USA/GLOBAL: With the all-important union election coming up on October 3, 2001, at the Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, the International Metalworkers’ Federation has written to all its affiliates urging them and their shopfloor members to send messages of solidarity to the United Auto Workers’ union, which hopes to win a majority of the votes and recognition at the plant. U.S. labour law requires at least 50 per cent plus 1 of the workers in a plant to vote in favour of a union before it can be recognised as the workers’ representative.
For some years now, the UAW has been fighting to win recognition in large transnational companies (TNCs) which have set up shop in so-called “right-to-work” states like Alabama, Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina. “A right-to-work state is not what it appears to be,” explains Malentacchi. “It gives, in effect, a company the right to hire and fire almost at will. It also gives the company the right to hire scabs to break a legitimate strike.”
Stressing the great significance of winning this election, the IMF general secretary says the UAW needs international support. “It is fundamental that the TNCs involved facilitate the fairness of such an election. There must be no interference by the company, either to threaten or otherwise discourage workers from joining the union. It is well known in the U.S. South that many companies use union-busting firms to stop union recognition.”
The IMF is urging all trade unions at Nissan as well as French carmaker Renault – which with 36.8 per cent of the shares is the largest shareholder in Nissan – to put pressure on management to ensure that Nissan USA keeps out of the election process and allows the UAW to conduct its campaign without interference.
To show its support with the UAW, the IMF general secretary will be in Smyrna, Tennessee in the days leading up to the election. Send your own message of solidarity to:
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: (1/202) 223-6913

BRUSSELS: The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) has announced in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States that it plans to go ahead with its preparations for the “Global Unions Day of Action” on November 9, 2001. In a press statement issued on September 21, the ICFTU says that on and around November 9, unions and their members will be calling for a “new globalisation” at workplaces throughout the world.
The day is set to coincide with the first day of the Fourth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which has stated it still intends to hold the ministerial meeting set for Doha, Qatar, on November 9-13, despite the September 11 attacks in the United States.
Trade unions participating in the Day of Action are making the following demands:

• NO to globalisation that drives down workers’ rights and job security;
• NO to globalisation that undermines education and health care;
• NO to globalisation that helps the rich and hurts the poor;
• NO to globalisation that stifles and denies democracy;
• YES to globalisation that benefits all people everywhere;
• YES to globalisation that delivers true global justice and equality.

Source: ICFTU

KOREA, REP: Today, September 21, at 10:30 a.m. in Korea, General Motors signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to acquire the insolvent automaker Daewoo Motor Co. The deal is understood to include a 67 per cent stake in Daewoo, and the price paid by GM is 600 billion Korean won (US$463 million).
Among businesses excluded in the MOU are the Pupyong auto plant in Inchon and the Daewoo plant producing buses in Pusan. For the time being, the Pupyong plant will have to assume its debt and it will continue to operate, with the government taking over.
More details will follow, as well as the reaction to the deal by the Korean Metal Workers’ Federation, which organises the workers at Daewoo Motor. For additional information on the trade union struggle at Daewoo, please search the IMF website.

KOREA, REP: Further to the IMF’s earlier website news of today (September 21, 2001) regarding the memorandum of understanding (MOU) which was signed today by General Motors to acquire Daewoo Motor, the Korean Metal Workers’ Federation has condemned the transaction as it will involve the split-up of Daewoo Motor. Among plants excluded in GM’s MOU is Daewoo’s largest auto plant in Pupyong, as well as its bus plant in Pusan and all sales offices.
The KMWF stated that the government and Daewoo management have tried to mislead Daewoo workers with regard to this form of separation sale by saying that the Pupyong plant, which is heavily in debt, could be revived within six years’ time. However, said the union, “we know that the Pupyong plant will disappear by then, as no plan has been proposed for it.” According to the KMWF, there will be mass unemployment if the Pupyong plant is closed down in the near future. Also, the jobs of workers in the plants being taken over by GM will not be assured due to the form of the takeover. GM will only take over plant properties but not be responsible for maintaining employment or collective bargaining.
