Struggle of trade unions of European countries for the legalization of their activities. Contradictions of the globalization process Trade union representatives in one of the countries
It is quite natural that for the first time trade unions arose in the years industrial revolution in the most industrialized country in the world - England. The trade union movement in this country demonstrates the general patterns of its development, which later manifested themselves in other countries.
The first workers' associations were strictly local in nature and united only highly skilled workers in the most advanced industries. So, one of the very first English trade unions is the Lancashire spinning union, created in 1792. As for unskilled workers, high unemployment made them easily replaceable, so at first they could not resist the tyranny of their employers, and therefore remained outside the framework of the trade union movement.
Both entrepreneurs and the state protecting their interests initially showed intolerance towards trade unions. To combat them, special laws were introduced prohibiting labor unions and criminalizing membership in "conspiratorial organizations." In 1799-1800, legislation was passed in England that declared workers' meetings illegal and banned demonstrations. However, these laws failed to pacify the workers, but, on the contrary, encouraged them to unite in the struggle for their rights. Therefore, already in 1824, anti-labor legislation in England was canceled, and the actual legalization of trade unions took place.
Trade unionism quickly became a mass movement. Numerous local trade union organizations began to establish links with each other in order to exchange experiences and organize joint actions. In 1834, on the initiative of Robert Owen, the Grand National Consolidated Trade Union was formed, but this organization was unstable. However, in 1868, the movement towards the consolidation of the British trade unions ended with the formation of the Congress of Trade Unions (
Trades Union Congress ), which since then until today is the central coordinating body of the UK trade union movement.The trade union movement was initially purely male, women were not accepted into trade unions. This was not without success used by entrepreneurs: using the latest developments in the field of technology that simplify the work of an employee, employers sought to replace male workers with women as a cheaper and less organized labor force, attracting them as strikebreakers. Since women's right to work was not recognized even by their male counterparts, the women of England had to create their own professional organizations. The most massive of these, the Society for the Protection and Protection of Women (which later became the Women's Trade Union League), was able in 1874-1886 to organize about 40 trade union branches for women workers. Only at the beginning of the 20th century. in England there was a merger of men's and women's trade unions. But even today in England, as in other countries, the proportion of union members among women workers is noticeably lower than among male workers.
At the same time, there were other significant changes in the British trade unions - there were New trade unions
(New Trade Unions). The first large New Trade Unions (Union of Workersgas industry, Dockers' Union) were founded in 1889. Previously existing trade unions were built on a narrow professional (shop) basis, i.e. united only workers of one profession. The new trade unions began to be built according to the production (branch) principle - they included workers of different professions, but belonging to the same branch of production. In addition, for the first time, not only highly skilled workers, but also unskilled workers were admitted as members of these trade unions.. Under the influence of the New Trade Unions, unskilled workers beganaccept in old trade unions. Gradually, the new principles of membership became generally accepted, and by the beginning of the 20th century. the difference between the new trade unions and the old ones has largely disappeared.At the beginning of the 20th century. trade unions in England united more than half of all workers in the country (in 1920 - about 60%). Such a high level of organization of the trade union movement made it an influential participant in the political and economic life of the country for a long time.The formation and development of the trade union movement in different countries took place on the whole according to the English model, but with a lag and different rates. For example, in the United States, the first nationwide workers' union, the Knights of Labor, arose in 1869, but by the end of the 19th century. it fell into decay, and the American Federation of Labor, AFL, founded in 1881, became the largest national labor organization. In 1955, it merged with the Congress of Industrial Organization (CIO), since then this leading trade union organization in the United States has been called AFL-CIO. The resistance of entrepreneurs to trade unions has been very long in this country. Thus, in the 1920s and 1930s, the National Association of Industrialists insisted on the introduction of “yellow dog” contracts, according to which workers were not supposed to join trade unions. To weaken the cohesion of the unionized workers, American entrepreneurs made additional concessions to them - for example, used enterprise profit sharing. Intolerance to trade unions was replaced in the United States by their recognition only under the "New Deal" of F.D. Roosevelt: the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (Wagner's Act) required employers to conclude collective agreements with the majority of workers.
