Norway: the workers teach the establishment a lesson
On May 3, 82,000 workers in Norway's private sector went on strike for improved pay and conditions in the biggest action since 1921 which also ended in a defeat for the employers. Now negotiations in the public sector have broken down, and there could be major strike action there too.
Norway is a rich nation, escpecially thanks to its oil. But the Norwegian capitalists have used the defensive position of the working class in Europe to attack the established rights of the workers. They have tried to build a national consensus on low wage growth, or more precisely - a wage growth that "is in line with our main trading partners" as the official mantra goes.
After a good agreement from the workers point of view in 1998, the state set up a tripartite commission to look at wage-policy. The result was - not surprisingly - that the union leaderships accepted a very low ceiling for wage growth. They claimed that part of the wage increase in 1998 had to be considered as an "up-front" part of the 2000 agreement.
Golden parachutes - big profits
Historically the differences between average industrial wages and the wages of senior executives in Norway has been relatively low compared to the US and continental Europe. In the nineties, the bourgeoisie has tried to change that, giving themselves generous wage increases, bonuses, and stock-options of all kinds.
Recently there has been a spate of "golden parachute" scandals. The head of the state oil company had to abstain from using his parachute, to calm public opinion. This was also a very special case since the leader of the Norwegian Trade Union Council (LO), Yngve Hågensen is on the board and voted in favour of this golden parachute deal!
Other similar deals have been exposed in the press, the most outrageous being that the Chief Executive of Kvaerner of 16 million Euro. Kvaerner tried to correct this - saying that it was only 8 million Euro - as if that made a huge political difference.
This new culture of greed has also influenced the wages of the top union bureaucrats. The leader of LO in 1998 got a wage increase of over 15,000 Euro! The trade union negotiating delegation on average earned twice as much as the workers they represented!
Profits have also shown a huge increase since the early nineties, with dividends almost tripling. In addition the tax system was changed in 1992, taxing capital gains less than before.
A resounding "no" vote
Against this background it was no surprise that the overwhelmingly majority of union members in the private sector voted no to the very meagre deal that was negotiated in the beginning of April.
Normally wage negotiations happen every second year - but this was to be prolonged to three years! There was increased flexibility. The hourly wage rate was increased by a tiny amount - about 0.1 Euro, or 20 Pfennig, 1/2 French Franc!
Holidays would remain the same this year, one day would be added in 2001 and three more days in 2003!
That sounds OK unless you understand that the fight for a fifth week's holiday started 18 years ago, when the first day was run. So people were not impressed by the speed of introducing the fifth week especially as in Denmark they were striking for the sixth week two years ago!
The union bureaucrats tried to sell this deal to the rank and file but with no success. There was over 60% participation in the ballot with impressive 64% against the deal. This was the largest no-vote on a national level since WWII. Sixteen of seventeen individual unions taking part had a no-majority.
The no-vote was a political victory for the trade union left, all of them belonging to the two parties to the left of the Labour party, the Socialist Left Party (its left-wing) and the Red Electoral Alliance.
Having recommended acceptance, the trade union leaders make any concrete demands when the deal was voted down, but just said that the employers' had to come up with a new offer.
This passivity made it imperative for the trade union left to formulate a set of demands and organise a strike the leadership did not want. It was very much the left that ran the strike - there was quite a consolidated layer of left trade unionists to the forefront.
There was also important European solidarity especially from transport unions across Scandanavia and from IG Metal in Germany who boycotted the companies where there was action.
The union leadership and the employers organisation did not want a drawn out strike in which they might lose more, so the strike was ended in 8 days, with most of the left's demands won.
The period before the next negotiations was to be two years as usual (not three). The wage increase was nearly four times higher than previously offered; it was raised from 0.75 kroner to 2.50, the left had demanded 3 kroner. This wage increase was somewhat above the ceiling fixed by the state commission - an important political break-through. There were also additional increases for those below the average wage. The fifth holiday week will be introduced one year earlier by getting two more holidays in 2001 and another two in 2002.
On the question of flexibility there was no change, so here the employers won. But it is a general formulation; the concrete implementation is a question of local negotiations, so how this turns out depend to a large degree on the strength of the local unions.
A warning to the Norwegian establishment
The fact that the trade union leadership was out of touch with the rank and file became very clear. They did not do much to convince the membership that the negotiated result should be accepted but took for granted that they would. The had only contempt for the "Vote No" campaign of the trade union left.
On the other hand, perhaps they were pressured by the "New Labour" government to accept in negotiations aresult that they themselves did not believe would be acceptable. When the no-vote happened, they explained it as a reaction to the golden parachutes and the "greed culture".
But their moral indignation was taken not seriously as the press showed that union representatives on the boards almost without exception had kept silent when the golden parachutes were handed out.
When the trade union membership voted against the deal, the immediate reaction of the employers organisation was to argue that even to have a ballot on such an issue after negotiations was "old-fashioned".
They pointed out that in several other European countries, e.g. in Sweden, this does not happen any more. But this just made people more angry and convinced them even more than the bosses really needed a teaching a lesson.
What happened was a chain of positive events with important lessons for the future
the political/trade union left has substantial support for its ideas and demands - and could achieve more if it was better organised
there are strong egalitarian sentiments among trade unionists,
to work for active, democratic unions is of paramount importance. It is vital to defend the right to vote on such deals - otherwise the chain will be broken. Without positive collective experiences frustration will build and people might turn to right-wing alternatives.
The fact that young workers experienced the strength of collective action was important. During the strike when the shelves in the supermarkets were empty it became clear to everybody that all the hype about the "new economy" did not change the fact that real "old-fashioned" workers are needed to bake the bread and brew the beer and get them into the shops.
Public sector - what will happen?
The result of negotiations in the public sector are not clear, but since last autumn especially the teachers' and nurses' unions have had a high profile and demanded substantial increases, as much as 20% over a two-year period.
This had an impact in the September parlamentary elections, in which the Socialist Left Party got a significant increase in its votes - a lot of which were from women in the public sector.
These women are generaly more left-wing than males of the same age and income. An example of the combative mood of public employees is that student nurses have refused to work in the hospitals, because they will not accept the low wages and bad working conditions.
This has been hitting the hospitals hard, since these students are vital in making it possible to staff the hospitals in weekends and holidays.
This is a new type of action, since all strikes in the health service has been stopped by government intervention. Given the high oil-prices, the level of wages increases for nurses and teachers is a political question for the Norwegian bourgeoisie. They have to decide whether a tough line or concessions are the best strategy for them in the long run.
One major concern is that giving the public employees more than private sector breaks a "golden rule" that the wage increases in the private sector is the limit for the public sector.
On the other hand they also fear the threat of growing radicalism. The no-vote in the private sector showed that there are limits as to how far they can sell their austerity policies so they may feel the need to make concessions to head off public sector action.