skip to main |
skip to sidebar
 |
| Thorsten Schulten |
The radical restructuring of Greek collective bargaining was right from the beginning one of the core demands of the Troika of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund (Schulten, 2015). Under the first two Memoranda, Greece was forced to agree to far-reaching changes in the legal framework of collective bargaining which led to a radical decentralisation and a large-scale elimination of multi-employer agreements. According to the third Memorandum from August 2015 the development of Greek collective bargaining should now be evaluated by an international commission composed of independent experts as well as representatives from international organisations – including the institutions of the Troika, but also the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Based on this, further reforms of the Greek bargaining system should be decided in light of “best practices” in Europe.
Changes in Greek collective bargaining law under pressure of the Troika
Since the beginning of the 1990s Greece had a comprehensive collective bargaining system with strong multi-employer bargaining at national, industry and occupational level and a comparatively high bargaining coverage of around 80 per cent. At the national level the peak organisations of trade unions and employers negotiated a collective framework agreement in which certain minimum working conditions – including the level of the national minimum wage – were agreed. Building on that, collective agreements could be agreed both at national and regional level for particular branches or occupational groups. Finally, companies could conclude special company agreements with the responsible trade unions.
 |
| George Wilson |
The surprise announcement in July of plans to introduce a ‘national living wage’ for workers over 25 in the UK has generated much debate. In effect a higher minimum wage for adult workers, the living wage will initially be set at £7.20 per hour and will be reviewed each year by the Low Pay Commission. The current Conservative government, who are responsible for the policy, have made clear their intention to increase the living wage to £9 per hour by 2020. Although this appears to be high, the living wage would still be less than two-thirds of the median wage in the UK.[1]
On the one hand, proponents of the policy believe it will help an estimated 2.7 million workers who currently earn below the new threshold (D’Arcy and Kelly 2015). On the other hand, commentators have labelled the policy a cynical attempt to hijack the popularity of living wage campaigns for short-term political gain (Wilson 2015a); the national living wage will not be set against criteria to ensure workers can maintain a decent standard of living.[2]
Although a higher minimum wage is welcome, increasing its level from the current rate of £6.70 per hour to upwards of £7.20 per hour raises concerns regarding the effectiveness of the existing enforcement regime. Businesses in traditional low wage sectors, including agriculture, hospitality, retail and social care, have argued they will find it difficult to pay the national living wage (Sky News 2015). Minimum wages only help those who rely upon them if they are paid, or put differently, if they are effectively enforced.
 |
| Eddie Cottle |
The struggle for a National Minimum Wage (NMW) in South Africa has a long history, having been waged, largely by organised worker formations, since the 1930s. These efforts have taken various forms from open class conflict, to more subdued trade union representations, to the various governments of the day. Most of these representations by the labour movement to government were made for the introduction of a NMW system that would enforce a minimum wage across all industries in the country.
To date, no NMW has been set. It is only after the Marikana Massacre and the farm workers’ revolt of 2012, that the post-apartheid African National Congress (ANC)-led government has decided to the introduction of a NMW, initially through agreeing to an investigation. The content of the various reports of the task teams involved in the investigation have not been made public, and the rank-and-file members of the trade unions have not been involved in democratic processes to decide where the NMW should be set.
 |
| Lucien van der Walt |
The 1970s-plus rise of neo-liberal policies profoundly destabilised Left currents that sought social change through the state. Old statist roads – the social democratic Keynesian welfare state (KWS), Marxist central planning as exemplified by the Soviet Union (USSR), and post-colonial nationalist import-substitution-industrialisation (ISI) – had some achievements.
But all had, on the eve of neo-liberalism, entered economic and political crises, and inherent flaws.
The subsequent neo-liberal victory entailed more than shifts in ideas and policies. These were part of a deeper shift in capitalism that reflected and reinforced the historic failure of statist roads. To follow the old routes today, whether through new Left parties, or efforts to win state elites to defunct policies, is futile.
What is needed is a working class Left approach freed of the failed statist past, resolutely opposed to capitalist and nationalist solutions, and rooted in historical anti-statist, libertarian Left traditions. While the Left remains statist, it is crippled by past crisis and current powerlessness, under intellectual and political siege.