If in England and the United States, trade unions, as a rule, put forward purely economic demands and emphatically distanced themselves from radical (revolutionary) political parties, in other developed countries the trade union movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. turned out to be more politicized and revolutionary. In some countries (France, Italy, Spain), trade unions fell under the strong influence of anarcho-syndicalists, in others (Germany, Austria, Sweden) - under the influence of social democrats. The adherence of the "continental" trade unions to leftist ideas delayed the process of their legalization. In France, the right to organize workers' unions was officially recognized only in the 1930s. In Germany, the Nazi regime destroyed the trade unions, they were restored only after the Second World War.
In the second half of the 20th century. the revolutionary period in the development of trade unions has finally come to an end, the ideology of social partnership has won. Trade unions renounced violations of social peace in exchange for recognition of trade union rights and state social guarantees.
The "pacification" of relations between trade unions and employers found its most vivid expression in the Japanese trade union movement. Since in Japan it is of great importance for the worker to belong to a firm, and not an occupation, so trade unions are formed in this country not according to professions, but according to firms. This means that workers of different specialties united in a "firm" trade union are in solidarity with the managers of their company rather than with their professional colleagues from other firms. The union activists themselves are paid by the firm's management. As a consequence, in Japanese factories, the relationship between trade unions and managers is much more friendly than in European-style firms. However, along with the "companionable" in Japan there are also branch trade unions of the European type, but smaller in number.In the second half of the 20th century, with the development of industrialization in the developing countries of Asia and Africa, the trade union movement began to actively develop on the periphery of the world economy. However, even today the trade unions of the Third World countries remain, as a rule, small in number and of little influence. The rise of trade unions is observed mainly in newly industrialized countries (South Korea, Brazil).
Functions of trade unions. The origins of the development of trade unions are associated with the asymmetry of the real rights of individual wage workers and entrepreneurs. If the worker refuses the conditions offered by the employer, then he risks being fired and becoming unemployed. If the entrepreneur refuses the requirements of the employee, then he can fire him and hire a new one, almost without losing anything. To achieve some leveling of real rights, the worker must be able to enlist the support of colleagues at work in a conflict situation. The entrepreneur does not need to react to individual actions and protests of workers. But when workers unite and production is threatened with massive downtime, the employer is forced not only to listen to the workers' demands, but also to somehow react to them. Thus, the union gave into the hands of the workers the power that they had been deprived of, acting alone. Therefore, one of the main demands of the trade unions was the transition from individual labor agreements to collective agreements an entrepreneur with a union acting on behalf of all of its members.Over time, the functions of trade unions have changed somewhat. Trade unions these days influence not only employers but also the financial and legislative policy of the government.
Modern scholars dealing with the problems of trade unions distinguish two of their main functions - protective(relationship "trade union - entrepreneurs") and representative(relationship "trade union - state"). Some economists add a third function to these two, economic- concern for increasing production efficiency.
The protective function is the most traditional, it is directly related to the social and labor rights of workers. It is not only about the prevention of violations by entrepreneurs of the labor rights of workers, but also about the restoration of already violated rights. By leveling the positions of workers and employers, the trade union protects the employee from the tyranny of the employer.
For a long time, strikes have been the most powerful weapon in the trade union struggle. At first, the presence of trade unions was practically not associated with the frequency and organization of strikes, which remained a spontaneous phenomenon. The situation changed radically after the First World War, when the strikes of the unionized workers became the main instrument of their struggle for their rights. A demonstration of this was, for example, the nationwide general strike led by the Congress of Trade Unions in May 1926, which covered all the leading sectors of the UK economy.
It should be noted that in the struggle for the interests of their members, trade unions often show indifference to the interests of other workers who are not members of the trade unions. For example, in the United States, trade unions are actively fighting to limit migration, as foreign workers "interrupt" the work of Native Americans. Another method used by trade unions to restrict the supply of labor is the requirement to strictly license many types of activities. As a result, trade unions provide their members with higher wages than non-union members (in the US - by 20-30%), but this gain, according to some economists, is largely due to worse wages of non-union members.
