Right to strike under pressure?
“The fact that employees no longer see the added value of trade union membership is troubling,” confesses Laagland. “Trade unions play an important role in our socio-economic system, in which employers, employees, and governments work together. But membership also has benefits for individuals. Consider legal assistance in labour disputes and continued payment of wages during strikes called for by the union. Those wages are paid from the strike fund, which is funded by the membership fees.”
Only union members are eligible for these continued wage payments. Non-members can join in the strike but will not be paid. Laagland recognises that this distinction puts pressure on the right to strike as union membership numbers decline. “It means non-members may be less likely to join a strike since they are not entitled to pay for the hours they do not work. As a result, fewer workers end up going on strike, which is not beneficial for the unions' negotiating position vis-à-vis employers.”
Still appropriate in this day and age?
Laagland therefore stresses the importance of unions attracting more members. “This is necessary to achieve good CLAs, in which wage levels move with inflation, and fringe benefits, such as travel allowances and training opportunities, are laid down. The more people go on strike, the greater the deterrent effect on employers.”
Independently from this, Laagland believes the declining membership numbers raise the question of whether the CLA system is still appropriate in this day and age. Also in view of the changing job market, with an increase in temporary workers and self-employed professionals. “Trade unions used to benefit greatly from compartmentalisation,” she says. “In those days, you were a member of a church and that often included union membership. As I mentioned earlier, today's society is more individualistic. The low membership numbers raise questions of legitimacy and representativeness.”
As a Crown member (independent expert) of the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands (SER), Laagland knows that there are calls to change the current CLA system. But that is not easy, she explains. As long as adjustments are still a long way off, she says, it is in the interests of the unions to attract more members. “And this also benefits employers,” she says. “Because the more members a union has, the more employers can be confident that an agreed CLA is actually widely supported. So it is also important for employers to have a strong negotiation partner in the union.”
Despite declining membership numbers, several strikes have recently made the news. “In the semi-public sector, including education and public transport, these are usually not traditional strikes, in which workers and employers are diametrically opposed to each other,” says Laagland. “They are directly or indirectly directed against the government, for example because of proposed budget cuts. Sometimes employers and employees, both union members and non-members, fight together for a widely supported interest, as we saw in higher education, for example. It was different at Dutch Railways (NS), where the strikes led to a better CLA being negotiated. Interestingly, NS actually has relatively many union members. So, in short: striking is definitely worthwhile.”