The KMWF is pressing the government and management to keep the Pupyong plant in operation and to make an appropriate plan for workers who have been or will be laid off. The union declared that “we opposed all forms of a sale which did not consider the workers’ demands. The KMWF will look for all possible ways to prevent any disasters caused by the sale.”

USA: Leaders of the IMF-affiliated International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers met with members of Congress and testified before a key committee of the House of Representatives on September 19, to call for federal aid to give airlines and airline employees a chance to rebuild their devastated industry. The IAM represents 155,000 transportation workers and 132,000 aerospace employees.
In a press release issued on September 19, the IAM stated that a coordinated effort by the federal government, unions and airline management is called for, “but the concerns of airline employees, who are the backbone of the industry, must not be forgotten in the process.” The IAM general vice president, Robert Roach Jr., declared that IAM members “will not support a relief package that allows airlines to recover financially at the members’ expense and does not remedy the inherent lack of security that is prevalent in the airline industry today. Federal authorities must be actively involved… Airline employees can and should be an integral part of a comprehensive security solution.”
With the U.S. economy already in a downturn and particularly following the terrorist attacks of September 11 in the U.S., as many as 100,000 workers in the airline industry could be laid off. Aircraft manufacturer Boeing, alone, has announced 30,000 job cuts. The effects are also spreading to sectors dependent on the airline industry and are expected to reverberate in Europe and Asia.

NORTH AMERICA: In opening testimony before the International Trade Commission (ITC) on the Section 201 Trade Petition filed by the Bush administration, the president of the United Steelworkers of America, Leo Gerard, called for “immediate and comprehensive relief to prevent America from being seriously compromised in its ability to satisfy the steel demand so critical for our national security.” Gerard testified that the underlying cause of the increased imports, which have depressed prices and devastated American steel producers over the past three and a half years, “is the massive excess steelmaking capacity in all parts of the world, except for the U.S. and Canada, the only two major steel-producing nations without self-sufficiency in steelmaking.” The USWA brief excludes Canada from blame for the U.S. steel crisis.
The USWA national director for Canada, Lawrence McBrearty, declared that the need to protect steel as an integrated North American industry means the Canadian government must send a message to importers which is seen to be equal in strength and determination to that of the U.S. “The message to the ITC in the U.S. is one that confirms how important it is to control low-priced imports that have caused bankruptcy and unemployment in both countries, where the market is about 25 per cent larger than total domestic production capacity,” said McBrearty. “The message to our government in Canada is that protection must include duties that are retroactive to the date the dumped steel started entering the country, and to make sure brokers as well as steel companies can be charged with dumping.” McBrearty said there must also be a clear commitment of support to help restructure the industry, including the saving of Algoma Steel, currently under bankruptcy protection and in the difficult process of restructuring. “Thousands of jobs are at stake,” he declared, “and not just in the industry itself.”
The USWA recently issued two reports – Global Steel Capacity and American Steel: Capacity, Employment, Cost – documenting the existence of 300-million tons of global overcapacity in steel production, all of it in countries outside the U.S., which currently produces only enough steel to meet 80 percent of domestic demand.
Access the associated links to the USWA in the U.S. and Canada for more information.

BY STIG JUTTERSTRÖM Mary Stilly arrived in Sydney at the age of 16. She had grown up in Cyprus in a family of eleven children. Three of her older brothers had already emigrated to Australia, which was one of the reasons that she managed to make the move from a small Mediterranean island to one of the largest islands in the world, somewhere far away where oceans meet. She pined for home but had to cope with the change. Otherwise, what would her father have said? He was the person who had sent her there? “We had to do what our parents told us to do.”
