Should Germany get tough on strikes?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лип 2024
- There seem to be so many strikes going on in Germany at the moment, inconveniencing millions of people and causing damage to the economy. How are strikes regulated in Germany, and should these regulations be tightened?
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
00:36 German strike law
01:40 How it's supposed to work
02:33 Two types of strike
03:48 Checks and balances
04:24 Regulations: for and against
05:58 Some of the proposals
06:29 About arbitration
07:36 What do you think?
Music:
"Hot Swing"
by Kevin MacLeod incompetech.com/
Creative Commons Attribution licence
---------
Send letters and postcards to:
Rewboss
Postfach 10 06 29
63704 Aschaffenburg
Germany
Please don't send parcels or packages, or anything that has to be signed for.
No. There should NOT be any additional restricting laws for being able to strike.
As a german I have to say - we don't strike until there is a hefty reason for it.
We dont strike entuh to be frank
it's the same principle as my teacher told us back In 1st grade : "you should be sucked before you're pumped and bummed"
Obviously "hefty" is opinion based. Beeing stubburn and ask for anything you possibly like is not a good reason.
You strike for the feeling of entitlement that union leaders install by populist nonsense (Union leaders who are full time politicians and probably have less connection and care for workers than low-mid Managers do, who actually engage with their workforce and depend on them every day). Just take the GDL... If I had a well paid job, for which replacement by automation has been a realistic option since the 70s (LZB + AFB) and I am required to release a pedal every ~30 secs to prove that I am not asleep (or dead), it would probably be good advise to keep a low profile and hope nobody notices... But when a single egomaniac fights to keep his job and his union alive, rather than being swallowed up by the EVG, than the simpletons follow the egomaniac, just as they always do.
@@holger_p There are alway two sides involved in such a situation, isnt it? Even if one side "claims" to be negotiating, but outright denying the validity of some of the other sides negotiation points. "Oh we are willing to negotiate, but only on the few points we are willing to make minor concessions on" is not just stubborn... it's dishonest. As is painting the other side as stuborn if it doesn't agree with such a strategy.
What's striking (pun intended) is, that the parties now crying the most about the GDL strikes are those who chose to privatize German Rail in the first place, back in the 90s. Had they not turned the state rail into a privatized public company that needs to gain profits, their employees would still be public servants (which aren't allowed to strike).
Strikes are an important right of workers, so limiting the right to strike would always be a major interference with one's rights. Sure, plenty of people are impacted by strikes, but that shouldn't allow us to stop them from doing it. When farmers protested, barely anyone was against it - yet, when train drivers strike, suddenly everyone hates it. People only care for workers when they themselves aren't directly impacted by their strikes.
I’m always very irritated by striking farmers. The farmers are a bunch of hooligans. And they don’t strike, they are not employees.
.
@@jannetteberends8730 Yep! They're worse than climate protests ever were, yet no one hates on them or tries to prosecute them for anything they do
Would at least a bit of a prior announcement be a problem?
Strikes that don't impact the economy or inconvenience aren't strikes - they're tantrums that governments can safely ignore. The right to strike also means the right to halt the economy, it's how you force governments to bend the knee and negotiate
@@SirGentleshark the strike generally isnt against the gov, but rather against your employer.
Als langjähriges Gewerkschaftsmitglied nichts großartig Neues für mich. Aber schön, dass du dich auch mal mit den rechtlichen Grundlagen und der Realität im Arbeitsalltag auseinandersetzt.
Ganz klare Meinung von meiner Seite - nein, bloß keine Einschränkung des Streikrechts. Ich erlebe seit Jahren, wie sich ein Arbeitgeber einfach stur stellt und sich trotz Streiks weigert, überhaupt mit der Gewerkschaft zu reden, und statt dessen sowohl intern als auch extern viel Lobbyarbeit betreibt, um Kunden und Beschäftigte gleichermaßen davon zu überzeugen, dass die böhöhöse Gewerkschaft doch bloß den ach so tollen Betriebsfrieden stört und in Wahrheit doch alles tippitoppi sei, und alle, die meckern, bloß arbeitsfaul und/oder fremdgesteuert seien.
Bei aller Kritik an meiner Gewerkschaft (ganz sicher ist auch da nicht alles rosig) sind Gewerkschaften doch das Einzige, was uns vor der völligen Willkür durch die Arbeitgeber schützt. Einzelkämpfer, für die "Arbeitskollegen" nichts weiter als Konkurrenten auf dem Weg nach oben auf der Karriereleiter sind, mögen das wahrscheinlich anders sehen.
Ich rate mal, dieser Arbeitgeber ist nicht zufällig in der Logistikbranche unterwegs? Kommt ursprünglich aus Amerika? Ist benannt nach einem Fluss?
Mal ernsthaft, diese Arbeitgeber sollten sich mal genau ansehen, wie Wallmart versucht hat, mit den typischen amerikanischen Taktiken hier Fuss zu fassen und dabei böse auf die Nase gefallen sind. Nicht zuletzt auch wegen der Arbeit der Gewerkschaften, die sich deren Ausbeutermethoden nicht haben gefallen lassen. Von daher, Gewerkschaften - nicht alle, aber viele - sind nicht unbedingt das Gelbe vom Ei, aber lieber eine halbwegs kompetente Gewerkschaft als gar keine.
ich habe in letzter Zeit den Eindruck bekommen, das einfach ein riesiges Bildungsdefizit zum Streikrecht in Deutschland besteht. Und verstärkt wird das von den ÖR und privaten Medien, die sowohl dann die betroffenen Kunden interviewen, die oftmals dann ihr Bildungsdefizit mit viel Wut zur Schau stellen, als auch meistens überhaupt nicht erklären, wie die Verhandlungen ablaufen bzw. was die Forderungen beider Seiten für den Reallohn der Streikenden (also inflationsbereinigt) bedeuten würde.
Aber nein, man nimmt einfach die erstbeste Clickbait Überschrift und dann schreibt irgendein neoliberaler Voll1diot wie faul und gierig die Arbeitnehmer sind und wie die das Unmögliche fordern.
Strikes are extremely expensive for the workers, so there is in general a very great reluctance to start such a thing.
Strikes are also mostly over conditions rather than pay. Strikes over pay generally happen over perceived reductions in pay rather than increases. The worst period for strikes in the US were the 70’s when inflation was over 20%. The worst strikes in the UK were in the same period, plus the miners strikes over the closing of the mines because they were polluting, so dangerous and uneconomic.
So I am guessing that the cause of all the strikes in Germany right now has its cause in the same general reduction in real wages and general conditions of employment and general anger that sees the increase in vote share for the AfD. The workers feel they are being ignored and traduced.
So I guess that the increase in strikes is extremely worrying, but restricting the right to strike will only make them a great deal worse
I would agree with these assumptions, however, there is a another huge problem: the decline of the workforce due to a shrinking population and strong birth years going into retirement. That means that many companies are not able to get the work force they need, which worsens the conditions for the people remaining and doing the work. So while we are talking about a reduction of 38 to 35 hours of work per week in these negotiations with Deutsche Bahn, in fact today many of these workers have sometimes weeks, where they work 50 hours or more due to shortage of personnel. In a working market one would expect, that companies would be willing to increase their offers greatly to get the people they need, however this doesn't seem to work when we are talking about the job market. However I am really baffled by the shortsightedness of these managers. Who do they think would drive the trains in the next 5, 10 or 20 years? Especially as we need these people, if we want to reduce traffic specific climate emissions.
As for train drivers, if 30% or 50% go on strike, it has almost the same effect as going 100% on strike, cause the announcement of a strike, holds people back from using the train.
This is very money saving for the union. The trains are going, but half empty cause people don't expect them to go.
Ironically enough that same anger and hatred that drives people to the AfD, which is currently in court about bein under observation for being an "antagonistic suspicion case in ragards to the German constitution", is also keeping immigration of people capable of work and even willing of work out. There were more than enough cases of the federal agencies forbidding mostly integrated asylum seekers from working. It should be noted that these people had a job, were working full time, were paying their own rent, were paying into the social securities, retirement funds and paid their own insurance etc. Well after getting forbidden from working, so they could potentially be easier deported, they were getting paid by social funds instead of paying into them, but since they are assylum seekers they get less money from those funds.
I feel like there is an error of logic in there, but I can't seem to find it?
In Germany striking workers don’t lose any money as for the duration of the strike workers get their pay from the union rather than the company.
@@pomeranianproductions647only as long as they have the Money.
For the critical infrastructure, there is already a solution in plain sight. Because Beamte are not allowed to strike. So if the federal (or a state) government does not want it's critical infastructure to be affected by strikes, the solution is to nationalize that infrastructure and make everyone a Beamte/r. Problem solved.
When that infrastructure was privatized, the politicians knew that this would open up those positions to industrial action. Going in a couple decades later when strikes are actually happening and saying that should not be allowed is having the cake and eating it too.
For english readers: "Beamte" or "Beamter" is difficult to translate in this context. It's a person directly employed by the state with their own special employment status that is legally distinct from private sector employment. A policer officer for example. Also not everyone working for the government has that status - for example many teachers no longer are.
Are you sure? Because according to the European social contract has everybody the right to strike.
Well, it is an EU mandate to privatise public transport. for "enabling an open playing field for competition in a capitalistic sense in favor of the consumer"
which... arguably is a contradiction imo. as public transit is treated as a luxury this way, when it really should be a basic need. but then again, electricity, water, and even health system *is* privatized too. you just cant tell as much as everything has to hold up to almost the same guidelines. you can tell by the slightly different health insurance extra payrates though. or the ton of private extra insurances you can take. pharmacies do this too. some charge a little more for meds than others. you often just cant tell either because you're less likely to constantly compare it or need it on a regular base and the majority is still covered by health insurance for most things.
@@jannetteberends8730 I am no EU law expert, but traditionally, the reasoning was that a Beamter got some important protections in exchange for the loss of strike rights, für example, they are almost impossible to fire and usually have their job for life. There are also some taxation differences. Originally, all state (and federal) employees except politicians were Beamte, but today not many are left - usually, the rule of thumb is if they wield the power of the state, so for example police or judges but no longer teachers or train drivers.
As an aside, there is one group of former Beamte that were actually converted into employees of a private business not (as usual) so they might perhaps be paid less or become easier to fire - actually, the point was to be able to pay them more. These are the air traffic controllers. It's a very demanding job that had serious trouble finding people who wanted to do it, so they needed to make the job more attractive, and that couldn't be done with the nationwide fixed state and federal payment system (note that all states and the feds generally negotiate together). This might be something to meditate about given the current train driver shortage.
@@jannetteberends8730 there are exemptions and German civil servants law is deemed concurrent with EU law
This.
Once upon a time, the train staff, and the mail people had the same status as police officers, they were not allowed to strike with the consideration to be ensured never to be fired.
This was just changed in 1996 or so (Privatization of Rail and Mail), so relativly recent, and we couldn't have this experience before.
If everything were ok in this country people wouldn't strike that much. It's a clear warning sign.
This is not a warning sign, it is a good way to give people a strong voice. Countries without strikes often are the countries with less democrathy and worker’s rights. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t problems in Germany.
Not really, some people just looove to complain, especially in germany. ;)
Always support the strikers. They tell you how important those people are to your life and how bad it would be if they would quit permanently to make a better wage elsewhere
And no difference, if they ask for doubled or tripled income, they may ask for whatever they want, you never call them crazy ?
@@holger_p Yes, because the country doesn't run without them
@@CoreDump451 that's crazy to accept taken hostage because of a dependency. In diplomacy golden rule is: never accept blackmailing. Cause people learn and repeat it forever.
The main problem is, that critical infrastructure is privatised in the first place.
I think that in Germany you need to check yourselves before you wreck yourself, regulating unions is a bad idea, America tried that and now the average American is in a constant cycle of suffering and misery that will never end unless they leave the country. A large part of the reason I would want to come to Germany and one of the reasons I follow your content is because I don't want to live in America forever, this place sucks and almost all of it comes from two factors, corporate consolidation which is irrelevant to this point, and the death of labor unions here. There are labor unions but you should know that the best state government jobs that are unionized pale in terms of benefits to your worst jobs in Germany. What's worse is that terrible union jobs hold you hostage cuz the one benefit they normally have is good health care so it becomes difficult to leave these jobs and you get stuck in this abusive cycle where you get abused by your worthless labor union and abused by your even worse employer. If you want to see what happens when you regulate unions go look at the quality of life of American letter carriers, go look at how rural letter carriers and City carriers are treated and go look at their opinions on Reddit about their Unions. Oh that's another thing, when you start to regulate unions the bigger unions break up into these smaller worse unions that aren't as good and are easier for management to infiltrate and corrupt, if Germany goes down this path I mean for America it only took about 30 years for regulating unions to ruin the middle class forever and to ruin pretty much everything about this country. You have a chance to stop this, speak out, don't be silent, support your unions, in fact any regulations they get past should support labor unions right to strike, they wouldn't be striking if they didn't have to. Sorry rewboss, for this long comment, but hopefully you find this insightful and you do some of my suggested reading.
Strikes are the only way to get the Employer feel that they underpay theyr employees.
Only cause american capitalism ruined it doesnt mean we will.
You should really check what you say about countries you have no clue of.
The whole world doesn´t revolve around the USA.
Plus your Unions very heavily used by the mafia
Overall agreed with one addendum: Corporate consolidation is not irrelevant here. It is tied to the decline of unions in multiple ways, including concentration of economic power (and therefore political power), the associated amassing of resources to beat strikes by simply waiting them out, the ability to play off workers in one country (and sometimes state) against those in another, and the rise of high-priced law groups employed specifically to defeat attempts at unionization, among others. It is no accident that the rise in corporate consolidation and the decline in union representation have occurred simultaneously.
Whenever i hear or read about Union busting and other terrible employer practices in the US i shudder at the dystopian reality previously only known from history books.
You and the american workforce have my fullest sympathy.
Well said. The US is a hellscape for workers and there's little hope for improvement outside of revolution.
Strikes are the most potent weapon in the unions' arsenal and should not be significantly curtailed in my opinion.
It might be a good idea to pass a law to actually codify striking, but not in a way that significantly changes the way it works right now.
Sure, strikes in public transportation (or basically any public service) are really annoying a lot of the time, but that's the point after all. A strike that doesn't annoy anyone is a weak strike.
And actually, people should stop being angry at the unions for striking and start being angry at the employers for making strikes neccessary! There's already enough wage disparity in Germany, employees everywhere should be happy for every bit of extra money that any union can get for their members and then join or form a union as well to fight for better working conditions themselves.
anyone advocating to 'codify' strike law knows there is every chance the law will turn out much stricter than it is today. in fact, the very reason some interested parties push for it is to restrict the current law. it is therefore very dangerous to support such a move when you are not part of the 'elite' and have to work to earn a living.
@@embreis2257 All in all you're probably right. We'd have to at least wait for a proper employee-friendly government to do that, and I don't see one coming to power any time soon...
As the baby boomers retire, younger generations are expected to work harder and longer hours to keep up with the work. They are also expected to work at least well into their 60s. On the flip side they are earning less (relatively speaking) than the baby boomers did at their age. Buying a house? Nearly impossible. Finding acceptable apartments close to work? A real challenge. On top of that they are expected to have children while out of family childcare is seeming to be less and less reliable. They are also expected to spend money on private retirement funds, as their state payments are expected to be too low to live on once retired.
This is not going to work out. These generations need better working conditions if we want to preserve any hope of them making it to retirement without being chronically ill or even dying early on physical or psychological issues caused by very stressful working and living conditions.
Strikes are only one tool in forcing employers to accept that much improved working conditions are not something to pamper lazy Millennials but to ensure that they will not lose significant amounts of workforce and money due to staff being sick more often.
I would appreciate the government taking actions in this direction as well. Currently they are more busy bashing younger generations as whiney. And it's no problem to do so. They are a minority in votes and political parties are not dependent on them for a political majority. Also a first in German democracy.
Tilting the playing field even more towards mainly older business owners and employers by restricting the right to strike would just show one more time that they are more interested in gaining votes from better off baby boomers than actually doing what's best for those people trying really hard to juggle life under the current circumstances they are cementing
Funny that no one ever suggest putting pressure on the employers instead of the unions.
well, the media entities pushing for new laws have been sympathetic to 'neoliberalism' for many decades now.
