Interviewed by Philippe Alcoy
We interviewed Mihai Varga, a Romanian specialist on trade unionism
in Eastern and Central Europe and author of "Worker Protests in
post-communist Romania and Ukraine," published in August 2015. In this
interview, Varga provides his vision on the state of the trade unionism
in the region after the dissolution of the Soviet bloc in the early
1990's.
This reflexion can help us understand the current situation of the
working class in these countries. It can also provide lessons for
western countries about unionist actions in moments when the employers
and the governments are on the offensive against the hard earned rights
of the working class.
Left Voice: During the period known as “transition” the
workers and masses in former “socialist” countries of Central and
Eastern Europe (CEE) experienced a deep decline in living standards, an
explosion of unemployment, privatizations and factory closures. In this
context, unions ability and/or willingness to resist, organize protest,
strikes and worker’s struggles seemed very low. How can you explain
this? What was the government and the bosses’ attitude towards the labor
movement, which avoided workers resistance and mass protests?
Mihai Varga: The changes of the 1990s were so
dramatic that people had little time to think about protests. Most
simply cared about survival. In many countries, governments did a lot to
make sure that the implosion of GDP did not lead to unemployment
(Russia and Ukraine), and if it did , then they made sure that
unemployment did not lead to mass protests (Poland, Hungary). States
actively intervened in the economy so that unemployment and
impoverishment did not become political issues.
Unions played a large part in this. In Hungary and Poland, they
endorsed government policy, most likely for ideological reasons. In
Russia and Ukraine, unions threatened to become involved in organizing
discontent and representing protesting workers around 1993. However,
this did not happen, as states financially and juridically allowed
unions to carry out the same tasks as they did under Communism.
In other countries, governments were ready to negotiate with unions
over reforms and even accepted some demands, such as limiting the spread
of fixed contracts and of mass redundancies (the Czech Republic).
Others saw extreme conflicts between unions and workers on one hand and
government on the other (Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia). Finally, the
Baltic State governments depicted the unions and workers questioning the
direction of reforms as tools of Soviet (and later Russian) dominance.
LV: There is a paradox in many CEE countries: the average
level of unionization, is often very high compared to western countries,
but that doesn’t mean that unions are strong or that they have a big
influence in political or social life. At the same time, many workers
are unionized but they don’t even know who the union delegates are, even
at the plant level. It seems that there is a gap between union
membership and union activism. What are the reasons for this
characteristic of union movement in many CEE countries?
M.V.: Many unions were set up during communism and
barely or never underwent reforms in order to get closer to workers and
their interests. This applies most to unions in post-Soviet countries,
and least to unions in the Czech Republic and Slovenia. Some unions
however (the two largest Polish unions, for instance) recently underwent
reforms and learned that a members who can be mobilized to protest are
the best guarantee that governments will take them seriously.
LV: In your book “Worker Protests in post-communist Romania
and Ukraine”, where you analyze many workers struggles in those
countries, you develop the concept of “workers interest representation”
to analyze unions. Can you explain this concept and how it can help us
understand union movement?
M.V.: It is actually a concept that I borrowed from
Richard Hyman (author of a Marxist Introduction to Industrial
Relations). It makes us pay attention to issues of organizational
autonomy (How were unions established? Through worker initiatives or
directives from above? And who sets their goals nowadays?); legitimacy
(gains that are relevant to what workers want); and effectiveness (How
many of their goals do unions actually reach? What do they give up in
order to reach their goals?).
Previously we mostly looked at what unions gained, without
questioning whether whatever they got was relevant to workers, or
questioning problematic compromises that workers did not approve of in
order to reach these “gains”.
LV: Since the beginning of the global economical crisis we
saw some strikes at the plant level, general strikes, mass
mobilizations, and some governments even fell (Slovenia, Bulgaria,
Ukraine, Moldavia, etc.). Did unions play a role in this shift? What was
their attitude toward austerity measures adopted by different
governments?
M.V.: The biggest surprise was the development in
Poland. In response to austerity, the two unions there worked (and went
on strike ) together for the first time, against the PO government. It
will be interesting to observe what approach they will take in relation
to the Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc –PiS).
Although I did not look into some of the countries you mention
(Slovenia; Bulgaria; Moldavia) in the context of the crisis, I do follow
events in Hungary, Romania, and Ukraine. In Hungary and Romania
governments went very far in containing unions through an all-out attack
on their rights, and their leaders (see my and Annette Freyberg-Inan’s
work on Romania). In Ukraine, trade unions stayed remarkably silent. In
response, the far-right is attempting to set up its own trade unions and
gather support among workers.
LV: In these mobilizations against governments, corruption
and austerity, people developed some new forms of protest like
occupation of squares in Ukraine and in other countries like Romania,
Bulgaria, etc. Do unions participate in those movements?
M.V.: Unions in Romania and Bulgaria endorsed such
actions. In Ukraine, because of the divisive nature of Maidan with
respect to the country’s East-West issue, it is understandable that
unions stay out of conflicts.
LV: Do you think that studying and understanding union
movement in CEE countries is useful for understanding union’s tactics
and strategies in the West?
M.V.: Very much so. We have two extremes in
post-communist Europe: the Baltic States with their offensive to cut
wages and please the European Commission and Hungary with its
workfare-approach, making welfare and social protection conditional upon
work (and that work is payed at 70% of the minimum wage). How did we
end up here? The ways in which states dealt with unions throughout the
last 25 years can explain a lot. For Western unions it should be a
warning about what happens if unions loose the strike threat.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire