Many people will assume that, after months of struggle and various deceptive manoeuvres by the employers’ side, the beginning of negotiations must mean that the rail bosses have made some kind of movement towards the union. Certainly workers are used to the leaders of the main trade union confederation, the DGB, exaggerating the importance of even the smallest compromises in order to find a reason for calling off militant action. In the case of the train drivers’ strike, however, that is not the case.
The employers’ offer doesn’t give an inch of ground. In fact, the union leaders have opted for new negotiations even though they have, quite correctly, characterised the offer as a swindle. Thus, in their press release, under the headline, “Railway offers no separate wage deal” we read, “although the offer does include the term “separate wage deal” it also says that this will only be agreed upon if there is also ‘confirmation of the single wage deal covering all Railway employees’. The so-called independent wage deal, therefore, is a completely phoney package. The press release goes on, “even the final pay rise of 13% is a deception. It is arrived at by adding together the 4.5% already agreed by the other rail unions, 1% increase for all employees, a 2.5% increase in the overtime rate for drivers and conductors and a 5% increase in return for an increase of two hours on the working week."
Why are the union leaders going back into negotiation?
In the last few weeks, the GDL has found itself in a massive political conflict, a political class struggle with German capital, the government and the state itself. There is no reason to doubt that the union leaders and the overwhelming majority of train drivers and conductors are “only” defending their legitimate interests when they fight for an independent wage deal. The union leaders would have been more than happy simply to be accepted as “equal social partners” alongside the head of TransNet, Hansen.
However, the policy of the Railway Company, and the incorporation of TransNet and Hansen, couldn’t allow even that. The train drivers and their union saw themselves forced to strike for their demands. That, however, meant taking up a political struggle even if that was not what they intended.
Firstly, the strike put in question the completion of the privatisation of the railways and with that an important goal for the German government and the whole ruling class. They want to see the formation of a giant, globally competitive, privatised transport system and that has to be based on the more effective exploitation of the employees and higher prices for working-class passengers. Secondly, although even a short strike in the transport sector inevitably means a massive disruption to the whole capitalist economy, the capitalists were prepared to lose millions rather than risk a union victory that might serve as a lesson to others.
As a result, the whole ruling class, together with all their supporters and hangers on, immediately went on the attack against the strike with all the weapons available to bourgeois society and the imperialist state: Court judgements, strike bans, media hate campaigns and so on.
Thirdly, the strike put in question the whole “system” of close collaboration between the unions and the bosses on the railways. The militancy of the drivers’ strike even forced the TransNet chief, Hansen, to call for an improvement in the “deal of the century” that had been struck between the TransNet and the Railway authorities. Clearly, that didn’t stop him also agreeing with the Railway bosses that the drivers’ strike had to be broken.
So far, the ruling class has not been able to force the drivers to their knees. On the contrary, despite the media hate campaigns and a whole phalanx of enemies including the government, the other unions, the bosses and the state apparatus, they have won an enormous wave of sympathy from the majority of workers. That is because millions live in the same or even worse conditions as the drivers and share the experience of having had to accept years of worsening conditions and pay. The drivers’ union deserves their sympathy because even as a relatively small union they have already achieved more than the TransNet leaders by showing that strikes can work.
Nonetheless, the fight is now on a knife edge. There is the threat of a deal that will make few concessions to the drivers and settle the conflict to the advantage of the executive. It is quite clear that the union leadership wants an end to the fight. That is the only way to explain why they haven’t simply rejected an obvious swindle out of hand.
All the justifications for reopening negotiations, along the lines that further concessions have been promised or that the government will pressurise the rail executive to give a few more crumbs to the union to win its future cooperation, are just empty promises, although this time from the union executive to their members. It is of course no accident that the strikers had no information at all about what was discussed between their leaders and Hansen and the Railway executive. And “obviously” they were not asked whether they accepted the “outcome” as a basis for negotiations or wanted to throw it out as a swindle and extend the strike indefinitely.
The union leadership had two main motives for suspending the strike and opening negotiations. First, they hoped as a result to be accepted as a junior partner of TransNet, an independent actor in the system of class collaboration. Their undemocratic behaviour in recent weeks does not distinguish them from the TransNet leadership around Hansen. Their only difference was that they did not act as professionally and did not camouflage the proposed sell-out as effectively. Second, the union leaders retreated under pressure from the class enemy.
They had already realised, and conversations with government representatives made it absolutely clear to them, that any continuation of the strike, not to mention the calling of an unlimited strike, would create an “all or nothing” situation. The threat was that the government and the Railway executive would use their power to break the union, outlaw all strikes and leave the train drivers isolated and alone.
Given the open support of the DGB (the German TUC) the major trade unions and all of the parliamentary parties with the exception of Die Linke (The Lefts) for TransNet and the Railway executive, the threat that not one of the mass organisations would lift a finger to help the drivers was very real. Even the Lefts needed several months before they could bring themselves to recognise the demands of the train drivers as “legitimate".