And how would that be put in effect in your eyes?
Forcing employers to accept a unions proposal when a strike threatens public activity (like transit)?
Wow. Lets see how fast we can put half of germanys businesses 6 feet under.
Strikes should be even easier for Workers than they are now. And if society is really concerned about critical services there's a very old solution for that: Anyone remember the time when Train drivers where civil servants? When they actually couldn't strike but had all the benefits of pensions and job protections?
Honestly, I'm in favour for a more basic law that no one employee (external, internal, ceo, worker, etc.) in any company is allowed to earn more than 10 times (or less) the amount that the lowest paid person gets. This would very quickly solve most issues and create a much fairer balance in salaries.
This is a popular idea, but it would be difficult to write the legislation in a way that closes all the loopholes: for example, executives could simply award themselves bigger bonuses.
I think it could (and should) be done, though.
If DB wants to make sure that train drivers can't strike they're free to un-privatise and make everyone a civil servant, again.
That's not DB's decision to make, and it would almost certainly be illegal under EU law.
There is a third strike form: Sympathy strikes. Workers in similar fields or working for business partners of the company under industrial action can legally be called for a supporting strike. That one has to be shorter than the strike at the origin company and is only possible if it puts additional pressure on that company. It is quite rarely used.
Strike laws in comparable european countries ususally allow actually a lot more industrial action than in germany. Stuff like political strikes (not possible in Germany), unlimited supporting strikes, industrial action for any minor reason as long as a minimum safe service is supplied (usually 5 to 10% of the usual service, critical connections in terms of transport strikes for example, safe minimum service for healthcare etc).
I witnessed industrial action with my colleagues in the cabin crew in Portugal last year, where strike is codified by law. They could strike for several months in a row, they had to announce it in advance and cover a government mandated minimum service (critical connections like mainland to Madeira for example). Those services were arbitrated for each individual rounds of strikes, and both sides were heard why or why not a service was critical. After several months of industrial action and negotiations inbetween a government mandated mediation was called for, which was not binding. The government lead that mediation and it was partially successful. Although that arbitration was not directly used, on that base new negotiations did get a result, but instead unlimited strikes would have been equally possible.
I worked myself as a union rep in Germany for around 10 years in a now deceased business (Air Berlin), and usually we only called for warning strikes for a few hours at a time, and with minimum a few days of advance warning, although sometimes with imprecise timing (there is a possibility for industrial action between wednesday and friday for not more than 6 hours), usually that was called off before it came to it. Unlimited strikes were never attempted, as they can be legally unreasonable if they endanger the continued existence of the company and Air Berlin was always only 5 days away from Bankruptcy (yes, we put our own accounting firm (one of the big three) in and checked the books). One thing we could afford was not using the Unions strike fund. Most pilots do earn enough to forgo a day or two of payment, and the union used that as a rule to not pay, except for actual hardship for which there was a special payout.
That could actually be a solution:
Declaring transport-related strikes as general strikes during which no employee or student has to be physically present at his workplace, school or university.
Then the "High Society" (which is usually NOT affected by rail strikes) would have to suffer as well, not only the "common worker/student".
German courts based on precedent and convention with little in the way of laws? OK, who got them drunk and transported them to England for a lesson in the law?
Well the Brits and Americans DID write the Basic law back in the late 40s and early 50s
@@johnhughes2124 I love you.
@@johnhughes2124 not really. In fact the "Grundgesetz" was drafted by a German constitutional council. The draft had to be approved by the top commanders of the occupying allied forces.
Not just when it comes to strikes, but e.g. the rules around naming your kid are also 100% court-made. Precedent also works differently it's never binding though courts do follow precedent of higher courts if they don't have a good argument not to as otherwise they'd look stupid on appeal. Statutes are often also deliberately vague, e.g. what does "good mores" mean in the context of contract law.
Churchill himself? The 1951 constitution was slightly stressful to arrive at
Regarding critical infrastructure: If that is oooh sooo important to the government, then they should nationalize critical infrastructure so the employees are civil servants (which are not allowed to strike already).
That would probably be illegal under EU law.
@@rewbossThen one of the EU commission members should prepare a proposal for the commission to change that rule.
Train drivers are not necessary with automation. Strike One! When people are knowledge workers they are individually too powerful to require a union. Strike Two! When the work goes elsewhere there's nothing left to do. So, should unions strike across borders? How would your average German feel about striking to support US autoworkers? Eyes on the Pitcher.
If there are too few skilled workers in an industry, then employers must take action: Fair pay and good working conditions.
Putting employees under pressure is the wrong approach and destroys competitiveness in the long term.
Hi rewboss, thanks for making this video! I think you're seeing in your comment section how strongly unions are supported by your viewers, and for good reason! The great privatization of important industrial sections (rail, telecommunication, mail) during the 90s was heralded as an amazing way to save money in the budget and would free up funds! So what that these VITAL sectors of infrastructure keep supplies moving and lights going!
Obviously we see the result of these privatizations: rail infrastructure laughably terrible because maintaining such a vital part of the transit sector was unprofitable, terrible working conditions for mail/package deliverers, and some of the most mediocre internet quality (for a nice high price, of course) in Europe!
Now, on top of all that, the same politicians that took us in this direction suddenly want to make it more difficult to strike. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Sorry, but I'm not buying their sob story. The chickens are coming home to roost now, so if they want to solve this, bosses are either going to have to pay up, or this country needs a massive re-nationalization of these VITAL sections of the economy.
As an aside: Ironic that with how much money the German government is now having to spend to revitalize the neglected rail infrastructure, they wouldn't also demand that DB should have to pay some of that money back, since they never actually spent that kind of money to maintain the network anyway.
I don't think privatisation is the issue, since these things are privatised in other European countries as well.
I think it is good the way it is. If anything, more rights should be given to the workers.
I think its quite funny, that the same parties, that normally call for deregulation like the CDU/CSU and the FDP, now call for regulation. Not suspicious at all.
Well, the FDP is the Capitalist Lobby Party, so naturally they want to reduce labour power.
And the CDU/CSU are conservatives. What conservatives fundamentally seek to "conserve" is the social pecking order -- who has power and money and respect, and who doesn't. They're happy to make changes if they serve to cement that order. See also: whining about "language policing", then passing laws to ban gender-inclusive language in kids' school essays and official communications.
Alle Räder stehen still, wenn dein starker Arm es will.
🤔
Strikes are good. Period.
Not only are they a powerful tool, but they're also deterrents from letting it come to this.
I'm currently very mad at DB because they forced a strike that left me stranded at my parents house with not enough changes of clothes for the days I was trapped. DB doesn't want that, they want me to be a content little customer who doesn't leave mad emails. I can't be the only one with that kind of experience
It makes a lot of sense to write a Law about Strikes. But it should mainly describe how it is done at the Moment. Only exception maybe: If there are repeated Rounds without breakthroughs and both sides regularely just leave negotiations, then a Mediator should be appointed and try his luck before new Strikes are called.
What sad is, that we always talk only about Strikes in Public transport (Train, Bus, Tram, Plane, etc.) and maybe the Metall Industry (IG Metall) but the regular strikes in the Health Sector (like they happen today) get much less attention, even though everybody agrees that their working conditions are bad and a struggling Health System affects everybody.
yeah, the media regardless if it is private or public, is covering strikes in a very biased way and feed the narratives of neoliberal populists which want to undermine the right to strike.
As someone who relies completely on services provided by DB to be able to get to work, the on-going random strike action by the GDL is frustrating as I have no good alternatives (apart from buying a car). I completely support the right of workers to strike as a last resort to get an employer to negotiate, but in this case it is hard not to side with DB when the demand is an immediate reduction of working hours when there is a shortage of qualified train drivers to begin with. Where are the extra drivers required to maintain the current level of service supposed to come from all of a sudden?
Yes the union is limited by the level of its strike fund and employees willingness to go without pay, and the employer is limited by its willingness to go without revenue and reputational damage, but how does the damage these groups take compare to the damage being inflicted on the society in which they operate? What happens when the demands from one side or another cannot be reasonably met without damaging the business? And is the balance right?