In recent decades, the understanding of the protective function of trade unions has changed somewhat. If earlier the trade unions considered the main task to increase wages and working conditions, today their main practical task is to prevent an increase in the unemployment rate and increase employment. This means a shift in priorities from the protection of those already employed to the protection of the interests of all persons in hired labor.
As the scientific and technological revolution develops, trade unions seek to influence not only wages and employment, as it was originally, but also the working conditions associated with the operation of new equipment. Thus, at the initiative of the Swedish Trade Union Confederation in the 1990s, all over the world began to introduce standards of computer technology based on the requirements of ergonomics, which strictly regulate the level of electromagnetic radiation and noise, and the quality of the image on the monitor.
The function of representation is connected with the defense of the interests of employees not at the level of the firm, but in state and public bodies. The purpose of the representative office is to create additional
(compared with the existing ones) benefits and services (social services, social security, supplementary health insurance, etc.). Trade unions can represent the interests of employees by participating in elections of state authorities and local self-government bodies, making proposals for the adoption of laws related to the social and labor sphere, participating in the development of state policy and state programs in the field of promoting employment of the population, taking part in the development of state programs labor protection, etc.Being involved in the political struggle, the trade unions are actively engaged in lobbying - first of all, they defend those decisions that increase the demand for goods produced by workers and, thereby, the demand for labor. So, American trade unions have always actively advocated protectionist measures - restrictions on the import of foreign goods into the United States.To implement representative functions, trade unions maintain close ties with political parties. The farthest went the British trade unions, which back in 1900 created their own political party - the Workers' Representation Committee, from 1906 - the Labor Party (translated as the Labor Party). The trade unions are directly funding this party. A similar situation is observed in Sweden, where the overwhelming majority of employees, the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, provides the political leadership of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. In most countries, however, the trade union movement is divided into associations with different political orientations. For example, in Germany, along with the Association of German Trade Unions (9 million people) oriented towards cooperation with the Social Democrats, there is a smaller Association of Christian Trade Unions (0.3 million people), which is close to the Christian Democrats.
In the face of heightened competition, trade unions began to realize that the well-being of workers depends not only on confrontation with entrepreneurs, but also on the growth of labor efficiency. Therefore, modern trade union organizations almost never resort to strikes, actively participate in improving the professional training of their members and in improving production itself. Research by American economists shows that in most industries, union members demonstrate higher productivity (by about 20-30%).
The crisis of the trade union movement in the modern era. If the first half of the 20th century. became the apogee of the trade union movement, then in the second half of it it entered a period of crisis.A striking manifestation of the current crisis of the trade union movement is the reduction in the majority of developed countries in the proportion of workers who belong to trade unions. In the United States, the unionization rate (the degree of labor force participation by the union movement) fell from 34% in 1954 to 13% in 2002 ( cm... Tab. 1), in Japan - from 35% in 1970 to 22% in 2000. Rarely in any country (one of the exceptions is Sweden) trade unions unite more than half of employees. The global rate of labor union coverage in 1970 was 29% for the private sector, and by the beginning of the 21st century. fell below 13% (about 160 million union members per 13 billion employees).
| Table 1. MEMBERSHIP DYNAMICS IN TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONS,% OF WORKFORCE | ||
| Year | Labor force percentage | |
| Trade union membership only | Membership in trade unions and workers' associations | |
| 1930 | 7 | |
| 1950 | 22 | |
| 1970 | 23 | 25 |
| 1980 | 21 | |
| 1992 | 13 | |
| 2002 | 13 | |
Scientists identify three main external factors that oppose the development of trade unions in the modern era.