This happened in 1958, a few years before researcher and writer Donald Horne coined the phrase, the “lucky country”, a label that has since stuck to Australia. Horne’s book was published in 1964, became world famous and is regularly reprinted in new editions. For Mary, Australia was “a country of nowhere”. At first she had to look after her brothers, doing their cleaning and their washing. But she also worked outside the home, sending money home to her family in Cyprus and learning to speak her new language. Soon she married and started her own family; her three children were born in 1963, 1965 and 1967.
A TOLERANT MULTI-CULTURAL SOCIETY
At that time, immigrants came to Australia from southern Europe — Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Yugoslavia. Australia, which is the largest of islands but smallest of continents, saw its population increase from 7 million at the end of the war in 1945 to 19 million in 2000. The number of inhabitants, the number of industrial workers and the cities grew. The former British penal colony became one of the most urbanised countries in the world. 85 per cent of the population was concentrated into cities, towns and suburbs, mainly around the coastline.
Australia also became an unusually successful example of a tolerant, multicultural society. If you are accepted as an immigrant in Australia, you are accepted in all respects. In the 1990s, 40 per cent of the immigrants were of Asian origin. Gone are the days of the “White Australia” policy, when immigrants were carefully selected by the colour of their skin. Now entry depends on qualifications, skills, age and the ability to speak English. A quarter of today’s Australians were born overseas. Most Australians seem comfortable with the idea of a racially mixed country. The only difficult ethnic conflict which has lately afflicted the country is that of the indigenous population, the aborigines.
GREAT HOPES FOR THE COMPANY
Mary Stilly is employed as a process worker at Sunbeam, a factory in west Sydney that manufactures domestic electrical appliances. 80 per cent of her working time is spent on the production line. The remaining 20 per cent she devotes to being a shop steward for the CEPU (Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia), one of three trade unions in Australia which are affiliated to the International Metalworkers’ Federation. Until 1988 Mary was a homeworker, sewing shirts for a textile company using an industrial sewing machine in her family home in the suburb of Earlwood. But when her husband Bill died in 1986, Mary had to find a job outside her home. A$350 (US$175) a week was not a lot to live on. So she started working at Sunbeam, and it only took three years before she was persuaded by a CEPU organiser to become a trade union delegate in the company. “I had great hopes for the company,” she said, as she really wanted to do some good both for her colleagues and for the company.
At that time Sunbeam had 1,700 workers; in June 2001 only 250 were left. Perhaps there will be none by the time this article is published. Production is gradually being moved away from Australia to China, and Mary Stilly believes that this is because companies are looking for the cheapest labour, and that the Australian government has ignored the manufacturing industry for over ten years. “The management says that labour costs are cheaper overseas.” She doubts, though, that this is a wise policy.
A DESERTED FACTORY
The large factory premises are deserted. Everywhere there are abandoned machines, which is probably the reason why we were not given permission on this occasion to take photos inside the plant. It would seem difficult to think of any other reason. Mary talks about what there used to be, what was made here, and how many workers there once were at this plant. Only four years ago, there was a line here and another there. Over there they made hairdryers, rice boilers, toasters, frying pans, etc. The only items still made are lawn mowers. “But I suppose that production line will soon be gone too,” sighs Mary. “It’s very sad, very, very sad.” Once there was a worker at every machine; now there is only one at either end of each line. There are rumours that manufacturing will be outsourced to Korea.
Mary knows every one in the factory, and says a few words to each as we walk around. One of her colleagues tells us that after ten years as a supervisor here, she is about to get a job in a club. Clubs where people, mostly men, drink beer and play the poker machines have become a growth industry in Australia, as have other service industries.
A LEFT-WING UNION
Sunbeam is only one of many examples which demonstrate the shrinking Australian manufacturing base. It is an area of great concern, not least for the engineering unions. 75 workers at Sunbeam belong to the CEPU, 100 to the AMWU (Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union) and 85 to the AWU (Australian Workers’ Union). Doug Cameron is the general secretary of one of these unions, the AMWU, a union that is proud of describing itself as a left-wing and militant union. He confirms that the biggest problem in Australia today is the decline of industry due to the lack of vision by the federal government, a Liberal National Party coalition.
