Unions

Kettle Chips succesful in union busting

Life under Capitalism, Unions
Published on

Two weeks ago I blogged about Kettle Chips being unhappy about the threatening unionisation of their workers, to the point of hiring an American unionbusting company. Well, it seems this has paid off, as the Kettle Chips workers voted 2-1 against joining the Unite union:

Workers at Kettle Foods, the upmarket snack maker, have voted against union recognition at its Norwich factory after the company called in US union busters.

Factory and office workers voted 206 to 93 in a ballot, not to join the Unite union. The decision was welcomed yesterday by the company, owned by private equity group, Lion Capital, but it was greeted with dismay by the union and Richard Howitt, the local Labour MEP.

The food firm employed Omega, a subsidiary of US union busters the Burke Group, based in Malibu, California, to dissuade staff from joining the union.

The reporting of the battle in the Guardian led to two campaign groups – Boycott Kettle Crisps for Attacks on Workers, and Boycott Kettle Chips: the anti-union snack – being set up on the internet site Facebook. These have attracted nearly 800 people in Britain, Australia and the US.

The union is blaming the campaign against them for the result, but they’ll have to evaluate their own campaign as well. Why could they not convince these workers to do something that should be so evidently in their self interest? These battles will not go away anytime soon, as more companies will follow the example of Kettle Chips and use unionbusters to make sure their workers don’t organise. The unions better have their tactics ready.

Kettle chips: not as wholesome as you think

Life under Capitalism, Unions
Published on

It’s an old story. A supposedly wholesome company which takes good care of its workers and which takes pride in presenting a benign image to its customers, is less than happy when its workers want to unionise. This time it’s the people behind Kettle chips who object:

It says it has had to seek advice from “a number of sources” to fight what it considers are union experts in organising recognition campaigns. It did not comment directly on employing Omega Training, part of the Burke Group. The company does not want to recognise a union. It said: “We are very proud of our workforce and continue to believe passionately that direct engagement with employees in the spirit of mutuality is in the best interests of our employees and shareholders.”

A spokesman added: “All our employees enjoy a secure salary (the lowest of which is 25% above the minimum wage); we have a 38-hour week with 25 days’ paid holiday per annum increasing with service, and we offer a blue-chip benefits package that includes 100% sick pay … and a profit-sharing bonus that is open to all employees. We’re not sure what Unite the union wish to do for our employees.”

The union is baffled why the company is so determined to block recognition. Miles Hubbard, Unite’s eastern region organiser, said: “They are a good company with a decent record so we cannot understand why they are being so aggressive about union activity. We were called in by the workers when they did not receive annualised payments for overtime.”

What both sides in this dispute talk around is the simple fact that with an union, the workers at Kettle chips no longer have to depend on the company’s goodwill to be treated right, but have a powerful weapon to force management to do the right thing. At the moment, “direct engagement with employees in the spirit of mutuality” may be “in the best interests of our employees and shareholders”, but what if the interest of employees and shareholders clash? Without an union, the workers at Kettle chips would be at the mercy of the company. Unions are like insurance: you may not need them now, but it pays to have it for when you do need it.

If Kettle chips or its parent company were really as benign as they say they are, they would not be threatened by this unionising attempt. But like many a patriarchal company before them(Remember Whole Foods?), they want to be generous to their employees on their terms, on bended knees and dependent on the company.

Hattip: Avedon

Dutch strike more

Dutch politics, Unions
Published on

According to a small item in local free rag Spits, the number of strikes more than doubled in the Netherlands last year, for a total of 28 strikes. So the Dutch are not that millitant yet, but it does fit my observation that there’s a new climate of union militancy. About half the strikes were about loss of jobs or worsening working conditions, which again fits with the strikes I’ve seen reported in the newspapers and commented on here.

A new climate of union militancy?

Dutch politics, Unions
Published on

It might just be that I’m paying more attention to it, but it does seem to me that 2005 saw a rise in union militancy, at least in the Netherlands. There were several big strikes this year and even better, several union victories as a result. In this context, 2005 may have seen the end of union complacency, after more than a decade of compliant negotiating and ever crumbling workers rights.