1. Increased international competition due to economic globalization
. As the international labor market is being formed, not only their unemployed compatriots, but also the mass of workers from less developed countries of the world become competitors of workers from the developed countries of the world. This group of people, possessing approximately the same set of knowledge, is ready to do the same amount of work for noticeably lower wages. Therefore, many firms in the countries of the "golden billion" widely use the labor of non-union migrant workers (often illegal), or even move their activities to the countries of the "third world", where trade unions are very weak.2. Decline in the era of scientific and technological revolution of old industries.
The trade union movement has long been based on the labor solidarity of workers in traditional industries (metallurgists, miners, dock workers, etc.). However, as the scientific and technological revolution unfolds, structural shifts occur - the share of industrial employment is decreasing, but employment in the service sector is growing.
| Table 2. UNIONIZATION RATIO IN DIFFERENT SECTORS OF THE US ECONOMY,% | |||||||
| Manufacturing industries | 1880 | 1910 | 1930 | 1953 | 1974 | 1983 | 2000 |
| Agriculture, forestry, fishing | 0,0 | 0,1 | 0,4 | 0,6 | 4,0 | 4,8 | 2,1 |
| Mining industry | 11,2 | 37,7 | 19,8 | 4,7 | 4,7 | 21,1 | 0,9 |
| Construction | 2,8 | 25,2 | 29,8 | 3,8 | 38,0 | 28,0 | 18,3 |
| Manufacturing industry | 3,4 | 10,3 | 7,3 | 42,4 | 7,2 | 27,9 | 4,8 |
| Transport and communications | 3,7 | 20,0 | 18,3 | 82,5 | 49,8 | 46,4 | 4,0 |
| Commercial services | 0,1 | 3,3 | 1,8 | 9,5 | 8,6 | 8,7 | 4,8 |
| In the economy as a whole | 1,7 | 8,5 | 7,1 | 29,6 | 4,8 | 20,4 | 14,1 |
3. Strengthening the influence of liberal ideology on the activities of the governments of developed countries.
In the second half of the 20th century, as the popularity of ideas grew neoclassical economics, relations between the government and the labor movement began to deteriorate. This trend is especially noticeable in the UK and the USA. The governments of these countries in the last decades of the 20th century. pursued a purposeful policy of encouraging competition, aimed at reducing the influence of trade unions and limiting the scope of their activities.
In Great Britain, the Thatcher government strongly opposed the activities of trade unions aimed at raising wages, as this increased the cost of British goods and made them less competitive on the international market. In addition, labor agreements, according to conservatives, lowered competition in the labor market, preventing them from laying off workers depending on market conditions. Laws adopted in the early 1980s prohibited political strikes, solidarity strikes, picketing of an entrepreneur's supplier, complicated the procedure for active actions (mandatory preliminary secret ballot of all union members on issues of holding protest actions was introduced). In addition, some categories of civil servants were generally prohibited from being members of trade unions. As a result of these sanctions, the share of unionized workers in the UK fell to 37.5% in 1991 and 28.8% in 2001.
The situation with trade unions in the United States is even worse. Workers in a number of industries with a traditionally strong trade union movement (steel, automotive, transportation) were forced to agree to lower wages. Several strikes have suffered a crushing collapse (the most striking example is the dispersal of the trade union of air traffic controllers in the 1980s, under R. Reagan). The result of these events was a sharp decrease in the number of workers willing to be members of trade unions, who were unable to perform their functions.
In addition to the listed external reasons for the crisis of the trade union movement are influenced and internal factors - modern workers do not seek membership in trade unions due to some of the characteristics of the trade unions themselves.
Over the last half century of their existence, legal trade unions have "grown" into the existing system, have become bureaucratic and in many cases have taken a position that is isolated from the workers. A permanent staff of employees, bureaucratic procedures are increasingly alienating the trade union "bosses" from ordinary workers. Not being, as before, merged with the workers, the trade unions cease to orient themselves in those problems that really worry their members. Moreover, as E. Giddens notes: “The activities and views of trade union leaders can be quite distant from the views of those whom they represent. It is not uncommon for grassroots union groups to come into conflict with the strategy of their own organization. ”
Most importantly, modern trade unions have lost the perspective of their development. In the early, revolutionary period, their activities were inspired by the struggle for equality, for social transformations. In the 1960s – 1970s, some national trade union organizations (in Great Britain, Sweden) even demanded the nationalization of the main sectors of the economy, since private business was unable to ensure social justice. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, the point of view defended by neoclassical economists began to dominate, according to which the state is much worse in economic activity than private business. As a result, the confrontation between trade unions and employers is losing its ideological intensity.