“This government has no ideas, no vision, and no answers for manufacturing workers,” says Doug Cameron. “We have to get rid of it at the national elections later this year.” In the last five years, 75,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing industry. These are net losses. Jobs have also shifted from big workplaces that are well unionised to smaller workplaces and to casual and contract employment where wages are lower and the unions often weaker. Australia has the second highest level of casualisation in the world after Turkey. The average Australian plant has fewer than 8 employees. A plant with 100 employees is a big company in Australia.
A MASSIVE ATTACK ON JOBS
The massive attack on jobs in the manufacturing industry and the lack of support for the industry is also taking its toll on union membership. The level of unionisation in manufacturing industries has declined from 50 per cent at the end of the 1980s to 28-29 per cent today. This is not only on account of the changes from large to small workplaces; it is also the result of an aggressively anti-union government policy, supported by both employers and the leading media.
THE GOVERNMENT PROMOTES NON-UNIONISM
Doug Cameron thinks that Australia is the only country in the world where the government uses hundreds of millions of dollars of tax payers’ money for a TV publicity campaign with the message: You don’t have to belong to a union. “They are promoting the so-called right of freedom of association, but they are really promoting non-unionism. The government encourages people to leave the union, and the campaign has been efficient. It has affected both the employers and the employees. In many cases workers are unable to be a trade unionist because the employer makes non-unionism a condition for employment.
The government is a Liberal-National Party coalition. “It is basically very market-focused,” says Doug Cameron. “It is heavily influenced by Margaret Thatcher’s and Ronald Reagan’s neo-liberal policies. It picked up all the theory from America and the UK and implemented a pure theory, whereas America and the UK didn’t. We cut the tariffs quicker and deeper than any other country in the world. There was a huge pressure on jobs.” The problem for left-leaning unions is that this policy did not start with the Liberal-National government headed by John Howard as prime minister, which came to power in 1996. It was initiated by earlier Labour governments. When the Labour Party came to office in 1983, the first action of its new prime minister, Bob Hawke (who had previously been general secretary of ACTU – the Australian Council of Trade Unions), was to allow the Australian dollar to float. Over the next few years the government deregulated the finance sector and privatised state-owned industries.
“CONSENSUS” WAS A KEY WORD
“Consensus” was one of Hawkes’ key words. He got industry and trade unions to collaborate by convening the Accord, a national economic summit meeting with union leaders, managing directors and leading politicians. At first this led to some positive results with industry plans and a universal health scheme.
However, by the time Paul Keating, the Labour government’s former finance minister, took over as prime minister in 1991, he started on a round of industrial relations reforms that introduced bargaining at local level and productivity-based pay. Howard’s present government has greatly accelerated these anti-worker policies, further increasing income inequality.
DEREGULATED THE FINANCE SECTOR
“We opposed the move towards bargaining at local level, as the new labour laws have diminished the workers’ capacity to act collectively,” says Doug Cameron. “The Labour Party was captured by and capitulated to neo-classical economic theories. The Labour governments deregulated the finance sector and commenced to deregulate the industrial relations system in a big way.” Things are not improved by the fact that the AMWU and other large unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. Both the party and the union are factionalised into right and left wings. The AMWU is intending to run a “marginal seat campaign” at the elections, and advertise on TV in support of manufacturing and on the importance of manufacturing. “Some politicians have not been vocal enough, so we have to put pressure on them.”
FREE TRADE AND LABOUR STANDARDS
The biggest difference between the AMWU and the Labour Party is about Labour’s commitment to free trade. It does not accept that it should be linked to core labour standards, human rights and child labour standards. Labour argues that trade is separate from labour standards and human rights. The trade unions don’t agree.