If Germany wants to meet environmental goals it needs public transport that is reliable and not subject to the whims of employee-employer relations. And I think it is these externalities that need to be considered by the Government when considering any codification of the right to strike.
BTW I know the on-going complaint of the GDL is that the executives at DB are richly rewarded relative to the drivers, and while this may be true, it doesn't seem relevant to the demand they are making and the impact it will have.
I absolutely agree.
It was even worse in 2022/2023 when the GdL called out strikes for the SWEG-Bahn Stuttgart. The company was taken over by the SWEG when Abellio declared bankrupcy in an "emergency act", orchestrated by the state of Baden-Württemberg to prevent the rail services around Stuttgart from simply collapsing.
However, this provisory takeover should only last for 2 1/2 years untill the routes should be assigned to a new contractor.
So the SWEG had no long-term interest in the SWEG-Bahn Stuttgart in the first place. To make matters worse, the GdL did not want to represent the former employees of Abellio (which usually negociated with the GdL before), but also for all of the "real", permanent SWEG-employees as well.
So the SWEG had no reason to give in to any threats and couldn´t care less about a unlimited strike in Stuttgart as their core network around Offenburg was still up and running.
The GdL couldn´t afford a unlimited strike raging on for weeks, so they introduced the tactics of the "wave strikes" ("Wellenstreiks"): between November 2022 and February 2023 short strikes were called out with little to no warning in advance rendered it absolutely impossible to relay on any of their services.
For folks like me who couldn´t afford a car and had to arrive at the working place and the nursery to pick up kids on time this was harmful on a very existential level, being at a constant risk of getting fired for violating one´s duty of presence in the company. I still don´t know how I got through this without any major and long-time consequences, but I can tell that I occationally had to walk home (for 2h 30 mins if I did hurry up).
Ever since then it´s obvious that the GdL is not aware or simply does not care about its social responcibility: rail strikes, especially those whcih affect regional and commuter service, do NOT harm the "greedy employers", but the rest of the working class.
It is their right and indeed their duty to stand for their members and to maintain or even expand their standards such as payment, working hours, working conditions ect. , but not at all cost.
If they proceed to call for these extreme measures, the railway will loose even their most loyal customers and will be made obsolete as every commuter is forced to have a car to get along.
And how will that improve the situation of the railway employees in the long term?
"Tough on strikes" is just "make dissent illegal", which no democracy can do and claim to be a democracy.
As always, your explanations are excellent and well researched. To be honest, I was surprised that there are no legal regulations. As a former member of the works council, I had to deal with so many detailed legal regulations... but that of course also explains the different course of strikes in different areas, because by the time the courts decide in each case, the strike has been decided or settled. A clear, simple, legal regulation would certainly be an advantage in order to clearly and uniformly define the framework conditions.
If unions are striking too much, maybe there's a reason..?
There could be many reasons. At the moment, everyone is feeling the pinch from the delicate economic situation we're in at the moment. Workers find that their pay is falling in real terms, employers find that running costs are increasing: under these circumstances, industrial disputes are almost inevitable.
@@rewboss That's what I meant. Want less strikes? Stop trying to nickel-and-dime the people who're working to earn your company money. The universal cause of strikes is just greedy CEOs.
@@WooShell I don't think I said what you meant. I said there could be many reasons. You say there is only one reason that is responsible for all strikes, everywhere, all the time.
@@rewboss I can't think of any reason for a strike that can not be traced back to basic corporate greed in some way. Whether it's pay rises that don't reach inflation percentage (where it's pretty obvious), or strikes about working times (which are also related to low salaries or unwillingness to employ more people to even out shift loads), or strikes about working conditions (badly maintained facilities: money. not enough breaks: money/profits.).
If you can tell me one non-greed-related reason for strikes, please do.
@@WooShell Well, DB is arguing that reducing the working week from 38 to 35 hours means they would have to employ about 10% more train drivers just to maintain the current level of service. The problem with that, according to DB, is twofold: first, there simply aren't enough people out there who want to work as train drivers; and second, it takes about two or three years to train new recruits, so even if they could find enough willing applicants, most of them aren't going to actually start work until 2027 at the earliest. If the shortage of applicants means that DB has to recruit from other countries, those applicants will have to be able to speak German to a minimum standard before they can start training (so another year or so) and, if they come from outside the EU, there will be extra paperwork involved as well.
Now, you may choose to disbelieve DB on this point (and I don't fully believe it myself); but that is the reason DB is giving for saying it can't fully meet the union's demand, and it's a reason that has nothing to do with greed.
It's very difficult to make a decision like this although reducing some strikes isn't a threat to democracy itself but if the government starts banning strikes more often than usual that is a very dangerous sign to democracy
The problem is it’s inevitable they may abuse their power at some point if they did
I think if the companies stop trying to fight unions and give them what they want there will be no strikes (like in Sweden). Has Union domination made Sweden a bad economy? No, and it is the democratic thing to do.
I agree, the government shouldn’t be involved in strikes. They are not a party in the conflict.
@@jannetteberends8730 yes it's quite a very serious thing
If the strikes make you angry because they interfere with your daily life, that's ok, they make me angry too. Please let us NOT direct that hate against the employees, but instead direct your hate against the employers, the corporations that are refusing better working conditions.
Everyone (that is not specificly their employer) has good reason to be on the same side as the strikers.
The more people side with the strikers, the sooner the employer gives in and the sooner the strike ends.
I think the right to travel and other things like having access to electricity, basic healthcare etc. are fundamental human rights. So the government as the guarantor of those rights should also facilitate those services at the basic level. Private companies going to do what private companies do: optimize for profits and nothing else. The only reason for them to improve service is to convince people to pay them for certain things.
It is not the unions but DB's executives (who enriched themselves but say no to good working conditions / wages) and DB's current half-arsed privatized state is holding the nation hostage. Since right to travel and right to work (by commuting to work) are fundamental rights, DB should be nationalized as it was before. It should also split into two different organizations that collaborate: one for the infrastructure and one for the trains. Currently DB Netz and DB Regio / Fernverkehr are separate but again this is also half-arsed. This will enable private operators to operate on the infrastructure that is maintained by a separate entity and DB can still provide the basic service. This will also make DB's employees, government employees who should be responsible to guarantee good service and answerable to public and the government. The employee count is controlled and decided by the government and it should pay fairly but it should also bear stronger responsibilities against public. So DB shouldn't profit. That way DB's status is balanced against other private entities that can offer more competitive pricing, or more luxury offerings, more flexible working agreements and actually can make profit for the services they offer.
I think the current state of DB is worse off for everybody except its executives. Its special position provides it too much advantage against the other private competitors and it is effectively a monopoly. However, since it is managed as a private company it tries to make profit by making almost everything worse.
There used to be the ruling that, due to being critical to the functioning of the state, employees of the railway services and other publically operated services were public employees or Beamte, who enjoyed better pay in general, but had to accept that striking is prohibited for them. That all changed when Bimbeskanzler Helmut Kohl's government went for the privatisation of the Deutsche Bahn. And, hey presto: Now the employees are as hire-and-fire and cheap labour as the Mc-Kinsey-MBAs always wanted when they wrote their advisory reports for the government. Only they gained the right to strike. Karma is a bitch, eh?
So of course they should go on strike. They have the right to! May they strike long and hard, may the managers have fit after fit, it's what they asked for! 🤗
@rewboss Der Streik ist ein Grundrecht (Artikel 9 Absatz 3 Grundgesetz) und das rechtmäßige Mittel zur Durchsetzung der Tarifforderung (Bundesarbeitsgericht vom 12. September 1984 - 1 AZR 342/83). Dies gilt für Warnstreiks genauso wie für den Vollstreik.
Without the right to strike we would have paid slavery like the UK or USA
Simply look at Sweden, a unionized nation that doesn't have strikes. Unions need to have near complete power.
Dutch rail workers have occasionally done strikes where they'd do everything except check tickets, so the railways continued to operate but without fare revenue, thus putting pressure on the employer without upsetting the general (voting) public.
Since train drivers don't check tickets, that wouldn't work for a train drivers' strike.
