There is no strong union, and that’s not bad. The union still did not much for.
There is no strong union and that is bad for the country.
These are two extreme reactions to the bouncing of the merger between four FNV unions earlier this week. FNV rejected the merger – including sister bond Abvakabo – off and that was one big FNV union out of sight. FNV chairman Ton Heerts had for years made himself strong; he does not even note that the final merger of the job. “This merger has failed,” he said earlier this week, suggesting that there is still another merger may come. What does it matter? We have the unions do not need; politics may also, the thought by many.
Bad for business climate
This view is too easy, says Lans Bovenberg, professor of economics at Tilburg University and former member of the Economic and Social Council. Failure is according to him a bad thing for the Netherlands. Not only because politicians can not regulate everything and wants – think of collective bargaining, in which employers and employees to agree how much the wages in a sector rise – but more because politics there too fragmented for it
This brings some uncertainty. One government can decide otherwise on matters of social partners, such as education and retirement, then the next government. Thus social guarantees a political football. Unpredictability is bad for the business climate, says Bovenberg. Employers’ organizations are therefore not enthusiastic about a greater role for the Hague. Indeed, they hold a strong union, with many members, and where it is to talk.
A government that everything from above imposes also raises namely faster resistance and can provoke strikes. There are companies not to wait. Moreover, they can put more pressure on The Hague to implement certain measures. (Not) along with a strong union The low level of organization of the unions – 17% to 18% of all workers are member – and many older members include employers in the bargain
Leaning ratio
Professor Paul de Beer, director of the Scientific Office the trade union movement, sees the system with the social partners do not change in the coming years. This is beneficial, you Bovenberg, because so no high transition costs and problems are. Retirement is now a condition of employment that is controlled. By social partners Will the political pension laws require that costs a lot of money and hassle.
But both Bovenberg and De Beer believes that stronger unions must to be. The relationship between employers and unions is skewed. Or as The Bear puts it: “There has been a creeping shift in power from unions to employers and the failed merger of FNV it will not diminish.”
The growing power of employers is partly seen in wage agreements back. The average wage increase came in recent years hardly above inflation from. Unions put in times of crisis a moderate demand on the table because they are above a higher salary showed prevail. Job retention And they are sensitive to the argument that the Netherlands prides itself with high wages out of the market and businesses then leave. “Capitalists are difficult to address because they are mobile,” says Bovenberg. Beneficial to the purchasing power is not.
Low wage increases are not the only benefit to employers. They have much more than families benefited from economic growth since 2001, recently, a study conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics. The Beer fears finally that collective interests are represented less with bankrupt unions and greater wage differences arise. Bovenberg: ‘The Netherlands should not be happy with a weak FNV. “
No comments:
Post a Comment