However, if in some developed countries the trade union movement is in clear decline, in some others the trade unions have retained their importance. To a large extent, this was facilitated by the corporate model of the relationship between the labor movement and the government. This applies, first of all, to such continental European countries as France, Germany, Sweden.
For example, at a time when anti-union laws were being introduced in the UK, France adopted labor acts that provided for the organization of health and safety committees in the workplace, and also legalized the binding of collective bargaining procedures on wages (1982). Legislation of the 1980s introduced union representatives to the board of directors of companies with the right to vote. In the 1990s, the state took over the costs of organizing labor arbitrations and training programs for the workforce. Thanks to the activity of the French state, the rights enjoyed by workers' committees and trade union deputies were significantly expanded and strengthened.
However, crisis phenomena are also noticeable in the activities of the "continental" trade unions. French trade unions, in particular, are relatively smaller than even American ones: in the private sector in France, only 8% of workers are members of trade unions (in the USA - 9%), in the public sector - about 26% (in the USA - 37%). The fact is that when the welfare state pursues an active social policy, it actually takes over the functions of trade unions, which leads to a weakening of the influx of new members into them.
Another factor in the crisis of "continental" trade unions is the formation of a global (European, in particular) labor market, which intensifies the competition with each other among workers of all EU countries, with differences in the level of wages by 50 or more times. This competition has led to a downward trend in wages, worsening working conditions, rising unemployment and temporary employment, the destruction of social gains and the growth of the informal sector. According to Dan Gallin, Director of the International Labor Institute (Geneva): “The source of our strength is the organization of the labor movement on a global scale. The reason why we rarely and badly succeed in this so far is that in our minds we remain prisoners of confined spaces set by state borders, while the centers of power and decision-making have long ago crossed these boundaries. "
Although economic globalization requires international consolidation of trade unions, the modern trade union movement is in reality a network of loosely linked national organizations that continue to act in accordance with their national problems. The existing international trade union organizations - the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (the largest in the world with 125 million members), the International Trade Union Secretariats, the European Trade Union Confederation and some others - are not yet widely respected. Therefore, the long-standing dream of radical trade union activists, the creation of a worldwide "One Big Trade Union", is still only a dream.
However, even if trade union organizations of different countries manage to establish cooperation among themselves, in the long term, trade unions are doomed to gradual withering away. The trade union is a product of the industrial era with its typical confrontation between capital owners and employees. Since, as we approach the post-industrial society, this conflict loses its acuteness, disappears, then the trade union organizations of the classical type will also inevitably lose their significance. Probably, in the near future, the center of the trade union movement will shift from developed countries to developing countries, where technologies and production relations of an industrial society still dominate.
Development of trade unions in Russia. The predecessors of trade unions in Russia are considered to be the strike committees that arose in the 1890s. Trade unions in the proper sense of the word appeared in our country only during the revolution of 1905-1907. It was during this period that trade union committees were formed at large St. Petersburg factories - Putilovsky, Obukhovsky. On April 30, 1906, the first city-wide meeting of metalworkers and electricians took place in the Russian capital. This date is considered to be the starting point of the history of trade unions in our country.After 1917, the characteristics of Soviet trade unions began to differ sharply from that of a similar institution abroad. It is not for nothing that in the Leninist concept the trade unions were called "the school of communism."
Significant differences begin with the membership of Soviet trade unions. Despite their different status and opposing interests, the Soviet trade unions united everyone - both ordinary workers and enterprise managers. This situation was observed not only in the USSR, but also in all other socialist countries. It is in many respects similar to the development of trade unions in Japan, but with the significant difference that in the USSR the trade unions were not "companionable", but state-owned, and therefore openly refused any confrontation with the leaders.
