So far, the French in particular have been considered particularly keen to strike. But it feels like German employees are catching up. Stefan Greiner from the University of Bonn explains the causes in an interview with ntv.de. The labor lawyer talks about the pressure from unions to raise their profile, a “culture of protest that has become louder” in Germany and political mistakes that should be corrected.
ntv.de: Deutsche Bahn, public transport, Lufthansa – it feels like the strikers in Germany are replacing each other with a handshake. Are there more strikes than before or is the impression misleading?
Stefan Greiner: It may feel like that, but the sober figures from the Federal Statistical Office say otherwise. The number of strike days per 1,000 employees for 2021 and 2022 is approximately at the same level as before the pandemic. The same is likely to apply to 2023, but no data is available yet. The strikes do not affect the breadth of the economy. Rather, it is concentrated at certain points, for example on the railway or in other areas of public infrastructure, such as now at Lufthansa. Of course, such industrial disputes have an immense external impact and many people feel massively affected. In fact, today’s strikes are also more intense.
So it is quality rather than quantity that characterizes today’s strikes? Why are strikes more intense today?
Stefan Greiner is professor of labor law, civil law and social law at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. He has been director of the local Institute for Labor Law since 2018.
(Photo: Stefan Greiner)
This has to do with the fact that the reasons have changed somewhat. Tangible economic causes have always been an important reason for employees to take to the streets. That was true before, it is true today. We all notice that everything is becoming more expensive. This of course leads to demands for higher wages. However, a key driver of today’s strikes is the new world of work and demographic change. We have a labor market, so there is a great need for workers. This ensures that qualitative issues such as reducing working hours come to the fore. Finding an agreement here is much more difficult than with wage negotiations. That’s why there’s more wrestling here. That is the intensity that is currently perceived.
The Drops reduction in working hours has not been lost on the railway. There is currently peace and negotiations will continue from March 3rd. Do we need to prepare for the next strike?
Yes, the unions are vehemently sticking to their position on this demand. While companies say that shorter working hours are out of the question in a labor shortage situation. At the railways, the issue of trade union competition makes things even more difficult. In which areas is the railway willing to negotiate with the GDL? That is also difficult.
A labor market means that the desire to strike can continue to spread. According to the motto: If I don’t fight for my interests now, when will I? Is this what lies ahead?
That can be so. That depends on how the economic conditions change. If a major economic crisis with high unemployment were to hit us, the economic framework for collective bargaining would of course suddenly be completely different. One argument in favor of more strikes would be that the unions are under considerable pressure to raise their profile due to the large decline in membership. They try to make themselves visible and thus gain members. There is something else that would speak for more strikes: there is a climate of uncertainty in society. There are new forms of protest, such as climate stickers. This is like a new benchmark that the unions might align themselves with in order to be noticed in the protest culture that has become louder.
Strike is a sharp weapon, says the Federal Labor Court. What if this weapon is used inflationarily? That would be neither beneficial for society nor for the economy. Does a new culture of protest also need a new legal framework?
First of all, the right to strike is a valuable asset and is rightly very strongly protected under fundamental rights. On the other hand, the right to strike must also fit into the overall concept of civil liberties in our Basic Law. The conflict with the civil liberties of those affected is of course particularly pronounced in the areas of so-called public services, for example in the transport sector. This refers to the citizens who use means of transport to get from A to B and who have absolutely no influence on the strike or a collective agreement. In this conflict of fundamental freedoms, the legislature could certainly change and limit the guard rails for strikes.
So you would think it makes sense to reform the right to strike in Germany?
Yes, it is indeed unfortunate that the legislature in a strong economic nation like Germany is very reserved – also in contrast to politics in many other European countries. The strikes are not accompanied by law in this country. Instead, the legislature largely leaves the field to case law, which then takes the understandable position that, first of all, the fundamental right to strike determines what happens. The legislature could do more here.
What for example?
The legislature could introduce guardrails: it could provide for mandatory arbitration procedures, especially in those areas in which we are severely affected. It could also provide for cooling periods. He could formulate the ultima ratio principle more clearly in industrial disputes. He could definitely think about returning to civil servant status in real key positions. The European Court of Human Rights recently confirmed that excluding civil servants from the right to strike is in line with human rights. So you can do it like that. But instead of defusing the strikes, the legislature has intensified the strikes. We see this at Deutsche Bahn. The Unified Collective Bargaining Act of 2015 ensures that the unions – especially at Deutsche Bahn – enter into a fight for majorities in the companies because only the majority union has shaping power. Politicians have thus significantly increased the pressure to raise their profile that is already on the unions. Politicians therefore have the power to shape the external framework conditions in collective bargaining law without really touching on the substance of the right to strike.
And do you think it will do so in a timely manner?
I doubt that because it is a hot potato from a socio-political perspective. Politicians have always shied away from making regulations here. The pressure to act still doesn’t seem to be great enough.
Does that mean we need French conditions first?
No, the labor court jurisprudence sets clear limits. There are two striking differences between Germany and France: On the one hand, the so-called political strike, which is intended to induce or put pressure on the government to act, is not permitted in Germany. And on the other hand, strikes in Germany may only be aimed at concluding collective agreements. In this respect, a general strike based on the French model would not be legally conceivable in Germany. Another point is that a means of pressure such as the kidnapping of managers, as has already been practiced in France in the past, would also clearly violate the proportionality limits in Germany. Labor courts would strictly prohibit this.
Diana Dittmer spoke to Stefan Greiner