Winfried Wolf Archive | ETOL Main Page
From Intercontinental Press, Vol. 16 No. 31, 7 August 1978, pp. 936–937.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
The Eleventh Ordinary Congress of the Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB – German Trade-Union Federation) was held in Hamburg at the end of May. If we are to judge this congress by the consequences it will have for the class struggle, we may as well get on with the agenda. The results will be practically nil in terms of the day-to-day skirmishes between wage labor and capital, the struggles around the collective contract talks over real wages and working conditions, or the question of the unions’ taking a political stand.
Even the composition of the congress delegates – in their vast majority full-time trade-union officials – guaranteed that it would be staged in what has become the West German tradition. Under the emblem of the slogan, “The trade unions – a bulwark of democracy within society,” a string of public figures filed up to the podium, from the president of the republic to the federal chancellor, from party chairmen to Schmidt’s cabinet members.
Finally, a careful screening process applied to all motions submitted for discussion – to say nothing of the vote – both before and during the congress, was meant to see to it that everything went off according to the trade-union bureaucracy’s wishes.
However, if we look at what happened at the congress, taking into account the whole way it was staged and all of the bureaucracy’s mechanisms of control, as well as our own expectations of what would happen based on the experience of past congresses, then we have to conclude that it contained a few surprises. This reflects the fact that the change in consciousness taking place among the rank-and-file activists is finally beginning to make some impact, even within the bureaucracy (and this congress was 85 percent to 90 percent made up of bureaucrats).
These changes can be summed up in two points: 1. greater militancy in face of the bosses’ attacks, and 2. a distinctly cooler attitude toward the coalition government of the SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands – Social Democratic Party of Germany) and FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei – Free Democratic Party). Added to this are the deeper cracks within the tradeunion bureaucracy itself, which nevertheless managed to keep up a monolithic appearance at the Tenth Congress of the DGB.
The change in attitude toward the government was the most distinctive feature of the congress. The old cozy relationship is no more. Even Helmut Schmidt was realistic enough to see that such an atmosphere could not be restored with the help of a few phrases.
Before the congress, he had warned the trade unionists – in very mealymouthed terms – of the “danger of the unions falling into self-imposed isolation.” He had even publicly expressed the hope that the congress would take back the qualified “no” that the trade-union leadership had uttered with respect to “concerted action” with the employers, or at least that it would not make it worse. But during the congress itself, Schmidt was satisfied with the role of the “honest broker” and the “realistic and sober politician.” His speech was not well received by the congress participants.
Schmidt gave no support to the unions’ demand for outlawing lockouts by the employers, a demand raised after the experience of this spring’s strikes and supported by the SPD leadership. Instead, he started expressing the “hope” that the bosses would not use the lockout weapon “indiscriminately.”
He asked the unions to maintain a “sense of proportion” in wage demands, while demagogically adding that the same “sense of proportion” should also be applied to the salaries of parliament (these were increased by more than 50%, whereas the bosses and government consider 5% wage increases “excessive”).
He said that the connection between rationalization in the factories and unemployment should not be “exaggerated.” He warned the congress participants against a return to “Luddism” (a movement to destroy machines at the dawn of the workers movement), and condemned the use of sensationalist headlines in the union press, such as Job-eater On the Way.
He reiterated his “creed” concerning “a priority on ending unemployment.” hut at the same time demanded “greater mobility and flexibility,” which brought an outburst from the floor: “Society of camper-trailers.” Labor Minister Ehrenberg repeated the worn-out rhetoric about “West German wages being the highest in the world,” and said that “our unemployment rate is one of the lowest of any country.”
It was Ehrenberg who launched into a no-holds-barred slanderous attack on unemployed women, which is becoming more and more fashionable in the imperialist countries: “We no longer see them only in the Frisian Islands and other beach resorts. We see them in other places also. Wives of café owners and shopkeepers, who are declared as employees by their husbands, register as unemployed at the end of the season so they can get unemployment benefits.”