In general, no.
Is it inconvenient? Yes.
But strikes are a last resort when the other side isn't willing to negotiate.
Maybe privatization of everything isn't the solution (looking at clinics as well).
Beamte, while can not be let go, the retirement is also better, they get a regular raise and retirement starts earlier.
There isn't a tangible reason for Beamte to strike.
Also the only reason there isn't a 6 day work week was union's.
Btw., whenever DB is striking, all other train companies are punctual.
Why is the focus always on the unions? It's not that union demands are unreasonable (looking at productivity, inflation, terrible working conditions for mental and physical health). It's that the employers don't give in. So we shouldn't talk about restricting the right to strike but the right by companies to not agree on compromises/proposals
You can't force anyone to accept a deal against their will. The whole purpose of collective bargaining is that the parties negotiate until they can find a solution that both can live with. But it has to be something both sides are willing to accept, otherwise you are simply giving one side the power to dictate terms.
It’s worth noting that the nations with the highest standard of living - namely the Nordic nations, Australia, etc. all have strong union movements.
Important to know: Striking rights are already restricted, if they would risk lives. That comes from the basic law hierarchy, saying that e.g. article 1 is more imported than article 9. In those sectors, unions are to provide emergency services, so that in hospitals urgent surgeries don't have to be shifted. But for that, even schools and kindergartens have emergency services at strikes, so the doctors and similar groups aren't prevented to go to work by looking after their children. So this won't be a problem. Since railway has not such an impact on life (food supply was still stable during the last days), I don't see why they would need emergency service, especially for train drivers where only one of 29 railway companies were on strike.
There is a simple way to prevent strikes on the railroads: Change the corporate form back from a stock corporation to a state-owned company and turn the employees into federal civil servants. It is quite possible that they would have to be paid better, but that would put an end to the strikes. Oh, you don't want to pay for that? Well, then hands off the principle of collective bargaining autonomy!
Since the EU mandates privatized public transit it would also mean either the entire EU needs to change that particular condition, or Germany leaves the EU (Gexit?) you can actually see it in austria, the eu is pushing for more privatisation. Austria's railway worked a bit better than germanies. but now... now it just gets worse.
also in regards to germany: another thing not talked much about is the entire break up of DB Cargo in the plans. also partly instigated by the EU wanting the state to support railway LESS than it already does. and now the DB Cargo leadership wants to basically splitter the entire section, thousands of employment positions are gonna get axed and they'll get even less able to compete as a huge part allowing them to offer services (wide spread locations and stuff to take with them single waggons) will just... be unviable in a profit sense. so... yeah.
@@EmpressSock I think you're a little bit misinformed about EU Railway Directives which is very common due to 2000s Neo-liberal implementation of them. The directives of 1995, 2001 and 2012 does not ban nation controlled railway companies. You can read the Wikipedia page or actual text of the "Single European Rail Directive of 2012". However, it bans the fully vertically and totally integrated railway companies by the nations i.e ones that control all of the infrastructure, timetables and all of the trains. So it is very much possible to have two different organizations in the government: one that maintains the infrastructure and enables government owned as well as privately companies to operate on that infrastructure and one that actually operates the trains. AFAIK Spain's Renfe is still government owned and it works exactly like this.
meh.
It isn't which side of this topic I am on,
It is which side of the pond I am on.
thanks for the video
Yes, Andrew was correct: this video did start quite a few arguments in the comment section :-)
As a former Trade Union Rep, it always seems to me ridiculous that there is so much discussion over strikes. It is a fundamental right for workers to withdraw their labour. If not codified in a strike system then the workers will simply resign and find better work.
On the other side, why in a sane world do employers always want to reduce wages and worsen conditions. Surely if they want their business to be successful then they would want to have good conditions and a happy motivated workforce.
Answer is that most companies are now "owned " by short term investments on the stock market. So answer is clear, get rid of the computerised algorithm based "stock" markets. Return to stock markets that actually invest long term in solid businesses who invest in their workforce and community.
Limiting strikes when they're getting too inconvenient means they were never meant to be more than the illusion of workers having rights.
No, there is a difference from inconvenience to the employer, to inconvenience to the entire society. Strikes are ment to put pressure or harm on the employer, not anybody else.
A normal factory would have the option of "We close down the factory, we cannot pay these requests". Something like the railway can impossibly take this option. And that's abuse of rights.
Geeinte Arbeiter
Können Niemals
Besiegt Werden.
✊ (😊)
Das ist ja das Problem. Einen Betrieb stillegen mag OK sein, Ein Land stillegen nicht.
@@holger_p"mimimi, ist mir doch egal wenn die Menschen die mich tagtäglich chauffieren ausgebeutet werden, hauptsache sie wagen es nicht die Klappe aufzumachen und zu sagen dass es ihnen reicht, und sie auch Luxus wie z.B. ein Familienleben haben möchten." 🤡
Werd mal erwachsen verdammt nochmal. Die Streikenden machen das auch nicht aus Jux und Dollerei auch wenn dir manche neoliberale Voll1dioten das weiß machen wollen.
Und gerade bei einem Betrieb in staatlicher Hand, kann der Staat auch ohne Verbeamtung mit den richtigen Rahmenbedingungen dafür sorgen, dass die Arbeitgeber nicht nur am unteren Ende sparen. Nur war das bisher nie das Ziel, eher im Gegenteil.
Maybe strikes wouldn’t happen in the first place if the company would agree to pay workers fair wages.
I like to give an answer / food for thoughts in two levels. First, the point which I consider more important: these topics are problematic the way they are phrased, which often imply that there is an issue with strikes and unions in critical infrastructure. Taking the premises of a strike being a last resort, the German media puts too much blame on unions and strikers while the actual issue, the employers are not being taken enough into focus. Especially with Deutsche Bahn, there is a history where the employer did treat the employees not fairly at all, making the strike understandable. Just think of last year when the executives paid themselves a generous bonus despite not meeting certain quality standards. Second is about the critical infrastructure: preventing strikes/tightening the rules to protect critical infrastructure is sound and well, but I have yet to see anyone talking about leveling the field fairly. One way which would work out, but is beyond my imagination of reality: have the union go on strike on paper. As in: when they want to go on strike, the government gives a "green card" for the strike to ensure that the critical infrastructure keeps running. What is that supposed to mean? During the time you are on strike you keep working, but the employer has to pay you double and each strike day counts as an extra vacation day. Means for each day on strike you get one more day in your annual vacation to take days off. Anything else would benefit employers overproportionally and a strike has to hurt the employers where it matters. Germany is in my opinion still a country where strikes are rather rare / uncommon. But it becomes more common when there is more and more growing injustice. We should less talk about Germany should get tough on strikes and more about the growing injustices which leads to strikes. A strike is the last resort and it matters less whether it is a critical infrastructure company or not. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly in pay and appreciation.
I think UK experienced the same in 2022-23, not just on railways but also teachers, bin workers and even ambulance crew. Strikes for railways are still ongoing haven't seen one in a while.
The time of strike is more or less arbitrary. The last contracts were made for 24 or 36 months in 2021 or 22, short before the war and the inflation wave.
So now is the first chance to go on strike due to runtime of contracts.
Everything is perfectly fine, those greedy DB executives are just out of touch and need to pay. And for good measure get paid less, as they are the source of all transport problems we have (lack of investment)
It's given the gdl is pushing it with what they wand and might even be trigger happy, but the DB was standoffish from the start. I just wish the DB would be held liable for the disruption, as they have a state subsidised monopoly there are no consequences.
Angesicht der historischen Relevanz der Gewerkschaften weltweit und was sie erreicht haben, in manchen Fällen hatten, da die Macht der Arbeitgeber ungleich größer wurde, zum Abbau von gewerkschaftlich Erkämpften führte, geht es heute darum dieses Verlorene, einst Gewonnene wieder her zu führen. Mehr Macht den Gewerkschaften!
New lens and/or lighting? I seem to notice an improved image quality in this video. Still miss the old background music though. Ah well...
Although people must have the right to strike, there are way too much people in Germany without any union representation. So for those, whose working conditions depend fully on the will of their employer, it isbfrustrating to see rail workers with all their benefits striking for more.
a) Wahoo! New Rewboss Video!