What would change then if there were a Labour government after the elections? “The problem we have is that Labour is not prepared to accept a more sophisticated European model of Social Democracy. They are still driven by the market, much more so than some of the European Labour Parties. But there will be changes in the labour laws. The system will not change back to a national pay award-based system, but the pay awards will be strengthened. Bargaining at local level will still be a major focus for the Labour Party.” He says that there is still a great deal of cynicism about the Labour Party amongst trade union members. “There is a huge undecided group, who cannot distinguish between Labour and the Liberals.”
“The challenge for the trade unions is to convince the Labour politicians that they have to intervene in the economy,” says Cameron. “There is going to be a struggle, a struggle that we welcome and relish. We will debate that with them. We have to take up the challenge in a strong and critical manner to ensure that a Labour government does not behave like a Liberal-Conservative government.”
A RICH COUNTRY
Australia is still one of the richest 12 to 15 countries in the world, and the disparity in incomes is less than in the majority of comparable countries. An industrial worker typically earns A$600 (US$310) a week. The differences are increasing however, and the welfare system has been downgraded. A trade unionist tells of how proud he was when he visited Canada in 1976 and was able to boast that there simply were no beggars at all in Australia. There are now 20,000 homeless in Victoria, where the industrial city Melbourne is located. One of his colleagues, a former social worker, gives this answer to the question on whether Australia is a welfare state: “Compared to Europe, no. Compared to America and Asia, yes.”
Politically, Australia is dominated by the mining lobby, with very powerful corporations like BHP (Broken Hill Proprietary Company) and Rio Tinto pushing their agendas on the government.
Is it still the “lucky country”? Doug Cameron: “We have massive natural resources and to some extent those resources mean that we are the lucky country in one sense. But when the price of natural resources, when the export value of your minerals and agricultural products declines and when you neglect to build a strong manufacturing industry, in that sense we are not the lucky country. But we can be again.”
Mary Stilly from Sunbeam and a different trade union, CEPU, agrees. “Australia was the ‘lucky country’. And it still is. But not for the many manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs.”

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.

BY ROBERT STEIERT
The past few years have been marked by a rapid reorganisation of our economy and society. New products, an ever-increasing penetration of all areas of life by electronic devices and the creation of information and communications networks on a global scale have had a growing impact on more and more sections of our economy and society. For years, the sector of information and communications technologies has experienced growth rates which exceeded those of the other industries to a considerable extent. The question is: Will this development continue like that? What kind of changes are still to be expected? How will unions and their activities be affected by this development?
WHAT IS COVERED BY ICT?
It is difficult to come up with an exact definition of this sector. ICT is no ordinary industry, at least it is not included as such in the official statistics. It is rather a sector of industry which is actually composed of several industries. Moreover, this sector does not only comprise sales, service and office activities, i.e. office staff, but also the production of goods.
According to a rather conservative definition, the ICT sector including production, marketing, sales and maintenance covers the following:
– office equipment,
– brown goods (radio, TV, picture tubes and the necessary electronic components), – telephones including accessories,
– devices for TV and radio transmissions,
– telephone networks (fixed and mobile telecommunications networks) including call centres,
– computers and the necessary hardware (peripheral devices, main boards, processors, memory chips etc.) as well as the development and distribution of computer software,
– computer networks.
A more comprehensive definition of ICT might also include any product which is mainly based on electronics, such as control and measuring equipment for cars, airplanes, etc.
Thus, ICT does not only cover the provision of services, as is often mistakenly assumed. ICT also comprises the “branch of production” where devices are being manufactured without which ICT services such as telephony or computer software would not be possible at all.