An important distinguishing feature of the Soviet trade unions was the orientation towards promoting the ideology of the ruling party to the masses of the working people. Trade unions were part of the state apparatus - a single system with a clear vertical hierarchy. The state-owned trade unions found themselves completely dependent on the party organs, which occupied a dominant position in this hierarchy. As a result, free and inherently self-employed trade unions in the USSR turned into bureaucratic organizations with a ramified structure, an order system and accountability. The gap from the masses of workers was so complete that the members of the trade unions themselves began to perceive membership fees as a form of tax.
Although trade unions were an integral part of any Soviet enterprise, they paid little attention to their classic functions of protecting and representing workers. The protective function boiled down to the fact that without the official (and, as a rule, formal) consent of the trade union, the administration of the enterprise could not dismiss the employee or change the working conditions. The representative function of the trade unions was essentially denied, since the Communist Party allegedly represented the interests of all working people.
Trade unions were engaged in subbotniks, demonstrations, organization of socialist competition, distributed scarce material goods (vouchers, apartments, coupons for the purchase of goods, etc.), maintained discipline, carried out campaigning, were engaged in the propaganda and implementation of the achievements of the foremost workers, club-circle work, the development of amateur performances in work collectives, etc. As a result, the Soviet trade unions became essentially the social welfare departments of enterprises.
The paradox also lay in the fact that, being controlled by the party and the state, the trade unions were deprived of the opportunity to decide and defend the issues of improving working conditions and raising wages. In 1934, collective agreements in the USSR were abolished altogether, and when in 1947 a resolution was adopted on their renewal at industrial enterprises, the collective agreement practically did not stipulate working conditions. When hiring a company, an employee signed a contract that obliged him to observe labor discipline and fulfill and overfulfill labor plans. Any organized confrontation with the leadership was strictly prohibited. The ban also extended, of course, to a typical form of struggle for workers' rights - strikes: their organization threatened with prison and even mass executions (which happened, for example, in Novocherkassk in 1962).
The collapse of the Soviet economy caused a severe crisis in domestic trade unions. If earlier membership of workers in trade unions was strictly compulsory, now a massive outflow of workers began, who saw no benefit in being members of this bureaucratic organization. A manifestation of the lack of relationship between trade unions and workers was the strikes of the late 1980s, when traditional trade unions were not on the side of workers, but on the side of representatives of the state. Already in the last years of the existence of the USSR, it became obvious that there was no real influence of trade unions in both the political and economic spheres. The aggravation of the crisis was also facilitated by innovations in legislation, limiting the range of activities of trade unions. In many enterprises, they were simply disbanded, the newly formed firms often deliberately prevented the creation of trade union cells.
Only by the mid-1990s did the degradation of Russian trade unions slow down. Gradually, the trade union movement again began to return to the arena of political and economic events. Nevertheless, until the beginning of the 2000s, the trade unions of Russia did not solve two pressing problems - what functions should they consider priority and what should be their autonomy.
The development of Russian trade unions took two paths. Trade unions of a new type(alternative trade unions that arose in the last years of the existence of the USSR) are guided by the performance of classical functions, as in the industrial era in the West. Traditional unions(the heirs of the Soviet) continue, as before, to help employers maintain contacts with workers, thereby approaching Japanese-style trade unions.
The main difference between alternative trade unions and the previous trade unions of the Soviet type is their non-state character, independence from the heads of enterprises. The composition of these unions is unique in that they usually do not include leaders. Freed from the Soviet legacy, alternative trade unions faced new challenges.
Excessive politicization.
Alternative trade unions focus on participation in political events, mainly in the form of a protest movement. Naturally, this distracts them from taking care of the "small" everyday needs of the working people.
Attitude for confrontation.