This was because a sizeable section of the Lefts were, and still are, against the drivers’ strike. That is why, in their “declaration of solidarity", there is in fact not one word of solidarity with the GDL or with the concrete demands of the strike.
No to negotiations
The GDL leaders’ motives have to be kept firmly in mind if a rotten compromise is to be prevented. First of all, it is decisive that the membership, local strike committees and strike activists organise mass meetings of the union to make sure that everybody knows what has been discussed and to take decisions over the offer and the tactics of the union executive.
These meetings should reject the “offer” and decide on an unlimited strike until all the demands of the GDL are met. The meetings must elect delegates who can then meet at a national level this week to discuss and decide on future policy.
They should replace the union’s negotiators and executive with members who will stay true to the union’s decisions or at least make clear that no future negotiations should take place without the agreement of the membership.
Secondly, however, the strikers have to be clear that this struggle really is a test of central political power, that it is a political class struggle with the bosses and their state. That means that they must take control of the strike into their own hands! An unlimited strike would be the best means to mobilise all rail workers in daily strike meetings, to call on the wider population for support and put pressure on the leaders of the DGB trade unions, to send strikers to meetings in other workplaces and to help build an opposition against the leaders of the DGB unions.
A political strike also means that it will be necessary to defend the strike against attack from the state, its courts and provocations by the police. It is possible that an unlimited strike, even now, would be enough to force the Railway executive to retreat relatively quickly because they (and even more capitalist class as a whole) will shy away from the risk of an open confrontation on such a scale. No one can say that for certain.
In any event, the biggest possible mobilisation would be the quickest way to achieve the strikers’ demands. What is certain is that to build active solidarity for an unlimited strike it will be necessary to build solidarity committees, or to extend them where they already exist. They should campaign for active solidarity, including solidarity strikes, in the factories and other workplaces and turn the existing popular sympathy into active support.
At the same time, the strike, and the threat to end it, shows that the German working-class faces two interconnected strategic tasks: We must build an organised class struggle rank-and-file movement in the workplaces and trade unions that can effectively fight the continual treachery of the bureaucracy. Against the block of capital, government, parties, media and state apparatus we must build a force that can politically united outside and organise its struggles effectively.
This can only be a party that is completely independent of the capitalists, their state and their system, a new revolutionary workers’ party which will combine the fight against the general offensive with the struggle for the socialist revolution.
The proposed swindle
Many people will assume that, after months of struggle and various deceptive manoeuvres by the employers’ side, the beginning of negotiations must mean that the rail bosses have made some kind of movement towards the union. Certainly workers are used to the leaders of the main trade union confederation, the DGB, exaggerating the importance of even the smallest compromises in order to find a reason for calling off militant action. In the case of the train drivers’ strike, however, that is not the case.
The employers’ offer doesn’t give an inch of ground. In fact, the union leaders have opted for new negotiations even though they have, quite correctly, characterised the offer as a swindle. Thus, in their press release, under the headline, “Railway offers no separate wage deal” we read, “although the offer does include the term “separate wage deal” it also says that this will only be agreed upon if there is also ‘confirmation of the single wage deal covering all Railway employees’. The so-called independent wage deal, therefore, is a completely phoney package. The press release goes on, “even the final pay rise of 13% is a deception. It is arrived at by adding together the 4.5% already agreed by the other rail unions, 1% increase for all employees, a 2.5% increase in the overtime rate for drivers and conductors and a 5% increase in return for an increase of two hours on the working week."
Why are the union leaders going back into negotiation?
In the last few weeks, the GDL has found itself in a massive political conflict, a political class struggle with German capital, the government and the state itself. There is no reason to doubt that the union leaders and the overwhelming majority of train drivers and conductors are “only” defending their legitimate interests when they fight for an independent wage deal. The union leaders would have been more than happy simply to be accepted as “equal social partners” alongside the head of TransNet, Hansen.
However, the policy of the Railway Company, and the incorporation of TransNet and Hansen, couldn’t allow even that. The train drivers and their union saw themselves forced to strike for their demands. That, however, meant taking up a political struggle even if that was not what they intended.
Firstly, the strike put in question the completion of the privatisation of the railways and with that an important goal for the German government and the whole ruling class. They want to see the formation of a giant, globally competitive, privatised transport system and that has to be based on the more effective exploitation of the employees and higher prices for working-class passengers. Secondly, although even a short strike in the transport sector inevitably means a massive disruption to the whole capitalist economy, the capitalists were prepared to lose millions rather than risk a union victory that might serve as a lesson to others.
As a result, the whole ruling class, together with all their supporters and hangers on, immediately went on the attack against the strike with all the weapons available to bourgeois society and the imperialist state: Court judgements, strike bans, media hate campaigns and so on.
