European Conference: EUROPE: 20 Years of Transformation. What next? Trade unions and politics. Problems of trade union identity in polarised political systems and fragmented societies: BULGARIAN EXPERIMENT(S) Presentation of Prof. Krastyo Petkov University of National and World Economy, Sofia *** September 2010 Vienna

INTRODUCTORY NOTES Legacy influence: - Misinterpretation of the politicaldimension of revived trade unionism; - Substitution of “political” with “party/partisan” concept; Different stages in the Trade Union post- communist politization: -Initial stage: political confrontation; -Second stage: economic transformation; -Third stage: transfer of EU institutions;

POINT OF DEPARTURE: / / February,1988-Emerging of a new organization “Podkrepa”, based on: - human rights protection; - anti-communist platform; - trade union unexpected turn; Old union’s responses: - hostility and fear; - early/difficult internal reform; - de-politization / independence choice of CITUB;

TWO TRAJECTORIES / / Podkrepa trajectory-Duality of roles: political and trade union : - creation of UDF /”Podkrepa” as a founding member and grass-root structure/; - strikes and negotiations /combining political with social demands/; CITUB trajectory- Away from the “Transmission belt”/Soviet model; Towards the end of trade union “war”, based on political past and disagreements;

TRADE UNION GROWING INFLUENCE & POWER RESPONSES / / Bilateral cooperation /CITUB - Podkrepa/: - Joint declaration /April 1992, still actual/; - Joint industrial actions; - Joint consultations; Power fears and responses: - Legal restrictions for TU rights & activities /restrictive strike law; prohibition for TU participation in elections, etc./ - Formal social dialog; - TU assets argument as pressure instrument; - Political fear of second power center! IFI’s tactical game : weak and fragmented unions are better case; if they are too strong – give them the role of “ Guard of social peace” during transition!

INSTITUTION BUILDING Is it possible to compensate the absence of political dialog with permanent social dialog? After 1991, gradually, the European like institutions for social dialog are being introduced in Bulgaria. The process of transfer was completed before the EU membership in Today representative trade unions participate in all tripartite bodies on national and regional levels. Formally their voice is included in the at the preparatory stage of decision making process. But they are excluded from the final stage… Institutions do not produce positive end results, due to the pure fact of their existence. Most of the agreements, signed by social partners in Bulgaria /social pacts, charts, etc./ are being subsequently ignored by the ruling parties. There is no coherence in the overall political turnover. The gap between the institutions of social dialog and national decision making machinery could be filled up - via trade union direct participation in the political process.

POLITICAL “PARADOXES” OF TRANSITION Illusive (fraudulent) identity- Different ruling parties- common policies: - neoliberal /no alternative/ approach; but- social liberal rethoric; - deregulation paradigm; - social policy reductionism, etc.; “Strange” rotation of party attitudes- dual standard towards trade unions: - friendly, being in opposition; - hostile/hypocritical, when in power; New transmission belt seekers : long lasting attempts of the ruling parties to create “their own” trade unions /BSP-”Edinstvo”; UDF and NDSV- “Promyana”;

STRONG AND WEAK SIDES OF THE POLITICAL “INDEPENDENCE” OUTCOMES FOR TRADE UNIONS: Positive: - Membership trust; - Broader social base; - Better mobilization; - Freedom of actions; Negative: -Lack of reliable partner; -Anti-trade union legislation; -Hostile environment or/and anti-trade union actions (The case of the national teachers strike in 2007);

SOME TEMPTATIONS: BULGARIAN TRADE UNION EXPERIMENT(S) IN POLITICS Creating political wing /Democratic Alliance. Podkrepa/; Loose alliance: Public support of political parties /CITUB, Social Democrats-1991; Majority reformers- 1989/; Alliance with civil movements / Union of Teachers at CITUB- 2007/; Alliance with Social Democrats /Podkrepa, 2007/; Creating outside political party, with trade union roots and profile /ULB-Bulgarian Labour, since 1989;

CONCLUSIONS (POINTS FOR DISCUSSION) 1.Initial politization /after the fall of Berlin wall/ was inevitable; 2.All attempts/experiments to attach TU as a supportive member to political parties/movements were rather dangerous for the internal consolidation and external influence; 3.The same conclusion is true for the ad-hoc and issue based coalitions; 4.The old trade union dilemma still exists: out of politics they are loosing influence over decision making; within the politics they are often misused; * * * 1.The new dilemma : transition /classical parties are loosing ground; expectation for trade union new role are real; How to use this chance, especially in the period of crisis and radicalization of mass behaviors? 2.New challenge: CSO and professional networks are becoming strong actors in the economic and social fields too! Could they be The New Strategic Partners of trade unions?