Alternative trade unions did not adopt the positive experience of Soviet-type trade unions. As a result, the new trade unions organize strikes quite well, but are stuck in everyday life. This leads to the interest of union leaders in the incessant strikes, which heightens their importance. This attitude towards confrontation with the authorities, on the one hand, creates an aura of "fighters for justice" for the new trade union leaders, but, on the other hand, alienates from them those who are not inclined to radicalism.
Organizational amorphousness.
As a rule, membership in alternative trade unions is unstable, there are often interpersonal conflicts between their leaders, and there are often cases of careless and selfish use of financial funds.
The largest independent trade unions of the perestroika era were Sotsprof (Association of Trade Unions of Russia, founded in 1989), the Independent Trade Union of Miners (NPG, 1990), and the Union of Labor Collectives (STK). Despite their active protest activity (for example, the all-Russian miners' strikes in 1989, 1991 and 1993-1998 were organized by the NPG), the population was not informed about these trade unions. Thus, in 2000 almost 80% of the respondents knew nothing about the activities of Sotsprof, the largest of the "independent" trade unions. Due to their small size and constant lack of financial resources, the new trade unions in the 1990s were unable to seriously compete with the traditional ones.
Alternative trade unions also exist in the 2000s, although, as before, they account for a smaller part of the working population. The most famous now are such trade union associations as "Labor Protection", the Siberian Confederation of Labor, "Sotsprof", the All-Russian Confederation of Labor, the Russian Dockers' Union, the Russian Trade Union of Railway Brigades of Locomotive Depots, the Federation of Air Traffic Controllers Trade Unions and others. The main form of their activity remains strikes (including all-Russian ones), blocking of roads, seizure of enterprises, etc.
As for the traditional trade unions, in the 1990s they began to "come to life" and somewhat modified in accordance with the new requirements. We are talking about trade unions formed on the basis of the former state trade unions of the USSR, formerly part of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions (All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions), and now part of the FNPR (Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia). They comprise about 80% of workers employed in enterprises.
Despite this impressive figure, it does not at all testify to the success of the post-Soviet trade union movement. The question of joining the ranks of a trade union at a particular enterprise is still purely rhetorical and is solved automatically when a person is hired.
Polls in recent years indicate that only 1/3 of the members of primary trade union organizations at enterprises have addressed them with any of their problems. Those who applied, in the overwhelming majority of cases (80%), are concerned, as in Soviet times, with social issues at the level of the given enterprise. Thus, it can be stated that the old, traditional trade unions, although generally strengthened their positions, have not given up their former functions. The protective function, which is classic for Western trade unions, appears only in the background.
Another negative relic of the Soviet era that has survived in traditional trade unions is the unified membership of workers and leaders in one trade union organization. In many enterprises, union leaders are selected with the participation of managers, and in many cases there is a combination of administrative and union leadership.
The problem common to both traditional and alternative trade unions is their fragmentation, inability to find a common language, to consolidate. This phenomenon is observed both vertically and horizontally.
If in the USSR there was a complete dependence of grassroots (primary) organizations on higher trade union bodies, then in post-Soviet Russia the situation is diametrically opposite. Having received official permission to control financial and mobilization resources, the primary organizations became so autonomous that they stopped focusing on higher authorities.
There is no cohesion between different trade union organizations. Although isolated examples of coordinated actions are known (strikes by the Russian trade union of dockers in all ports of Russia and the Federation of the trade union of air traffic controllers during the Days of Unified Action for the Preservation of the Labor Code in 2000 and 2001), on the whole, interaction between different trade unions (even at one enterprise) is minimal. One of the reasons for this fragmentation is the ambition of the trade union leaders and the incessant mutual reproaches for the failure to fulfill one or another function.