  • Ongoing throughout the year and continuing from last year were the municipality workers strikes for a
    better collective working agreement, with as highpoint the garbage collectors’ actions in Amsterdam
    during SAIL 2005, the biggest tourist event of the year. Keeping the municipalities under pressure
    throughout the year worked in forcing through a more generous agreement.

striking firefighters in Amsterdam

  • After the unions and the municipalities finally reached an agreement, there was still one sticking point:
    mandatory retirement at 55 for workers in high risk jobs like firefighters or ambulance staff. The unions and municipalities had agreed to end this, but the firefighters themselves went on a wildcat strike to protect this right. They won a modest victory by forcing through partial retirement at 55 and full retirement at 59, rather than having to work fulltime in “a low risk function” after 55.
  • The restructuring of Avebe, an agricultural company specialising in potato products, which had been in
    trouble for some years now, led to one of the longest continuing strikes of the year. The restructuring
    would lead to loss of some 150 jobs. The dispute was not about the job loss perse as it was about how
    it would be achieved. The two and a half week strike resulted in a more generous social plan for the fired employees, with 15 months of continued employment instead of six. What is more, the company
    lost the lawsuit it had filed against the union in order to force an end to the strike. If the company had
    won the suit, it would’ve made it that much more difficult for unions to strike elsewhere.

strikers at Shell

  • At Shell, the strike for better pension rights, achieved a partial succes. The retirement age for current workers stays at 60 like the unions wanted, but will still be set to 65 for new employes; however, the unions managed to get Shell to still (partially) pay for workers who want to retire at 60. Thanks to this strike the union also managed to get similar results for the workers of the Total and Nerefco oil refineries.
  • At Smit Tak, perhaps the world’s biggest salvage and harbour towage company, three strikes were
    necessary to get better deals for both salvage and towage workers. This included not just an above
    inflation wage rise, but also better compensations for working abroad, overtime and a better disability
    compensation scheme.
  • Finally, harbour workers in general have been in action several times this year to protest against the
    abandonment of ILO convention 137, whicharranges that only qualified, registrered harbour workers can load and unload ships. Both government andemployers have declared to be no longer committed to this convention, to “ensure a better competitive position for the Dutch harbours”. At the same time, the harbour workers are also
    resisting the EU Port Package 2 directive, which again would weaken the strong position of harbour workers throughout Europe. Historically, harbour workers, thanks to Europe and even worldwide conventions have not had to engage in the kind of “race to the bottom” competition their employers would like to see, so it is no wonder they are now forcefully resisting attempts to instigate this through European law.

So will this newfound militancy last and have consequences beyond the immediate improvement of some workers’ rights? The Netherlands is still ruled by a rightwing, neoliberal government bent on enforcing a “sound business climate” on the country and the same holds for the European Union. Its encouraging to see the unions think beyond the short term and to fight for more than just immediate benefits for their members, but a hell of a lot more needs to be done both nationally and internationally, will they be able to cure the rot that set in during the last decades. At the moment the unions are still largely defending previously won rights, not gaining new ones.

Victory to the firefighters?

Amsterdam, Unions
Published on

striking firefighters in Amsterdam

For the past two years the public service unions have been in negotiation with the council of Dutch municipalities for a new collective working agreement. The process has been acrimonious to say the least, with several high profile strike actions by public transport workers, harbour employees and even sanitation workers during Sail 2005. The negotiation point that caused the most difficulties, was the ending the right to retirement at age 55 for those workers in professions which are recognised as being risky and strenuous, workers like firefighters or ambulance crews. Back in the summer, the council of municipalities, which had been dragging its feet on the negotiations, made further negotiations conditional on the unions giving up this right. This was not appreciated, to say the least…

As a result the negotiations dragged out until last week –and the previous agreement terminates this month. The council of municipalities held firm to its desire to scrap the right to retire at 55, partially because it was pressured by the national government to do so, because according to the new age discrimination laws coming into action in January 2006, this sort of arraignment is illegal..

Last week a new agreement was finally reached by the union negotiators and the municipalities, in which those employees who would’ve been able to retire at 55 under the old rules and who had worked for more twenty years would still be able to do so, but everybody else would have to stay on after 55. Workers with less than twenty service years would be forced to trade their job for something less strenuous.

The unions might have agreed to this, but the workers, especially, the firefighters, were less than impressed and started a series of wildcat strikes. The good news is that the pressure of these forced the unions to renegotiate to reach a less onerous settlement. In the new agreement, those firefighters with less than twenty years of service now will be able to partially retire at 55 and fully retire at 59, rather than being forced to work fulltime until 59. A modest victory, as this is still worse than what the firefighters had, but a victory nonetheless.

There are two things that we can learn from this whole fiasco. The first is the dubious role the central
government played in the negotiation process. It is clear that a large reason why the unions failed to keep the right to retirement at 55 was the pressure of the new age discrimination laws, which allegedly would make this agreement illegal. The municipalities made grateful use of this to pressure the unions, but it seems to me this agreement could still be kept by making it voluntary rather than a mandatory retirement. I’m not a lawyer though. At the same time, the central government helped pressure the unions even more by making it financially less attractive for both employer and employees to keep these sort of arraignments in place. All this is not surprising, as the Balkenende government has made a fetish of keeping people working longer.

The second, more hopeful aspect iof this is that it is still possible for workers to put pressure to employers and unions, by not going meekly along with what the union bosses think is good for them, but striking for their rights. It does show the enormous gap there is between the union and the workers though, as you would expect it would not be necessary for the workers to have to do this.