PSI and the historical development of Global Framework Agreements

Abstract

FOCUS □ GLOBALFRAMEWORK AGREEMENTS PSI and the historical development of Global Framework Agreements Itcould be seen as a contradiction to defendservices inpublichands and at the same timeto conclude agreements with those who were privatising them JÜRGEN BUXBAUM is PSI Coordinator Public Administration and Multinational Enterprises Privateinterestsinthe publicsector In become tries, recent with increasingly decades, publicservices multinational influential seemingly in enterprises private immune indushave to becomeincreasingly influential inprivate industries , with publicservices seemingly immune to thedirectinfluence ofprofit making.However, publicservice workers andtheir unionshavehad tolearn newlessonstaught bytheteachers ofNew Liberalism, lessonsthat becametheglobalideologyafter thedissolution oftheSovietUnion.The messagethat wentaroundtheworldtoldpeople: Private does better thanpublic. Itis nota surprise thatmanycitizens offormer socialist countries, whowerefor a longtime already awareofthedifferences inwealthand economic efficiency between their owncountries andthecapitalist world, welcomeda system that promised to provide better services anda better life. Why should whatseemedto be advantageous in theprivate industry notwork inpublic services? Hereandthere, themessage alsofell onopenearsinWestern countries , where publicly ownedcompanies andservices weresometimes beingusedintheinterest ofpoliticalparties , orfrustrated peoplewith their bureaucratic procedures ortheunsatisfying quality ofthe services delivered. However, themostinfluential roleforpromoting neoliberal policieswas probablyplayed bythemedia.IntheWestern world, the vastmajority ofthese welcomed andsupported the neoliberal agendaanditscoremessage: cutpublic spending andprivatise publicservices! Nonetheless, publicresistance against neoliberal policieswouldprobably havebeenstronger, if conservative parties and governments in Europe alonehadsupported thepolicies.Theanti-public service agenda, however, wascertainly notrestricted to conservative parties. One cannotdenythat socialistsand social democratsin the UK, in Germany, in Spainand elsewherewereparticularly activeandeffective inselling publicpropertyandcutting intopublicspending andweakeningthesocialfabric . Whileresistance wasnoteasy undertheseconditions, all overtheworldpublic sector unionsopposedprivatisation and marketisation . Thismeant first ofallorganising campaigns tomobilise public opinion against privatisation and outsourcing; industrial action remained exceptional. Theworking conditions ofpublicsector unions in poor countries were,ofcourse,muchworse thanthoseoftheircolleaguesin theEuropean Union, theUS,Japanorother countries belonging totheG8. In all countries depending on internationalcredits , thepoliciesoftheIMF,theWorld BankortheWorld TradeOrganisation couldeasilybe imposed. Everywhere inthesecountries, the privatisation ofpublicservices and reductions in publicexpenditure wereveryhighon theagenda . Authoritarian regimes made publicor union resistance very difficult. PSIaffiliates reported examplesofWestern governments encouraging theprivatisation ofwaterabroad,whilstin theirown countries, thepublicownership ofwaterservices was guaranteed bylaw. Theunionstrategy tofoilprivatisation was mirrored bydiscussions anddecisions atthe2002PSI WorldCongress in Ottawa,Canada.The privatisationofpublicservices was a keyissueduring thisCongress. A resolution was passedtolaunch a globalcampaign onquality publicservices, identifying privatisation as a threat andaiming atkeepingpublicservices inpublichands.Itwas agreed thattheprocessofprivatisation should,at least, be sloweddownandthat thewater sector should remain inpublichands. The 2002Congress documents illustrated that, at thattime,PSI affiliated publicservices unions did notexpecttheirglobalunionfederation to negotiate directly ontheir behalf with multinational enterprises, with theaimofconcluding global agreements onemployment standards, worker andtrade unionrights, etc.Thismayhavebeen related to theoptimistic viewthatfoiling privatisation and mobilising thepublicopinionwouldbe successfulintheend . Different cultures and histories of tradeunionactionmayalso haveplayeda role; wherea confrontational tradition ofindustrial relationswas predominant, negotiating and signing agreements maynothavebeenseenas toppriority . Bysigning suchagreements, there might have alsobeenthefear that privateers mayuse thefactual 'recognition' bypublicservice unionsintheir aggressive policyon so-calledpublic-public-partnership , concessioncontracts and other forms of direct andindirect privatisation ofservices. Itcould be seen as a contradiction to defendservices in publichandsand at thesame timeto conclude agreements with thosewhowereprivatising them. Publicservice unionsoften stoodaloneintheir defence ofpublic services inpublic hands. Inmany countries, activesupport oftradeunionsorganisingworkers inindustrial sectors - beyondverbal or written declarations of solidarity - remained exceptional. Sometimes political andmediacampaigns , targeting realoralleged'privileges' ofcivil servants inparticular andpublicsector workers in general, hada strong impact. Sometimes workers employedin theprivate industry did notunderstandwhytheircolleaguesin thepublicsector resisted working intheir part oftheeconomy. And theideologicalhegemony ofneoliberalism certainly prevented majorpublicdiscussions about theimportance ofpublic health andsocialservices, water andenergy supplies, municipal services and quality publicadministration for thewellbeingof societies as a whole. Ininnumerable cases,publicsector unions were unabletoprevent services from beingprivatised. Very often, moreandmoreprivate companies, actINTERNATIONAL union rights Pa9e 14Volume 18Issue 2201 1 FOCUS □ GLOBALFRAMEWORK AGREEMENTS ingovera whole continent or worldwide, took overthecontrol ofwatersupplyand healthcare facilities, prisons andcorrectional services, public transport and education, energy production and distribution, security services andeventaxadministration . PSI and global framework agreements A productive discussion abouttheprosand cons ofglobalagreements withMNEsis stillon-going inPSI,buttwothings determining PSIpolicies have changed. Recently, thenumberof publicsectorunion members working inservices runbyprivate companieshas increasedsignificantly, although differing quitea lotfrom country tocountry orfrom uniontounion.Unionsfollowed - orhad tofollow -their members intotheprivate sector. When theprivate employers weremultinational companies ,workers wereunder threat byunfair competition within theenterprise and bysocialdumping . Globalisation under neoliberal conditions forced notonly countries, butalsoworkers inglobalcompanies ,intoa 'racetothebottom'. Thisiswhyan increasing number ofpublicsector unionsbegan demanding their International putmultinational enterprises much higher ontheir agenda.However, itstill remained an exception that inJanuary 2005 PSI,together withmanynational andinternational tradeunionorganisations, signeditsfirst global agreement withtheFrench multinational energycompany EDF. The secondimportant development forchangingconditions ofpublicsectorunions'and PSI's...