan to get workers into the plant as soon as possible. The IMF is calling on all its affiliates to support the striking workers at Navistar in their struggle to save their jobs and send solidarity messages to the CAW: Fax: + 1 416 4956559
E-mail: [email protected]

AUSTRALIA: The IMF-affiliated Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) is facing a bitter recognition dispute with an American multinational company. The company is called Dayson, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trane (TDU). Dayson is a small operation in Australia which tests heat exchangers imported from Trane plants in the USA and France. According to the AMWU, the dispute, which is now in its third week, is a result of Trane’s refusal to allow its employees to be represented by the AMWU in agreement negotiation. The company has now terminated seven workers who are union members, including the two AMWU delegates. In a circular letter, the IMF general secretary, Marcello Malentacchi, has asked IMF affiliates (particularly those with members in Trane in the USA and France) to intervene with their local unions to put pressure on the company to resolve this dispute in Australia. Affiliates are requested to send letters of support to the AMWU in Australia directly, by fax: +61 2 98979274 or e-mail: [email protected].

GERMANY: The German Metalworkers’ Union, IG Metall, has launched the campaign MAYDAY, calling upon the public to help politically persecuted trade unionists. The goal of the campaign, which has been launched in cooperation with amnesty international, is to publicly uncover violations of human rights. The pressure on those who allow the violation of trade union rights should be increased with the help of the population and with the support at company level. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) has recorded more than 600 cases of persecuted trade unionists. On their behalf, IG Metall has put up the names of three colleagues in big neon letters on buildings on the “Street of Human Rights” in the centre of Nuremberg. These are the trade unionists Tekin Yildiz (Turkey), Taye Woldesmiate (Ethiopia) and Dan Byung-ho (South Korea). Citizens and guests may get information on the fate of these unionist on a terminal located in the vicinity of the Nuremberg trade union house.

Obviously Prime Minister Berlusconi and his colleague Mr. Aznar never needed to do what millions of their fellow country men in Italy and Spain had to do in the fifties, sixties and seventies: Migrate to find a job. Many of those Italian and Spanish migrants, in their new countries, were called and considered lazy, dirty, less intelligent and some times even criminals. These allegations were unjust and inhumane, and in many instances took years to overcome. But mankind has a very short memory. Today, in exactly the same way, millions of migrants entering Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Holland and Britain, to name a few, are now experiencing the same prejudice. Xenophobia, racism and a fear of the unknown is producing some of the worst anti-migrant sentiments to be seen in Europe in recent history. I just wonder what Italy and Spain would look like today if the millions of people that left had stayed home. Probably both countries would have been as underdeveloped as they were just a few decades ago. It is a bad sign for a democratic and free Europe that two countries that used to export a great number of workers, are now the driving forces behind the hard-line being adopted in Europe to kick out workers and families that are looking for a better life. The Italian Parliament has just ratified a law that forces every work permit waiver to be identified by fingerprints. The Spanish Government is soon to follow. At the European Union top meeting in Seville at the end of June, this issue will be brought up and, if the few progressive forces in the European countries do not turn it down, we will soon experience many tragedies. It is an illusion to believe, as it would appear Tony Blair does, that one can stop desperate and hungry people from landing by using military force. Or that introducing humiliating methods such as fingerprinting, will counter-act the predicament that motivates people to leave their country in the first place. A productive investment in the countries where migration originates from, is a far better way to solve the problem. People do not want to move unless they absolutely have to. If Berlusconi, Aznar, Blair and others want to use their powers at hand, then they should use it to repress the traffic controlled by mafia and gangsters in many countries, including Italy, Spain and Britain. Prime ministers, go back to your own history and read about what happened to all migrant workers and learn. Your memory needs to be refreshed.

GENEVA: Referring to Italy and Spain, the IMF general secretary, Marcello Malentacchi, writes: “It is a bad sign for a democratic and free Europe that two countries which used to export a great number of workers are now the driving forces behind the hard line being adopted in Europe to kick out workers and families who are looking for a better life.” It is an illusion, argues Malentacchi, that one can stop desperate and hungry people from landing in Europe by using military force, or that introducing humiliating methods such as fingerprinting will counteract the predicament which motivates people to leave their country in the first place. “A productive investment in the countries where migration originates from is a far better way to solve the problem,” he concludes. Malentacchi’s opinion column is available at www.imfmetal.org.

AUSTRALIA: BHP Steel called on riot police on horseback to break a union picket line at its Western Port factory in the early hours of the morning on Wednesday June 11. About 30 steel workers were confronted by 100 police including 12 mounted police, with one worker receiving minor injuries during the incident. Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union (CEPU) — both IMF affiliates – and the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) had set up the picket line three weeks ago. The picket prevented the delivery of steel to car manufacturers and was in protest of BHP Steel’s attempts to sack maintenance workers and replace them with contractors at the Western Port facility. Car manufacturers had warned that production could shut down within a week if steel supplies did not resume. The police raid at Western Port enabled BHP Steel to move about 20 trucks of steel. Update June 14, 2002:
The dispute at BHP Western Port has been resolved with the AMWU and CEPU negotiating major victory in their campaign to achieve improved job security for BHP workers. The AMWU believes the agreement is a major step forward in the quest to establish workers rights to intervene in issues affecting their job security. The key principles of outsourcing, casuals, contractors, and the maintenance review have all been resolved in favour of the workers. Ian Thomas, AMWU delegate, thanked the local community, members and the AMWU for their support and solidarity. He said that members were grateful for the expressions of support they received via email from all over Australia and a number from around the world.

SPAIN: Labour unions in Spain have called for a general strike unless José María Aznar’s government withdraws plans to tighten unemployment benefit rules for the country’s 2.4 million jobless. Union General de Trabajadores (UGT) and Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO) have called the stoppage on June 20, two days before a European Union summit in Seville, to cause maximum embarrassment to the prime minister. (In Basque, trade unions ELA and LAB have called for a general strike on June 19.) Mr Aznar wants to deny unemployment benefit to those who refuse job offers within a 50 km radius of their home town. He believes the lack of labour mobility is one of the main reasons that Spain’s unemployment rate, at 12.75 per cent, remains the highest in the EU. Trade unions, however, reject any measures that would restrict benefits. Already, they say, that more than 40 per cent of Spaniards who are out of work are not entitled to unemployment benefits. Furthermore, labour law changes during the past six years have made it cheaper for employers to fire workers. They have also encouraged the abuse of “temporary contracts” that are renewed weekly and which deprive employees of compensation if they are fired. The IMF firmly supports the General Strike on June 19 (ELA, LAB), as well as the General Strike on June 20 (UGT, CC.OO).