Transcript International Trade – What`s in it for the Trade Union ? The Case of


International Trade –
What’s in it for the
Trade Union ?
The Case of Denmark
and the European
Union
What to tell – The case of Denmark and
the European Union








LO – yes or no to EU-membership
Capitalist or Social Europe ?
The Trade union in Europe
How did it go ?
New poor member states – Increasing
poverty or more wealth ?
Greece, Portugal and Spain
The Eastern Europe
What can Central America learn
LO – yes or no to EU-membership






Investigation and decision
The Congress votes yes – but not with at big
majority – Yes 524 – No 406
What says the congress resolution:
That Denmark is a small Country and are
fundamentally depended on foreign trade.
The raise in welfare is a result of international
trade and the removal of trade barriers
Our aim is full employment and better work
LO – yes or no to EU-membership



The European Union will have major impact
in Denmark wetter we are a member or not –
therefore we shall seek influence and move
Europe in our direction.
The struggle for better wages and working
condition can not be secured in one country
alone. It takes at close trade union
cooperation across borders
That’s especially the case in multinational
companies.
Capitalist or Social Europe ?






99 percent capitalist
The Rome Treaty contained only a few articles
about Social Policy.
The declaration of intend to improve working and
living condition
The social Fond
The ones who wanted social policy did it only
because they feared unfair competition.
It was only for the sake of the companies not the
workers.
The Trade union in Europe




One of the demands in Denmark was to set
up an European trade union, that could seek
influence and represent the workers in the
European Union.
The ETUC was founded in 1973.
Today it represent 60 billion workers in the
EU.
The ETUC is today an integrated part of the
social dimension in the EU
How did it go ?






Rights for cross boarder workers, so they
don’t loose their rights when they work in
another country (1960)
Equal work – equal pay (1970)
Working environment (1970 – 1980)
Help to poor countries (1980)
The Social Charter (1989)
Working time (1990)
How did it go ?






Influence in multinational companies (1990)
Charter on fundamental rights (2000)
Right to collective negotiation and
agreements.
Small steps ahead – but no social union
The primary is economic integration the
secondary is social harmonization
But we don’t want social harmonization
How did it go ?




Social harmonization is not always to the
benefit of workers
Fear of the limbo effect – how low can you go
But harmonization on a top level will lead to
lack of competitiveness in poor countries and
high unemployment.
What we need is fundamental rights that can
be developed in at national contest and that
economic growth leads to a fair distribution of
income and welfare.
New poor member states – Increasing
poverty or more wealth ?



In the 1980’th tree new countries became
member states in the EU. It was poor
countries
The rich member states could fear unfair
competition. And the new poor member
states could fear for deregulation in social law
and welfare rights.
How did it go ?
The Case of Greece, Portugal and Spain





GDP growth from 1985 to 1995 in the tree
countries and Denmark.
Denmark: 39 percent
Greece: 56 percent
Portugal: 65 percent
Spain: 81 percent
The Case of Greece, Portugal and Spain





In 1986/2005
Greece/Denmark 62/72 percent
Spain/Denmark 65/87 percent
Portugal/Denmark 50/61 percent
The tree countries are still less rich than
Denmark. But they catch up.
The Eastern Europe



In 2004 10 new eastern European countries
became members of the EU.
It’s to early to say how the will develop. But
the have made a good start with rising GDP.
They seem to be at the same road as
Greece, Portugal and Spain.
What can Central America learn ?




The Theory of international trade say that all
will benefit from liberalization of international
trade.
There is still no fundamental prove, that it
always will be the case.
But one the other hand, there is no prove
either that poor countries will always loose.
On the contrary - The case of Europe Shows
that poor countries will benefit more than rich
countries.
What can Central America learn ?



Liberalization is no guaranty for welfare but it
is necessarily no threat either.
The bottom line is, that in most cases more
free trade leads to more growth. More growth
leads to more wealth.
But the distribution of income and the
development of a welfare society is still a
political struggle. And only strong unions win
that struggle.
What can Central America learn ?


But one thing is true - with no growth, there is
not any higher wealth and therefore nothing
more to distribute among the workers
Free trade has come to stay – so the best
the union can do is to make a strategy how to
get the best out of it for the workers.
Conclusion




Free Trade agreements have come to stay
EU, WTO, NAFTA, Mercosur, DR-CAFTA,
”To be or not to be” influenced by
international trade is not the question.
The answer is – how do we get the most out
of it !