Bill Fletcher Jr. on Internationalism (Jim O'Connor)

[Bruce Robinson]

>
> Generally there is an equal representation of capital owners and 
employess
> in the board of directors (Aufsichtsrat) in German incs
> (Aktiengesellschaft). But this equal representation is shifted somewhat 
in
> favour of the capital side by the fact that the top management seats are
> counted as employees and in case of an indecisive vote in the board the
> chairman, who is selected by the capital owners will have an extra vote. 
So
> actually the the co-determination is just a right to be informed 
formally.
>
> At the same time it is a source for integration coruption of union 
leaders.
> E.g. a former union leader on the Daimler board had to resign because of
> insider trading.
>
> In the case of Daimler Chrysler the German 'co-determination' model was
> praised as beeing more consentual oriented than the more conflict driven 
US
> labour relations. I dont know whether it is true or whether it was just a
> way to sell it to shareholders.
>
> Johannes

It certainly is true. The first version of this system was initially 
devised by the German employers as a means of deflecting calls for 
nationalisation of industry after '45, then accepted by the unions and the 
Western occupation powers who controlled industrial relations in the years 
after WW2. It was enshrined in the 1952 Betriebsverfassungsgesetz -though 
it has roots in the early 20s' institutionalisation of works councils as a 
reaction to any real power they had in the 1918-19 revolutionary period. 
The full version of 'Mitbestimmung' currently in force dates from the early 
70s.

Employee (note not union) representatives have legal obligations to respect 
commercial secrecy and to try to resolve disputes with the co-determination 
framework. The idea is that they are 'co-partners' with a common interest 
with the employers.

In the current dispute over the closure of Rover at Longbridge, the German 
TUists on the BMW board did not inform the British unions about the 
discussions on the board. It appears that they thought that getting rid of 
Rover might make their own jobs more secure, though I imagine they also 
were concerned not to do anything illegal.

Bruce Robinson


>
>