Schmidt could muster some applause only by resorting to well-known rhetorical devices tailored to a gathering of trade-union bureaucrats. He called on the “youth” to show respect for the “hard work of building the organization” accomplished by the older generation of trade unionists, and cautioned against illusions in “magical solutions.”
But his attempt to appear as a “humanist.” concerned by the fact that “men and women are no longer capable of holding real conversations with one another.” and his plea for “one evening a week without television.” went over like a lead balloon.
This negative response by the congress participants to the Schmidt cabinet embarrassed the DGB leadership. Its head. Vetter, strove to maintain a cordial attitude toward the chancellor. But he could not avoid discussing the subject of rationaliza tions and unemployment in terms that were explicitly opposed to Schmidt.
Vetter stressed what the trade-union leaderships had in fact denied for years – that the new technologies were eliminating jobs on a massive scale, and that this was not being offset by the creation of new jobs in the factories producing the new technological installations, because these industrial branches were themselves among the most highly automated. The conclusion he drew was that there was no other solution except to cut working hours in a number of ways, “up to and including the thirtv-five-hour week.”
As for lockouts, Vetter strove to make a distinction between Schmidt as the head of government and as part of the SPD leadership (he is the vice-president). He thanked the party leadership for its support to the DGB. But the SPD chairman, Willy Brandt, threw cold water on this enthusiasm. He explained to the congress participants that his party had not come out for outlawing lockouts, but had only challenged the bosses’ “moral right” to use them. As though there could be such a thing as “moral victors” in the class struggle.
On at least three questions submitted to the congress, the bureaucracy’s “faultless preparations” turned out to be too hasty.
The most dramatic case had to do with nationalizations. For eighteen hours, the DGB was bound by a vote of its highest body, the congress, to support “nationalization of basic industry, banks, and insurance companies.” This provoked indignation in the bourgeois media, leading the congress to revise its position.
It all began with a proposed resolution by the Federal Commission of Trade-Union Youth (Bundesjugendsausschuss). This resolution was adopted by a majority of congress participants, over the opposition of the national leaders and despite their call for a vote against the draft resolution. This vote indicated that even within the trade-union bureaucracy, or at least within a wing of the bureaucracy that is sensitive to fluctuations of opinion among the ranks, such demands are becoming ever more popular as a result of the depression in the capitalist economy.
After the sharp reactions in the newspapers and on television the next day, the session was adjourned and private meetings were held with the delegates to bring them into line. Then the congress was reopened, and by an “overwhelming majority,” a motion was passed overruling the previous one. The argument used to accomplish this was particularly noteworthy and treacherous: the motion in favor of nationalization allegedly “went beyond the scope of the DGB’s program,” and could not be submitted for a vote until the next congress in 1980.
As it happens, however, the DGB program explicitly calls for “turning the key industries, and other enterprises holding a preponderant place in the market, over to public ownership.” Without a doubt, the banks and insurance companies hold such a “preponderant place.” It is the DGB leadership, in fact, that is trying to revise this point in the program, or at least to reformulate it into something more cautious and vague.
Furthermore, the leadership had originally intended to make this change at the Hamburg congress, but prudently held back in view of the changed climate within the trade unions. [1] The leadership had thus decided to postpone the operation until 1980 – only to find itself confronted by an initiative from the trade-union youth aimed at reinforcing the current program, an initiative which the leadership, with stunning hypocricy, criticized for trying to go beyond the scope of the program!
But while the leadership was able to recapture the ball on this question – which was largely academic anyway – it was quite a different story with regard to two other votes.
The more important of these was a motion for a thirty-five-hour week, also put forward by the Federal Commission of Trade-Union Youth. This motion was passed against the recommendation of the national leadership, and against the recommendation of the resolutions committee. This vote upheld the motion passed at the metalworkers congress in Düsseldorf, where a similar incident occurred. It confirms the very great sentiment on the part of West German workers for a reduction in the length of the legal work day, a sentiment which is increasingly echoed within the “left” wing of the trade-union bureaucracy itself.