Thirdly, the strike put in question the whole “system” of close collaboration between the unions and the bosses on the railways. The militancy of the drivers’ strike even forced the TransNet chief, Hansen, to call for an improvement in the “deal of the century” that had been struck between the TransNet and the Railway authorities. Clearly, that didn’t stop him also agreeing with the Railway bosses that the drivers’ strike had to be broken.
So far, the ruling class has not been able to force the drivers to their knees. On the contrary, despite the media hate campaigns and a whole phalanx of enemies including the government, the other unions, the bosses and the state apparatus, they have won an enormous wave of sympathy from the majority of workers. That is because millions live in the same or even worse conditions as the drivers and share the experience of having had to accept years of worsening conditions and pay. The drivers’ union deserves their sympathy because even as a relatively small union they have already achieved more than the TransNet leaders by showing that strikes can work.
Nonetheless, the fight is now on a knife edge. There is the threat of a deal that will make few concessions to the drivers and settle the conflict to the advantage of the executive. It is quite clear that the union leadership wants an end to the fight. That is the only way to explain why they haven’t simply rejected an obvious swindle out of hand.
All the justifications for reopening negotiations, along the lines that further concessions have been promised or that the government will pressurise the rail executive to give a few more crumbs to the union to win its future cooperation, are just empty promises, although this time from the union executive to their members. It is of course no accident that the strikers had no information at all about what was discussed between their leaders and Hansen and the Railway executive. And “obviously” they were not asked whether they accepted the “outcome” as a basis for negotiations or wanted to throw it out as a swindle and extend the strike indefinitely.
The union leadership had two main motives for suspending the strike and opening negotiations. First, they hoped as a result to be accepted as a junior partner of TransNet, an independent actor in the system of class collaboration. Their undemocratic behaviour in recent weeks does not distinguish them from the TransNet leadership around Hansen. Their only difference was that they did not act as professionally and did not camouflage the proposed sell-out as effectively. Second, the union leaders retreated under pressure from the class enemy.
They had already realised, and conversations with government representatives made it absolutely clear to them, that any continuation of the strike, not to mention the calling of an unlimited strike, would create an “all or nothing” situation. The threat was that the government and the Railway executive would use their power to break the union, outlaw all strikes and leave the train drivers isolated and alone.
Given the open support of the DGB (the German TUC) the major trade unions and all of the parliamentary parties with the exception of Die Linke (The Lefts) for TransNet and the Railway executive, the threat that not one of the mass organisations would lift a finger to help the drivers was very real. Even the Lefts needed several months before they could bring themselves to recognise the demands of the train drivers as “legitimate".
This was because a sizeable section of the Lefts were, and still are, against the drivers’ strike. That is why, in their “declaration of solidarity", there is in fact not one word of solidarity with the GDL or with the concrete demands of the strike.
No to negotiations
The GDL leaders’ motives have to be kept firmly in mind if a rotten compromise is to be prevented. First of all, it is decisive that the membership, local strike committees and strike activists organise mass meetings of the union to make sure that everybody knows what has been discussed and to take decisions over the offer and the tactics of the union executive.
These meetings should reject the “offer” and decide on an unlimited strike until all the demands of the GDL are met. The meetings must elect delegates who can then meet at a national level this week to discuss and decide on future policy.
They should replace the union’s negotiators and executive with members who will stay true to the union’s decisions or at least make clear that no future negotiations should take place without the agreement of the membership.
Secondly, however, the strikers have to be clear that this struggle really is a test of central political power, that it is a political class struggle with the bosses and their state. That means that they must take control of the strike into their own hands! An unlimited strike would be the best means to mobilise all rail workers in daily strike meetings, to call on the wider population for support and put pressure on the leaders of the DGB trade unions, to send strikers to meetings in other workplaces and to help build an opposition against the leaders of the DGB unions.
A political strike also means that it will be necessary to defend the strike against attack from the state, its courts and provocations by the police. It is possible that an unlimited strike, even now, would be enough to force the Railway executive to retreat relatively quickly because they (and even more capitalist class as a whole) will shy away from the risk of an open confrontation on such a scale. No one can say that for certain.
In any event, the biggest possible mobilisation would be the quickest way to achieve the strikers’ demands. What is certain is that to build active solidarity for an unlimited strike it will be necessary to build solidarity committees, or to extend them where they already exist. They should campaign for active solidarity, including solidarity strikes, in the factories and other workplaces and turn the existing popular sympathy into active support.
At the same time, the strike, and the threat to end it, shows that the German working-class faces two interconnected strategic tasks: We must build an organised class struggle rank-and-file movement in the workplaces and trade unions that can effectively fight the continual treachery of the bureaucracy. Against the block of capital, government, parties, media and state apparatus we must build a force that can politically united outside and organise its struggles effectively.
This can only be a party that is completely independent of the capitalists, their state and their system, a new revolutionary workers’ party which will combine the fight against the general offensive with the struggle for the socialist revolution.