I do not understand why employers are trying to resist demands of the employees. Why don't they just accept any demands and simultaneously increase prices of their services?
Because the company has to compete. For example, if train ticket prices go up too much, that will encourage more people to travel by coach, budget airline, or car. The increasing cost of living is affecting not just train drivers, but passengers as well.
A better argument would be that important services like the railways shouldn't be for-profit, and managers shouldn't award themselves huge bonuses for meeting meaningless targets like diversity quotas.
@@rewboss Thank you. I didn't think about competition between different means of transportation. You are right, lack of competition on the railroad transportation market doesn't mean that DB doesn't have competition at all.
But isn't DB already a non-profit organization owned by the government with the goal to operate around zero net income? Bonuses are ridiculous, and also their salaries are unreasonably high, but extra 10 millions euro per year is nothing for such a huge corporation as DB and won't solve any problem on its own.
I think, first of all, corporations lack transparency. They should regularly publish very detailed report of all their income and spending. I mean not shallow reports they publish for their stake owners, but something on the next level more detailed. All the sources of income and their quantifiable metrics, all the destinations of spending and their quantifiable metrics, with special focus on employee positions and their salaries. And then people could study the data, judge how well managers make decisions, and what changes to demand.
I might be wrong, but for me it looks like unions demand raise and just hope that corporation will find something non-critical to cancel and won't cancel something critical, such as planned trains replacements by extending service life of the old trains by extra 10 years.
One country in the EU must not be more strict than another country. Otherwise companies are going to the countries with the lowest standards. Countries in the EU should o be in the same playing field.
In The Netherlands since 2015: the hoge raad decided: A strike does not have to be a ‘last resort’ and does not have to be announced in advance
So there’s my opinion.
"well this is going to start a few arguments in the comments section" uhhh. OH NO IT ISN'T!
Uh, bit of a related question: Does Germany use sector based negotiations? IE get all the people who do things like operate grocery stores and make them have an employer federation, and then all the employees of grocery stores regardless of which store they are from and the latter form a union, and then the employers federation and the union negotiate, or is it based on each employer negotiating with a specific union for that employer?
A bit of both, actually :D
There are some unions that have a very broad scope and can be seen as representing a whole sector, like verdi (public services) or IG Metall (metal industry) and there are some "employer federation" that represent all their members in negotiations.
Then again, there are more specific unions like the GDL @rewboss mentioned in the video, which represents (mainly) train drivers and will negotiate with individual employers. (Deutsche Bahn and several smaller private transport companies)
I guess the fact that there isn't any concrete regulation means that there also isn't any one exact system :P
It is a very, very complex system. Both kind of structures exist, but especially with the railroads it's also a very special thing regarding which union's deal would be applicable in which specific company or subsidiary.
In Germany there used to be more sector based negotiations than today. With the rise of the specialist unions, employers have often more than one union to negotiate with just in one company. This increases the frequency of strikes, of course.
I think that the existing court rulings which are implicitly assuming the old system of sector based negotiations are not effective in this new situation. There needs to be a strike law making arbitration mandatory befory voting on strikes.
One simply cannot regulate class war.
Every restriction on striking requires the employer giving up an equal right. For rail and electrical, the loss of striking for wages is offset by a COLA (cost of living allowance), etc.
'strike law' in Germany is fine as it is! there is no need for a new 'law' to regulate strike action. Germany's record in the field of employer-workers union relations and actually strikes is exemplary for Europe and has proven it is working fine for many decades.
anyone advocating for new statute law must know there is every chance this new law will restrict workers rights compared to today and it is very, very unlikely to increase workers rights. even rewboss hinted as such when he mentioned the push for 'compulsory arbitration' before calling for a strike.
concerning the most contentious point for the general public when it comes to 'critical infrastructure' or nationwide travel: there has been and still is an instrument to make strikes impossible in certain sectors where the state has an interest in avoiding strike actions: in the past this instrument has been employed for decades to prevent railway strikes for example. do you know what it is? easy, *make train drivers civil servants again!* then they don't have the right to strike.
however, the state can't have it both ways. privatise public transport, pay the management to make it profitable, let them abuse their employees and expect them to never go on strike. that is just silly!
You say that there's only one Grundgesetz article plus jurisprudence that deals with strikes. But could you explain the relevance of court decisions to this, as Germany is _not_ a common law country (like the US and Britain) and "case law", as such, is not law.
Germany does have a civil law system, but that doesn't mean case law is completely irrelevant. The courts are expected to interpret the law based on what the intention behind that law clearly was: if something isn't specifically regulated by law, it's up to the courts to decide what the law is supposed to do and rule accordingly.
No, no we really shouldnt get tough on strikes.
They are the only reason why we even have something of a living standard and liveable hours.
And giving law makers ANY ideas to restict workers rights is never a good idea.
- Signed, a daily public transport commuter.
Fun reminder that teachers are not allowed to strike in Germany.
Many of the politicians and the media want us to symphatise with the employers and I have noticed this worked out quite well. Personally I oppose this attempt and wish everyone would be member of a union with the power of the GDL.
They should eliminate the reason why people are striking.
If we eliminate the right to strike we are going to end up with long term nobody doing the job at all since people will end up quitting and or at least others wont want to replace them once they are old
We are short on people doing childcare, elders care etc. because they aren't being paid enough, we don't want this to be the case with other jobs
Should train drivers, railroad employees etc. be paid better? Yes! Should they be allowed to strike for it, unlike in the US? Yes!
But for the ego of an individual, certainly not! GDL and rail union unite!
But not in any possible extent. Getting more money, working less hours, and never negotiate any of their request, just enforcing their arbitrary picked numbers.
Exaggerated: They want to double their income, and strike until they get it, without every saying +80% is OK for us to. It's like blocking all streets in Germany at the same time.
These demands, primarily by the CSU faction, are basically an attempt to undermine the strike itself, more warning time? The service has to run anyway? That basically makes a strike mute to begin with no? And as for Robert Habeck, I have only one tiny bit of criticsm for him, by not naming DB AG directly and telling them to play nice after they have over the course of the years attacked the strike rights of workers, tarif autonomy and unions themsleves, their tactics being of simple but seemingly effective means, if one sees economy, economic ministries and press often siding with teh company under strike, arbitration is also mostly in favour of the company under strikes.
So what were teh dirty tactics of DB AG then? Well they hold out on the strikes and try to turn the public against teh unions, they attack teh tarif autonomy of singular work groups, the cleaning personal can sing and dance about this, the delegates of DB AG come to a negotiation and alsmost imediately leave, if they even appear in first place that is, they blatandly lie about what happened, they lobby the ministries and press to turn the ministers and people against the union, they constantly "offer" outright laughable deals, their deals are poisoned usually by dividing the increase fo wages and reduction of times by the actual run time a sudden 12% in two steps turns into 4% over the course of 3 years (basically the EVG deal, it was bad!). On top of this their management misses all targets, calculates some targets until they "look nice" on paper and then pay themselves huge boni, the workers meanwhile get pushed around and made out to be the bad guys by lobbyists until the press runs with it, they also try to play the different unions against each other constantly. As for the actual workers demands at DB AG, mostly they want to be in the same economic position as tehy were before COVID, they basically didn't get a salary increase in three years and during covid the large companies like airlines and DB AG even managed to run with partial surplus, how is that fair?
And regarding arbitration, they usually manage to get arbitrators that have an interest in siding with them, teh EVG had this happen to them, hence their bad deal!
The EVG nominated their own arbitrator -- that's how arbitration works. The membership voted on the arbitrators' proposal, and a majority was in favour of accepting it. If the union had voted against, the contract wouldn't have been signed and the dispute would have continued.
Would it be legal for them to go on a fare strike?
(if you don’t know, a fare strike is when transport workers just refuse to collect the fares, resulting in the company running at a loss)
@@EnigmaticLucas Apparently not, although I'm not a legal expert.
@@rewboss Ah
No.
No, imo we should strike even harder, especially in critical jobs like Education, the public sector, Nurses etc. because lets face it, if those workers are important enough to not strike to keep the rest of the country running, they deserve better working conditions and pay. Instead those people are blamed for those conditions, while others get big bonusses or create unsubstainable systems.