“HARDWARE PRODUCTION”
The proportion of such “hardware production” varies considerably from country to country. According to estimates, it accounts for 30%-40 % of this sector’s national product on average. While this proportion is below 30% in the United States, it is considerably higher in countries like Taiwan, Malaysia, etc. An overview of the individual countries reveals a strong or weak presence in the individual segments of the ICT sector as well (see table 1). There is a similar difference regarding the proportion in the ICT sector’s workforce compared to the total workforce of a country. While this proportion still reaches some 5% in EU countries (with Ireland accounting for 9.3%, for example), the percentage is much lower in Japan at 4.3% and in the USA at 3.7 (see table 2). To give an idea of the contribution of this sector to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the different countries is rather difficult as the statistics are not updated and seem to partly use a different definition for the sector. A table (see table 3)of the OECD states for 1996 that the ICT’s value added to the GDP of the USA is 4.4%. This seems to have changed. Newer sources estimate a percentage of between 8%-10% for the U.S. and also higher figures for the other countries listed. But updated official statistics have not been available.
The production of ICT goods is concentrated in the industrial countries as well. With 29% and 25% respectively of this sector’s products, the USA and Japan alone manufacture more than 50%. Another 27% is manufactured in other OECD countries, mainly in EU countries. A group of Asian newly industrialised countries, comprising Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Thailand, account for another 14%. The remaining 5% is distributed over a multitude of non-OECD countries.
A JOB CREATOR?
A lot of hope has been pinned on ICT companies. While the companies of the so-called “Old Economy” of the industrial countries have continuously reduced their workforce due to productivity gains, new production techniques and also to a relocation of production, the companies of the “New Economy” have presented themselves as job creators. These created jobs were considered more “creative”, less strenuous in terms of physical exhaustion and better paid than in the “Old Economy”. While the companies of the “Old Economy” were regarded as the dinosaurs of the industrial age, those of the “New Economy” were hailed as the “driving force” of a new age.
This did not only have an effect on the image of these companies but also on the way they were dealt with at the stock exchanges of the industrial countries. Investments in shares of “Old Economy” companies were considered to be outdated. Huge amounts of capital went into the companies of the “New Economy” and an incredible boom and run on the shares of these companies started. Almost each “start-up”, i.e. each newly established company in this sector, went public as fast as possible and was rewarded with soaring share prices.
Even companies such as Amazon.com, which has not made profits for several years, reported share prices and thus a capitalisation which partly exceeded the capitalisation of large transnational companies of the “Old Economy” to a considerable extent, although their business activities were secured by production plants, premises, know-how etc. Between 1998 and 2000, some US$177 billion was invested in 1,155 start-ups listed on the Nasdaq, the U.S. stock exchange for companies of the New Economy.
A DRAMATIC CHANGE
Meanwhile, however, the situation has changed dramatically. A number of companies of the “Old Economy” have managed to gain a foothold in this sector by successfully diversifying and restructuring their business activities (see table 4), and these “old” TNCs have become an important player in this sector by developing initiatives of their own and acquiring other companies, whereas many so-called start-ups did not manage to live up to the market’s expectations.
Since the stock exchange prices of listed companies in particular started to show a downward trend last year, share prices of a multitude of formerly praised and actively traded start-ups have collapsed. Price losses of more than 50% have been the rule, not the exception. Partly, these losses are so dramatic that stock exchanges in the USA and Germany set up rules to suspend companies whose share prices fell to under US$1 or €1 (euro) from trading. Even well-known companies such as Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon, AOL and others had to accept heavy stock price losses.
After having exceeded the limit of an incredible 5,000 points in March 2000, the U.S. technology stock exchange started to tumble. In March 2001, a remaining 1,929 points were registered, which is a minus of 62%. Prices of stock exchanges in other countries, such as the German Nemax and Dax, or the U.S. Dow Jones experienced a similar development.
In the one year during which the Nasdaq continued to drop sharply, US$3.5 trillion in securities vanished into thin air. 322 U.S. Internet firms (dot.coms) have disappeared, half of them this year alone.
A JOB KILLER
Meanwhile, the downturn on the stock market has had an impact on employment figures as well. Between January and March 2001, the Silicon Valley companies in the USA alone laid off at least 6,000 people. Following the slowdown in the U.S. and European economy, so-called profit warnings have been issued more and more often since May/June. With these warnings, the companies aim at “cautiously preparing” their shareholders for the fact that they will probably not come up to the expectations raised with ambitious business plans and forecasts from analysts. Instead, an increasing number of companies is announcing job cuts.
