International Trade – What’s in it for the Trade Union ? The Case of Denmark and the European Union

What to tell – The case of Denmark and the European Union LO – yes or no to EU-membership Capitalist or Social Europe ? The Trade union in Europe How did it go ? New poor member states – Increasing poverty or more wealth ? Greece, Portugal and Spain The Eastern Europe What can Central America learn

LO – yes or no to EU-membership Investigation and decision The Congress votes yes – but not with at big majority – Yes 524 – No 406 What says the congress resolution: That Denmark is a small Country and are fundamentally depended on foreign trade. The raise in welfare is a result of international trade and the removal of trade barriers Our aim is full employment and better work

LO – yes or no to EU-membership The European Union will have major impact in Denmark wetter we are a member or not – therefore we shall seek influence and move Europe in our direction. The struggle for better wages and working condition can not be secured in one country alone. It takes at close trade union cooperation across borders That’s especially the case in multinational companies.

Capitalist or Social Europe ? 99 percent capitalist The Rome Treaty contained only a few articles about Social Policy. The declaration of intend to improve working and living condition The social Fond The ones who wanted social policy did it only because they feared unfair competition. It was only for the sake of the companies not the workers.

The Trade union in Europe One of the demands in Denmark was to set up an European trade union, that could seek influence and represent the workers in the European Union. The ETUC was founded in Today it represent 60 billion workers in the EU. The ETUC is today an integrated part of the social dimension in the EU

How did it go ? Rights for cross boarder workers, so they don’t loose their rights when they work in another country (1960) Equal work – equal pay (1970) Working environment (1970 – 1980) Help to poor countries (1980) The Social Charter (1989) Working time (1990)

How did it go ? Influence in multinational companies (1990) Charter on fundamental rights (2000) Right to collective negotiation and agreements. Small steps ahead – but no social union The primary is economic integration the secondary is social harmonization But we don’t want social harmonization

How did it go ? Social harmonization is not always to the benefit of workers Fear of the limbo effect – how low can you go But harmonization on a top level will lead to lack of competitiveness in poor countries and high unemployment. What we need is fundamental rights that can be developed in at national contest and that economic growth leads to a fair distribution of income and welfare.

New poor member states – Increasing poverty or more wealth ? In the 1980’th tree new countries became member states in the EU. It was poor countries The rich member states could fear unfair competition. And the new poor member states could fear for deregulation in social law and welfare rights. How did it go ?

The Case of Greece, Portugal and Spain GDP growth from 1985 to 1995 in the tree countries and Denmark. Denmark: 39 percent Greece: 56 percent Portugal: 65 percent Spain: 81 percent

The Case of Greece, Portugal and Spain In 1986/2005 Greece/Denmark 62/72 percent Spain/Denmark 65/87 percent Portugal/Denmark 50/61 percent The tree countries are still less rich than Denmark. But they catch up.

The Eastern Europe In new eastern European countries became members of the EU. It’s to early to say how the will develop. But the have made a good start with rising GDP. They seem to be at the same road as Greece, Portugal and Spain.

What can Central America learn ? The Theory of international trade say that all will benefit from liberalization of international trade. There is still no fundamental prove, that it always will be the case. But one the other hand, there is no prove either that poor countries will always loose. On the contrary - The case of Europe Shows that poor countries will benefit more than rich countries.

What can Central America learn ? Liberalization is no guaranty for welfare but it is necessarily no threat either. The bottom line is, that in most cases more free trade leads to more growth. More growth leads to more wealth. But the distribution of income and the development of a welfare society is still a political struggle. And only strong unions win that struggle.

What can Central America learn ? But one thing is true - with no growth, there is not any higher wealth and therefore nothing more to distribute among the workers Free trade has come to stay – so the best the union can do is to make a strategy how to get the best out of it for the workers.

Conclusion Free Trade agreements have come to stay EU, WTO, NAFTA, Mercosur, DR-CAFTA, ”To be or not to be” influenced by international trade is not the question. The answer is – how do we get the most out of it !