Of course, strikes are a very important tool to combat situations where workers are treated unfairly by their employers.
However, if I'm being honest, I gotta say that I'm more than annoyed and that I lost all sympathy for the current situation, especially in regards to strikes in public transport.
I think, in this day and age, we need to convince as many people as possible to use public transport instead of cars, due to climate issues and whatnot. However, given that Deutsche Bahn already has a reputation for being notoriously unreliable at times, these strikes (especially recurring, long ones) put another nail into the coffin.
I don't own a car. I use my pedelec (e-bike) and public transport for all the things I got to do. I have a wife and two children, so a car would do us pretty good, but we have principles. I have never been hindered by strikes as many times as in the last couple YEARS when it comes to travel from point A to point B reliably. All while still having to pay for my tickets, endure the poor service, etc. That leads to the fact that I'm now considering to actually break my own principles and get a car.
I don't understand that much about the whole dynamic of strikes. All I see though is that strikes are always carried out on the backs of paying customers and not so much the employers. Especially when I take a look at my local bus companies that had record profits in the last years.
All this happens while people who are truly underpaid (health sector comes to mind) don't strike at all, even though they'd have all good reasons to do so.
Since most strikes right now affect public transport, wouldn't it be possible to strike in a way that doesn't affect so many people, but still hurts the employers? Let people ride buses and trains for free. Don't check tickets at all. Like that, for instance.
Should Germany get tough on strikes?
Strike is expression;
Someone’s right to speak cannot be throttled as matter of convenience; however,
Constitution says; better pay;
No one can get better in hell; no one can get better in heaven;
If company is losing 10 a week; and employee is getting paid 10 dollars an hour; strike for better pay is not gottenable;
If company makes 10b a week; employee flipping burger makes 1m a week; better is not gottenable; or get-able; so
#1 is it gettable
#2 are they starting from bad for better?
#3 if demand is met is it burden to company?
Because between stock holder and employee is more and better
Stockholder exist for more; not better; therefore, employee strike is estoppel;
Therefore, stockholder dividend can freeze for better;
#4 does strike convey the message?
If what strike does ; does not convey message; prima facie; then strike cannot be allowed;
If farmers block road with combine v farmers paint public building with orange paint; is not convey message;
Strike walkout etc must meet these 4 prong test; if all is yes; must be allowed;
They must be crazy, of course companies scream for regulation... union busting is a problem even in germany.
All these jobs with critical infrastructure should be nationalized anyway.. for example the elecric grid, or the train tracks, and they should be paid more..
The Bahn is fully owned by the german state, so what the hell, they should just raise their wages. That would at least boost the economy in the long run.
In Germany, state employees aren't allowed to strike, so nationalising the critical infrastructure actually removes the right to strike from the workers. That fixes the problem of strikes, of course, but there's no guarantee the state will always treat its workers fairly: for example, in the late 1970s the British government tried to control inflation by imposing a limit on wage increases.
The issue is that subsidising wages of Deutsche Bahn employees would a) increase the national budget deficit which is already restricted by the constitution and b) create unfair competition for the rest of rail companies which would mean Germany would need to completely nationalise the whole sector and take on the responsibility to run it, finance it (incl. absorbing all of its debt) and probably unsuccessfully fight the EU on the legality of such a move.
I get a bit ruffled whenever I see people use the disruptiveness of union action as a pretext to weaken unions. It suggests either that they don't understand the point of things like strikes as a tool to fight back against employers that would otherwise hold all the power, or that they just have utter contempt for workers and care only for their own immediate convenience.
There is also a problem with ignoring the disruptiveness as a major factor in the balance of power. If a union with 1000 workers can cause as much disruption as one with 1,000,000 workers, then they hold disproportionate power which is not good for the public and for workers who don't have as much leverage. Imagine if tomorrow all cardiosurgeons decided to strike indefinitely - this would be a huge disruption to keeping people alive, but only a small overall gain for the nation's workers (as there are so few cardiosurgeons compared to e.g. postal workers).
This way, a small but impactful union could theoretically negotiate that their members get €500,000 annual wages nad 20h work weeks which obviously wouldn't be fair and sustainable for the rest of the country.
@@bratan_archerIf your country is in a position where all the heart surgeons feel like they need to strike indefinitely, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.
@@TheManWithTheFlan Maybe, but that's not the point. There are other doctors, or completely different workers who are working as hard and require as much competence, but aren't as critically needed at all times. A system that allows a minority to hold power because they're in the position to let thousands die waiting for a surgery (or prevent millions from going to work) should be open to criticism.
@@bratan_archer The thing is that that 'criticism' seems to be reserved only for the workers organizing, not for the employers that have failed to meet their worker's demands for so long and so severely that they have decided a strike is worth it.
People don't strike for giggles, and if a group of workers that is so crucial to societal function has gotten to the point of a strike, the blame for that disruption should fall on the employers refusing to meet worker demands, not the workers banding together to even the playing field by bargaining collectively.
@@TheManWithTheFlan
You are expanding your point now. For sure the workers have the right to negotiate better conditions and fight for it.
However, taking the stance that any demands must be met if a union holds enough power is senseless. GDL is not banding together with other unions to negotiate for all workers in the rail sector. They are striking for their members because they can. Putting the blame exclusively on one party because they don't want to meet any demand, no matter how unreasonable, the other party makes is overentitled. By that logic heart surgeons could go on strike until they get 200 vacation days and the public shouldn't criticise them.
As important as strikes are to fight for employee's rights, it is by now quite wearing out nerves when it happens on all ends at the same time and lots of people have no means to get to work, for example those without a car. This is what I am dreading a a bit, moving back to Germany after 18 years abroad. Not sure how tolerant employers are if their staff really have no means to get in and during probation they would want me in full time.
maybe the employers are to blame for the strikes in the first place?
You could join a union and/or demonstrate for a change of the law so that workers do not have to come to work if their means of transport are not available.
It is outrageous that all the burden is on the worker! How is this supposed to function? If the public transport systems are down, people do not magically receive a car. They can also not all go by taxi because there are not enough taxies.
Therefor, the only way of solving this is to not demand workers to come to work when public transport is down and they are dependent on public transport.
@@johannageisel5390 how about this: stop all attempts to make DB a profit-seeking company, lawmakers instead task DB with a new mandate to provide passenger and goods transport and if the country doesn't want them to go on strike ever appoint all employees civil servants again
@@embreis2257 Sounds good to me.
I think this problem would be helped if Germany became socialist :3
No, remember your history class who where the last to limit or forbid strikes! The Nazis and the DDR!
To me the ideal solution is probably socialism, market socialism to be exact: democratic control of companies by their employees and perhaps other stakeholders. That would make strikes unnecessary and at the same time remove a lot of the awful side-effects of shareholder capitalism
As these experiments have shown, people don't believe or trust in whatever transparency you offer. It's not they want a share of the profit, they want the employers to raise prices of products, risk market shares. They are just too stupid to understand the complexity of the system.
Due to worldwide market prices, a local governement has absolutly no influence on the pricing system.
In the 19th centry, without much global trade, this still was a possible idea, today it's not.
30 hour woke week at full pay ore we all walk.
If we admit the 30 hour/week, just 40% of us walk. That's the dilemma. Trains will not run, when train drivers sit on their sofas at home.
German work ethic on display. East German….
Look at Singapore, learn from Singapore, dear German people.
Why, how do they resolve labour disputes in Singapore?
probably not the most popular opinion but i think unions in germany have exactly the needed amount of power...
Especially given that strikes are ALREADY expensive and problematic for the workers and that the ONLY next step after strikes fail is violence. usually either as a riot, a revolution or popular vote into people who end up being power hungry dictators...
On another note: causing "economic damage" to those who refuse the workers reasonable demands is the whole point of a strike so not allowing them to strike would be kinda opposite to it's existence and while striking COULD cause problems in healthcare or electricity management it's also a major incentive for the entities managing them to keep their employees happy and hear their demands before it comes to that least they're pushed to take an even worse deal from the unhappy population (and in my personal experience those people are more likely to be extorted if they dont have the capability to strike as the rest or have severe limitations on it which causes complexity problems like...how are you sure they're not all going to be replaced during a strike with the justification of maintaining minimal services? what forces their bosses to hear them if they're going to HAVE to guarantee the service works anyway? especially since most are ALREADY working at or near minimum services?)
