An 11-day national strike for shorter hours, from April 27 to May 7, was the first industrial action of this kind in Denmark since 1986. Green Left Weekly's MARGARET ALLAN spoke to JÜRGEN ARBO about the aftermath of the strike. Arbo is a board member of SID-Copenhagen (unskilled workers union) and a leader of the union branch of the Unity List, also known as the Red-Green Alliance.
Question: What was the significance of the general strike? How many workers were involved?
We have a system where general agreements between workers and employers are renewed every second year, and it was some of these general agreements that came up for renewal this spring. There were approximately 500,000 workers negotiating their agreements, mainly from the transport, industrial and building sectors.
The left wing of the unions has been passive since 1986. There were very few strikes and high unemployment. During that period the left-wingers were either thrown out of factories, or got jobs in the union bureaucracy.
In the last three or four years, the rate of unemployment has declined, and people have more confidence. At the same time, profits in general industry and in the building industry have risen by several hundred per cent.
Many workers have been forced to increase their productivity in the last 10-20 years through factory speed-ups. Workers knew the employers could meet their demands.
The most significant thing is that it was the first time since 1956 that workers voted no to an agreement that their union leaders had accepted.
It wasn't only the usual militant workers who voted no. The opposition was a lot broader, especially in the country areas outside Copenhagen, where the workers have usually voted yes. There was a big no majority in some places.
Some of the unions, which have always said yes to agreements, voted no for the first time in many years.
For example, we have a special union called the KAD for unskilled women workers. A majority of KAD voted no. However, some unions that usually vote no, voted yes for the first time, such as the graphic workers, brewery workers and the workers in restaurants and hotels.
Question: What other sectors participated?
No workers outside those affected by these agreements were involved. This was part of the strategy of the union leadership. Had other workers been involved, we could have hurt the employers more, without hurting the ordinary people.
Of course, there were a lot of people outside the strike movement who supported it. The strike was broadly supported throughout the population, especially by young people and students.
Question: What was the outcome? What were the lessons and the consequences of the strike?
The strike lasted 11 days, until the government legislated for a new general agreement. While it can legally do that, it was not a popular move. Neither the unions nor the employers welcomed this, as they normally prefer to solve their problems by themselves.
The law the government passed was supportive of the employers. It imposed what the employers had put forward as their final offer. The result was that workers got three more days off, but these were not really vacation days. People with children under 14 got another extra two days off, all on lower pay.
This was not good enough, and I don't think that many people would say it was good. On the other hand, without the strike, we wouldn't have got any extra days.
In 1985, we had the same situation when the government passed a law to stop the general strike, but the strike continued nevertheless. It was a different political climate, with a very strong left in the unions.
The situation this year was different. The left wing is weaker now, and in 1985 the law to stop the strike was made by the conservative and liberal parties, whereas this recent law was made by the Social Democratic government in coalition with the conservatives.
Question: What has happened since the strike?
In some of the stronger workplaces, workers have made local agreements that give them an extra week of holiday. In some places, workers have succeeded in getting wage increases of 3-4%.
Discussions have started to strengthen the local organisation of unions, rather than relying on the bureaucratically centralised national leadership, who are very right wing.
In a lot of the local unions, shop stewards in big workplaces and in industry, as well as the building industry, are usually a part of the union left, although not necessarily members of left parties.
Question: Where to now for the union movement?
All but one of the national union leaders urged us to vote for the agreement, so we must work at replacing the national leadership. More than 55% of the workers voted against their recommendation.
The fight for longer vacations and shorter working hours will an important part of the tasks for the next few years. Next year, more general agreements will be due for negotiation. This will involve shop assistants, the rest of the industrial workers and public servants.
Their demands will be the same as those made this year, including one extra week of vacation. There will probably be another fight, and new strikes in May and April next year.
Other sections of the union movement may also go on strike, and we should encourage those who struck this year to do so again in solidarity next year.
It is legal to do this because when a general agreement is made in Denmark, there is a special period of time when you can strike, if the union leadership agrees. However, the national union leaders have rarely done this, as the bureaucracy tends to not like strikes.
Question: Can you tell me about the Unity List?
The Unity List is the biggest left-wing grouping in the unions. We are strengthening our work in the unions, making our political line clearer and leading the building of networks of shop stewards.
The Unity List is a very broad left alliance. We are in contact with new groups of workers. We are striving to improve working conditions, especially for women workers.