The passage of this motion is important, first and foremost, because it derailed a coopting maneuver by the bureaucracy that consisted of arguing for an overall reduction of work hours (on an annual basis), and then expressing this demand in the form of extra vacation days, lowering the retirement age for partially handicapped workers, and other, similar distractions. Thanks to the vote at the congress, it will now be easier for union militants to fight to get the demand for a thirty-five-hour week – a key unifying measure against unemployment – introduced into all ongoing contract negotiations, and make it the target of immediate, concrete struggles.
Furthermore, it will be harder for the bureaucracy to override the vote at the metalworkers congress – which is what one of the central IG-Metall leaders did. He had “his” delegates vote against a thirty-five-hour week at the Hamburg congress, in spite of the motion passed at Düsseldorf! There have already been all kinds of maneuvers to try to say that this vote does not mean that a thirty-five-hour week should be introduced “immediately.” but only that it should be introduced “by stages”; otherwise, “the financial burdens on the companies would become intolerable.” and so on. So union militants will have to be on the lookout.
A third important motion was unexpectedly passed at the Hamburg congress, against the wishes of the national leadership. This was the motion upholding the rejection of “concerted action.” The vote for this motion stemmed from a public controversy between two wings of the trade-union bureaucracy, the first represented by the chemical workers’ leader. Hauenschildt, and the second by the leader of the transportation and civil service workers union, Kluncker.
Hauenschildt had made the slip of catching on the rebound the ball thrown by Chancellor Helmut Schmidt in favor of a return by the unions to concerted action with the bosses. He paid for it. because his plea elicited a massive rebuke from the congress participants, for which Kluncker became the main spokesman. The latter even went to the point of proposing that “concerted action” be rejected “in all its forms.” Despite opposition from the national leadership, this radical motion was passed.
However, the DGB leaders are cynically preparing to flout their own rules in this area too, that is, by publicly proclaiming that they are not going to obey the decisions of their congress.
The head of the DGB, Vetter, stated the day after the congress, in an interview with Bild am Sonntag: “If full employment is at issue, we are ready to renew the dialogue at any time,” and return to “continual joint conversations with the employers,” as long as “something reasonable comes out of it.” The head of IG-Metall, Eugen Loderer, declared: “We have not broken off concerted action on principle. What is decisive is the composition of the meetings.” Here too, vigilance is necessary.
So Vetter is still Vetter, and Loderer is still Loderer. The bureaucracy has not changed in any respect in light of the Hamburg congress. Vetter even said that in the last three years there have not been any important changes in West Germany. He did, however, prudently refer to a “contradiction” between capital and labor. Mahlein, leader of the printing and paper workers union, which is locked in a tough fight with the bosses, curtly amended this statement: “The contradiction between capital and labor is the fundamental contradiction in West Germany.” Indeed it is.
Outside of the congress sessions, the Trade-Union Action Group Against the Nuclear Threat had organized a meeting and press conference to draw the attention of congress participants and the public to its activities.
In the last few months, this action group has succeeded in gathering support (in the form of signatures) from thousands of DGB members, and more than 1,900 trade unionists carrying out functions at the level of factories or of local and regional organizations. It has set up local affiliates in about twenty cities. Among the groupings that have given organizational support to the action group are the Frankfurt postal workers union, the Berlin teachers union, and the Socialist Youth of Hesse in the southern district.
It is important to recall that barely one year ago. Heinz Brandt, former editor of the IG-Metall paper Metall, was expelled from the metalworkers union because he had condemned the collaboration of shop stewards with the private owners of the nuclear power industry in irresponsibly defending the building of all nuclear power plants then under way. This expulsion was later overturned, under pressure from rank-and-file protests.
At the Hamburg congress, Vetter himself was compelled to denounce the “syndicalist deviation” (“corporatist” would have been better) involved in having measures in the interests of the bosses approved by the shop stewards. There, too, pressure from the ranks, and the growth of class consciousness – slow but sure – is beginning to reverberate within the trade-union bureaucracy itself.
1. See The ‘German Model’ Loses Its Attractiveness, by Werner Hülsberg, in Intercontinental Press Inprecor, June 12, 1978, p. 708.
Winfried Wolf Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 13 June 2023