On November 30, the professional syndicates of the OGBL invited their delegates, militants and candidates from all sectors of the economy to a meeting to discuss working hours, job security and wage policies. In short, the heart of the OGBL’s daily work in the companies. The meeting took place at the Encore discotheque in Luxembourg.

In her introduction, OGBL President Nora Back explained the title of the meeting. “The economy is us,” she emphasized, “us, the employees in all socio-economic sectors who provide the work, who produce the wealth. That’s the economy. Without us, this added value cannot be produced. Without us, companies can’t function”. A message addressed to employers as well as to the new government.

The OGBL president also addressed the Ampacet workers present in the room, who had gone on strike a few days earlier, condemning the unacceptable attitude of their employer, who was trampling on the Luxembourg social model.

She went on to say that the next five years are likely to be difficult for all workers in Luxembourg, given the plans (or not) of the new government. The OGBL will of course give the new government a chance and discuss things with it, but will under no circumstances accept measures that go against the interests of the workers.

Participants were then able to “see and hear what it means in concrete terms for the OGBL to implement a wage policy,” as Isabel Scott, deputy central secretary of the OGBL and moderator of the evening, summed up. The program included three thematic blocks, combining presentations by central secretaries and testimonies by OGBL delegates from a wide range of sectors: Armand Klamm (Robert Schuman Hospitals), José Da Costa (Voyages Emile Weber), Jacques Adam (Tarkett), Calogero Galletta (Caceis Bank), Maria Das Dores (Nettoservice) and Loïc Duprel (Commune de Schifflange).

Working time

The first topic of the meeting was working time. A very complex issue, as Jean-Luc De Matteis, member of the OGBL Executive Board, reminded us: “It is not only a question of how long I work, whether today, this week, this month or this year? It’s also a question of when do I work? How do I work? When am I free? When am I off? And many other facets. For example, the question of reduced working hours or the reference period. All these questions are regularly discussed in collective bargaining between unions and employers.

And every situation is different. What is good for employees in one company or sector may not be good for others. It is precisely the framework of collective bargaining that makes it possible to find tailor-made compromises, with compensation for employees when their jobs require special efforts. One example is health care staff, who may have an annual reference period but benefit from a reduction in their working hours with continued pay.

In other sectors, however, an annual reference period would be a very bad omen. Not to mention the fact that such a measure would sabotage what can be expected from the outcome of collective bargaining. These are two reasons why the OGBL is categorically opposed to its generalization, as envisaged in the new government’s program, which echoes an old employers’ demand that the OGBL has always successfully resisted. “Until today, the OGBL has been the guarantor of good working hours. And we’ll continue to fight against any deterioration,” assures Jean-Luc De Matteis.

Job security

The second topic of the evening was the job protection plan (plan de maintien dans l’emploi – PME). As Frédéric Krier, also a member of the OGBL Executive Board, pointed out, this important instrument “did not appear out of nowhere” but was introduced in 2006 at the insistence of the OGBL at a time when redundancy plans were multiplying.

Frédéric Krier does not hide the fact that the current law, although a step forward when it was introduced, has a number of shortcomings that need to be addressed. However, he is pleased to note that in recent years the OGBL has succeeded in reversing a long-standing trend by forcing a number of companies, particularly in industry, to negotiate job protection plans instead of redundancy schemes already announced and calculated by management. This has saved hundreds of threatened jobs.

However, the OGBL would like to see the PME instrument finally strengthened to further safeguard jobs in Luxembourg. In addition to the introduction of an obligation for employers to negotiate a job protection plan at the request of the unions, the possibility of referring the matter to the National Conciliation Office if no agreement is reached with the employer, and the strengthening of ITM controls to ensure the implementation of measures concluded within the framework of such a PME, a preventive dimension should also be introduced into this instrument.

“This is why we are proposing, also in the context of the ecological transition and the digital transformation, to reform the instrument of the job protection plan in order to identify in advance, in co-management within the company with the employee delegation, which jobs the company will need in the future, which profiles it will need, and which jobs are at risk and likely to disappear. Together, we can now define training or other measures, such as early retirement, to safeguard jobs in advance,” concludes Frédéric Krier. According to the OGBL, this reformed instrument should also be linked to a “social balance sheet” of the company, a kind of social audit that all companies should have to carry out every year in consultation with their delegations.

Offensive wage policy… and strike action

Finally, the third topic of the meeting: the wage policy pursued by the OGBL to improve the wage conditions of employees in the various sectors. Initially, David Angel, also a member of the OGBL Executive Board, had planned to explain how the three key elements of this wage policy – the index, the minimum social wage and collective agreements – fit together, and why when one of them is attacked, the whole edifice comes under attack. “I wanted to talk to you about what is at the heart of our union’s commitment: our wage policy. How we improve the living and working conditions of our members and workers in general every day through our collective agreements! But, dear colleagues, what can I tell you? The heart of our trade union commitment, our raison d’être as a trade union, is currently taking place in Dudelange, in the industrial zone in front of the Ampacet company,” he points out.

“The strike, the collective decision to refuse to work, is the highest form of union action. It is our ultimate and most powerful weapon as workers,” the trade unionist stressed, underlining the importance of the current social conflict at Ampacet. Indeed, many employers are closely watching the outcome of this dispute to learn from it. “If we let them, they’ll take away everything we’ve acquired over decades”.

David Angel then extended his comments to other threats to wage conditions, in particular the index, which is one of the pillars of wage formation in the country and which has been under constant attack by successive governments and, above all, employers. In this context, he pointed out that any manipulation or deterioration of the index would also have a direct negative impact on the evolution of the minimum social wage.

Turning to the program of the new coalition, he notes that the next attacks are already pre-programmed, not only on the index, but also on the government’s proposal that employees and employers should be able to negotiate directly with each other… without the intervention of the trade unions. He concludes: “On my own as an employee, I can’t negotiate as an equal with my boss, but if I’m in a union and I negotiate with my union and its 75,000 members that are behind my back, then yes, we’re finally discussing as equals”.

The article was published in the December edition of Aktuell.