A plan to create a new Dutch union with over 1 million members was put on hold in October, when the plan just failed to get a two-thirds majority at the convention of FNV Bondgenoten, one of the unions involved in the merger plans. A new vote will take place on 26 November.
Representatives of employers’ organisations expressed disappointment at the initial rejection of the merger. They had been hoping the merger would result in a stable trade union that will play a constructive role in the elaborate social dialogue institutions of the Dutch «polder model».
In fact, that’s exactly what Dutch unions have been doing over the past decades, as evidenced by their low strike rates. But with growing inequality and an erosion of the welfare state going on, doubts arise whether social dialogue is enough. Some groups of workers, like cleaners and health care workers, have successfully resorted to more assertive campaign methods to fight for decent pay and better working conditions.
Since 2007, researchers of the University of Tilburg have been asking a panel of about 6,000 respondents what they expect of unions. More specifically, they have asked respondents whether they agree that «Trade unions should take a much tougher political stance, if they wish to promote the workers’ interests». In the latest edition of the study, 44% (strongly) agree and only 13% (strongly) disagree.
If anything, support for tougher unions seems to have grown over the past years. Surprisingly, even among the self-employed and among people who voted for neoliberal parties like VVD and D66 in 2012, more respondents agree than disagree that unions should take a much tougher stance. High-income respondents are among the few groups that are not so keen on tougher unions.
Last weekend, chairman Ton Heerts explained the position of the FNV to the Telegraaf newspaper: «I think we’ve proven over the past year that it’s quite possible to combine substance, dialogue and action. With the current wave of right-wing policies, the emphasis will be more on actions. That’s fine.»
An earlier version of this analysis was published here