If only the companies which announce employment cuts of at least 1,000 (see table 5) were listed, these cuts would already amount to more than 300,000. When taking into account all the companies which plan to reduce their workforce by less than 1,000, the number of jobs which will be axed in the ICT sector might total 400,000 to 500,000.
This will not only destroy the reputation of these firms as being a generator of assets and wealth via the stock exchange, but their reputation of being a “job creator” will also belong to the past.
ICT AND THE UNIONS
Generally, it can be said that in most countries union membership in the ICT sector will probably be below the average of other industries.
On closer examination, however, this statement has to be reviewed. Depending on the proportion of employees as well as regional criteria, the situation might vary considerably.
In many countries with an average or above-average rate of union membership (i.e. more than 30%–35%), the average union membership in the section of hardware production, i.e. sections mainly comprising shopfloor workers, might at least equal the average union membership in the metalworking industry, with the exception of countries whose union membership is below average anyway (e.g. USA with a union membership of just about 10% in the private industry). Membership might be lower in the service sector, software development and in many start-ups where most or even all employees are probably office workers. This has a negative effect on union membership in this sector in general, where the majority of employees usually are office workers. At Siemens, for example, office staff accounts for 65% and shopfloor workers for merely 35% of the whole workforce.
In countries where the metalworking industry records a union membership below average, the new production facilities of the New Economy, which are often built on greenfield sites, might partly have an even lower membership. The USA will probably again be a typical example in this respect. None of the production sites of the well-known big players of the sector, such as IBM, Intel, Compaq, etc., is unionised, while the European subsidiaries of these TNCs have a union representation which is also accepted as a partner in collective bargaining negotiations.
These statements are of course only valid for countries without legal restrictions on unionisation. In free trade or export processing zones (EPZs), where unionisation is forbidden, or in countries, such as Malaysia, where the law provides for the workforce of the electronics industry only to be organised in company unions, not, however, in trade unions operating at national level, union membership usually tends towards zero.
In a survey among its affiliates, the IMF is currently trying to support these observations with facts and studies from the individual countries.
ACTIVITIES OF THE IMF
A number of affiliates of the International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF) have already members in the ICT sector, in particular in the section of hardware production. Some affiliates also have members among the office staff of ICT companies. Other unions, which have only office workers as members, are associated with another so-called international trade secretariat at global level, the Union Network International (UNI).
Taking into account the importance the ICT sector has in some countries and will have in the future, even though at lower growth rates than in the past, a number of IMF affiliates have already started initiatives to increase union membership and have drawn up programmes aimed at the needs of the workforce in the ICT sector.
The IMF has taken up these initiatives and developed approaches to promote and coordinate activities at international level. For this purpose, a task force has been set up and assigned the task of coming up with concrete proposals for projects on a global scale. The issue of union membership will definitely play a decisive role. Another important aspect will be the cooperation within TNCs, the development of a position on the industrial policy to adopt for the sector and the preparation and implementation of common standards regarding wage policy, working conditions, safety at work, etc. The task force is expected to present its first proposals by the end of 2001.
THE GOLD RUSH IS OVER
In the next few years, the information and communications technologies will remain well on course for further growth but will probably experience a lower growth rate than in the past. Some sections have seen a saturation of the market. The slowdown of the economy in many countries will cause investments to be shelved. This has already been announced by a number of companies which are planning to set up UMTS networks. Private consumption is facing a similar situation. The private consumer will probably not buy a new mobile phone, a new computer or other ICT products every year only because the companies have just launched a new model, a new processor, etc. on the market.