THeoretically yes. Strike on one employer is OK, Strike on an entire industry is not. Strike on monopoles have too strong impacts.
The arbitration idea isn't bad. You could make the rule that a union can only strike after a arbitration attempt, or if the employer refuses to arbitrate.
Edit: it would be perfect to make this rule reality for public transport companys. Especially after the head of the GDL was found to purposefully stalling the negotiations.
I don't know about the regulations, really. However, the strike should put pressure on the employer and primarily affect them. when your company suddenly no longer produces wares because of a strike, that puts a lot of pressure on the company because then people will buy wears from another company and their contract partners will be angry.
however, when trains suddenly no longer drive for a limited time, trains won't really lose customers long term. One month of intermittent short strikes won't convince people to buy a car. infrastructure isn't something where you will lose customers when your workers strike for too long. "oh, the garbage disposal striked? okay, fine! then I will just not produce waste any more!" or what? and the bad publicity mostly hits the union too. So a strike isn't even an effective measure for infrastructure workers anyways. as said, unsure about regulations, but for those jobs there should simply be a more effective measure. Sadly, I don't know what that would be.
How about measures that lessen the infrastructure providers profits, like tickets not being checked in trains and busses, electricity/water workers going to houses to turn back the counters, etc?
I'm pretty sure that this is illegal right now, but were it codified as some kind of civil disobediance in law it would put far more pressure on the employers while fostering far more sympathy from fellow citizens.
@@xaver2251Japanese bus drivers did that in the 90s-it’s called a fare strike
I used to be firmly left wing and Chairman of the local AStA... Now I'm actually working in a leadership position with about 300 ppl under me. And that really changes perspectives. It's incredible already what kind of obvious lies and abuse of sick days for example people are already getting away with. You know exactly which people do as little as possible and call in sick whenever they fancy the day off and there is almost nothing a large employer can do. Everyone working for a large company, with an unlimited contract and several years of tenure is almost a "Beamter". Friday Late shift... Every Friday - at least a dozen people don't feel well and need to go home early, rest of the week it's maybe 2-3. And my Managers are not doctor's so we let them go home, knowing perfectly well that 90% of them are lying. But our duty of care means we can't and don't want to assume and we need to protect the 10% who are really sick.
One of the main issues for the German Economy and maybe the main reasons we are struggling so hard is 1. horrific amounts of slow and pointless bureaucracy and petty rules and regulations that completely kill off innovation and speed of action and 2. Workers rights - which we definitely need and which are necessary -. But currently they are designed in such a way that they mainly protect people not willing (willing being the key, NOT talking about not being able for one reasone or another) to perform and know how to abuse the system, rather than rewarding the one's that make an effort every day.
Coming from the UK (and living both in Germany and France) it feels insane that there is no law regulating strikes in Germany. Surely no-notice random strikes threatened by GDL should not be legal? And (at least in the area of public transport) lately Germany certainly overtook France in regards to the amount of strikes.
As for the rhetoric of being taken hostage by the unions - personally, I kinda feel this way.
Why do my comments on your videos always get deleted?
I have no issues on other peoples vidoes.
I have no idea. If your comment shows up in one of the moderation filters I'll allow it unless it contains a gratuitous insult; but I don't simply delete comments I dislike.
@@rewboss Did it show up?
All I said in my last comment on this video was that corporations already have enough power so we shouldn't take away strikes as a tool from employees to fight for fairer wages.
@@lordcola-3324 I don't remember your specific comment because I have to read through so many, but the majority of comments that are visible here say basically the same thing.
Of course the German government should get tough on strikes.
We need a new German government. 😁
That's worked really well everywhere else it's been tried. The US, UK.....
@@evilrslade That's what I thought.
Yes it should because the country can‘t really work like that
why?
The employers can stop the strikes at any moment, they simply have to accept the unions proposal. Strikes are literally the only bargaining chip workers have against employers.
mann könnte auch zur bundesbahn zurückkehren
@@burgerpommes2001auch möglich, ja. die pravatisierung der bahn war sowieso schwachsinnig
It already does work like that, and Germany has never faltered as powerhouse.
When workers and the poor had no social programs, all strikes were illegal. Stopping work and taking to the streets--very illegally--was how child labor protections, old age pensions and the right to unionize were achieved. More than a century later, wealth inequality (which is driving every single existential crisis facing us) is not only higher than it was when Dickens wrote Hard Times but is actually wildly accelerating. Perspective is everything, folks.
Has anyone made a reform proposal that would reduce strikes by in some way making it easier for unions to get what they demand? You know, as opposed to making workers suck it up? If the concern is actually about the length and frequency of strikes, and not about labour getting uppity, then surely keeping workers happy is another avenue worth investigating.
How would you do that, though? What concrete measure would you propose?
@@rewboss Off the top of my head? Companies like to argue that the strikers' demands are simply economically impossible to fulfill. Maybe they could be made to prove this to an independent panel of experts if the dispute has gone on long enough. Then if the experts decide that the company _can_ in fact meet the demands without going under, the gubmint could force them to. But there are also ways to prevent labour disputes to begin with of course, like automatic inflation compensation, capping the maximum wage to a multiple of the lowest wage, etc. etc.
(Not that I'm especially enthusiastic about any of these. But they're band-aids that could be implemented without touching the current economic order, so they've actually got some chance of happening without a prior upheaval.)
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs You want to set up a government-approved panel of independent experts to carefully analyze the finances of every company that is involved in a pay dispute (that's a lot of companies) and make a judgement on whether or not the company can meet the union's demands without going bankrupt?
That's a pretty tall order. Company finances are often fearsomely complex, and everything is subject to market forces that are pretty much impossible to predict -- right now a _lot_ of companies are in serious trouble as a direct result of such things as the war in Ukraine, the covid pandemic, and piracy in the Red Sea. Who knows what might happen this year?
But also, negotiations are often a lot more complex than just increasing wages. For example, the sticking point of the current dispute between DB and the GDL is whether the working week for shift workers can be cut from 38 hours all the way to 35 hours (as the union demands) or only to 36 hours (as the company's offer now stands)? DB cites as the main problem not "we can't afford it" but "we'd need to recruit 10% more drivers, and there is a serious shortage of people who want to work as train drivers". One of the demands of the union representing public transport workers in Berlin is that turnaround times at terminuses be increased. These really aren't things that can be decided by looking at a few balance sheets, and often the people best to judge these matters are those with expert knowledge of the industry involved -- in other words, the workers and the employers who are negotiating the contract in the first place.
And then there's the issue of how to make sure such a panel is truly independent in the first place. A panel of accountants and bureaucrats that can understand the financial arguments isn't likely to understand the workers' perspective, for example.
@@rewboss _"You want to set up a government-approved panel of independent experts to carefully analyze the finances of every company that is involved in a pay dispute"_
No, just the ones in critical sectors (whatever we decide those are, precisely) that haven't been able to settle their labour disputes after some specified period of disruption. I see no need to reduce strikes in non-critical sectors. And for Deutsche Bahn in particular the government ought to already have comprehensive expert analyses and predictions, given that it's the owner.
_"And then there's the issue of how to make sure such a panel is truly independent in the first place."_
Sure, any band-aid solution we come up with is open to abuse or mismanagement in some way or other. I'm not married to this particular approach, and it wouldn't be enough even if it worked out fine for what it is. My broader point is that I'd like to see proposals for reducing strikes that place the onus of compromising and sucking it up on the bosses for a change. Like, I'm not an expert, so none of my proposals will be particularly well-formed, but what are the odds that there genuinely aren't any?
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs Well, arbitration is, as I said in the video, already a mechanism for finding a compromise solution: what you're suggesting seems to be basically a kind of legally-binding arbitration. That's likely to be opposed by the unions, though, since anything that forces the union to accept a deal they wouldn't otherwise agree to basically runs counter to the principle of collective bargaining. And as it requires the government to pass legislation, it would be immediately seen as a government move to take power away from the workers.