The workforce of this industrial sector is currently realising that ICT is no longer an industry that offers secure jobs. The announced job cuts of numerous companies speak for themselves. Furthermore, the “gold rush” at the stock exchanges of the new market will, for the time being, probably belong to the past. Investors will probably act with more caution and less euphoria. Many private investors might withdraw from this market for some time, not least because they have to consolidate their losses from the slump in share prices. There will definitely be new start-ups in the future as well. But they can no longer expect their share prices to rocket. This means that the amount of capital raised by means of going public will decrease, and thus funds available for investments.
Rationalisation and productivity gains in the hardware section will result in products being manufactured with a smaller workforce. It will take some time to compensate for the job losses in the software and service sector.
A BOOMERANG
The sudden collapse of many start-ups as well as the high share price losses of many companies of the New Economy have made the remuneration system of many companies obsolete. Payment with stock options, which was common practice in many companies, turned out to be a boomerang for many workers when share prices started plummeting. Therefore, many would meanwhile prefer a fixed wage resp. salary system where profit-sharing and stock options should be a supplement at most. This wish of having a collectively agreed salary structure is opening up a sphere of activity for the unions. Working hour schemes, safety at work and above all the issue of further training and qualification will be additional fields for union activities.
In the years to come, the unions will have to make considerable efforts to strengthen their bases in companies of the ICT sector. This will require a multitude of activities, from campaigns aimed at unionising workers in the companies to international initiatives in order to reduce the number of cases where government regulations limit the workers’ right to unionise or deprive the workers of this right at all. Apart from initiatives with regard to the UN, ILO, WTO and the World Bank, this will certainly require projects promoting the adoption of a social clause in international trade agreements. The negotiation of a global code of conduct with transnational companies will be another field of international union activities.
A SOCIAL COMPONET IS NEEDED
It will be increasingly important for unions to intensify their cooperation at international level and to formulate and implement joint positions and policies. This will be the only way to reduce the number of cases where workers are played off against each other and where companies try, together with compliant governments, to adjust social conditions downwards. But this also means that the unions’ fragmentation in this sector at international level has to be overcome and that the international trade secretariats (ITSs) have to develop closer ties with affiliates in this sector.
Globalisation — even in the ICT sector — may have positive effects on the world economy. This, however, requires a social component which has so far often been ignored. It is only now that politicians and industry start realising that globalisation without “social responsibility” may have the opposite effect and cause resistance in the populations of the various countries. That is why it is also the task of the unions to draw people’s attention to this correlation so that the number of those who are prepared to take on social responsibility will be growing.

CHILE/USA: The Sindicato de Trabajadores No. 2, General Electric de Chile — the union representing workers at the GE lighting plant in Santiago — began legal strike action on September 4 after seven months of collective bargaining failed. The decision to strike was taken because of the local management’s negative attitude toward the union and its refusal to agree to a wage and benefits package similar to that already offered to workers who were not covered by the bargaining unit. Management’s final offer included inadequate proposals for general wage increases, holiday, vacation pay and attendance bonuses.
Strong support for the striking workers has now come from the Coordinated Bargaining Committee of GE Unions (CBC) in the U.S., which has not only contributed funds to help the 111 striking members of the Sindicato No. 2 GE-Chile but also written to GE’s chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, at company headquarters in Connecticut, to express its concern about the situation in Chile. In the letter to GE’s top executive, the CBC chairman, Ed Fire, reminds him that in GE shareholder meetings and in bargaining in the U.S., the CBC has always “encouraged the company to adopt an international code of labour conduct that would guarantee all GE employees their internationally-recognised labour rights, including the freedom of association and collective bargaining. We believe that the company’s current actions in Chile violate these fundamental rights.”
The CBC has requested the company instruct local management in Chile to go back to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith and states the CBC will fully support the GE workers in Chile until a fair and equitable settlement has been reached.
Sindicato No. 2 is a member of the IMF-affiliated Consfetema (Federación y Confederación Nacional de Trabajadores Electrometalurgicos, Mineros y Automotrices).