Thus, although modern Russian trade unions unite a very large share of hired workers, their influence on economic life remains rather weak. This situation reflects both the global crisis of the trade union movement and the specific features of post-Soviet Russia as a country with
economies in transition. Materials on the Internet: http://www.attac.ru/articles.htm; www.ecsoc.msses.ru.Latova Natalia, Latov Yuri
LITERATUREEhrenberg RJ, Smith R.S. Modern labor economics. Theory and public policy, ch. 13.M., Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1996
History of trade unions in Russia: stages, events, people... M., 1999
Gallin D. Rethink the politics of the trade union movement... - Labor democracy. Issue 30.M., Institute of Prospects and Problems of the Country, 2000
Trade union space of modern Russia. M., ISITO, 2001
Kozina I.M. Russian trade unions: transformation of relations within the traditional structure... - Economic sociology. Electronic journal, vol. 3, 2002, no. 5
Along with the positive, globalization over time reveals more and more negative features. The influence of globalization processes on the sphere of spiritual culture is sharply criticized. You can often hear warnings about the dangers of "McDonaldization", which depersonalizes the unification of national cultures.
The fruits of globalization in the sphere of culture are indeed quite diverse. For example, thanks to the development of communications and television broadcasting networks, today hundreds of millions of people in various parts of the world can listen to or watch a fashionable theatrical performance, the premiere of an opera or ballet performance, or become participants in a virtual tour of the Hermitage or Louvre. At the same time, the same technical means deliver completely different samples of culture to a large audience: unpretentious video clips, action films tailored according to the same patterns, annoying advertisements, etc. The point is not even that such products do not demonstrate high quality. Its main danger is that it exerts a unifying influence, imposes certain models of behavior, a lifestyle that often does not correspond or even contradict the values existing in a particular society.
However, the greatest concern is usually the issue of the unevenness of the globalization process. The paradox of the global economy is that it does not cover all economic processes on the planet, does not include all territories and all of humanity in the economic and financial spheres. The influence of the global economy extends to the entire planet, at the same time, its actual functioning and the corresponding global structures refer only to segments of economic industries, to individual countries and regions of the world, depending on the position of the country, region (or industry) in the international division of labor. As a result, within the framework of the global economy, the differentiation of countries in terms of development level persists and even deepens, a fundamental asymmetry between countries is reproduced in terms of the degree of their integration into the world economy and competitive potential.
The developed countries of the West can take full advantage of the fruits of globalization. So, against the background of the active expansion of international trade, the share of developing countries in the value of world exports fell from 31.1%
in 1950 to 21.2% in 1990 and continues to decline. As noted in this regard, the famous American specialist M. Castells, “the global economy is characterized by the presence of a fundamental asymmetry between countries in terms of their level of integration, competitive potential and the share of benefits from economic growth. This differentiation extends to regions within each country. The consequence of this concentration of resources, dynamism and wealth in some territories is the segmentation of the world population ... ultimately leading to a global increase in inequality. " The emerging global economic system turns out to be both highly dynamic, selective and extremely unstable.
On a global scale, new lines of fault and disunity of countries and peoples are emerging. There is a globalization of inequality. Most of the countries of the Afro-Asian world from Myanmar to Tropical Africa remained in the grip of economic backwardness, are a zone of economic, political, ideological, ethnic and social conflicts and upheavals. Throughout the 20th century, the standard of living and average annual income per capita in the third world countries lagged an order of magnitude behind the corresponding indicators in developed countries. In the 80-90s. XX century. this gap has tended to grow. For the 80s. the number of countries classified by the UN as least developed has increased from 31 to 47. In 1990, almost 3 billion people in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Latin America and China had an average annual per capita income of less than $ 500, while million inhabitants of the most developed countries ("golden billion") - $ 20 thousand. Moreover, there are no signs that this situation may change in the foreseeable future.
The most alarming trend in this sense is the emergence of the "deep South", or countries of the "fourth world", which testifies to the real danger of complete degradation of a number of states that are capable of completely losing the ability to maintain basic functions as a result of consistent budget cuts on elementary reproduction of social infrastructure. and the population. The paradox is that with a planetary character, the global economy (at least at the present stage of its development) stimulates an increase in the number of states and regions excluded from the processes of globalization.
Thus, the consequences of globalization are very contradictory. On the one hand, the growing interdependence of various countries and regions of the world is evident. On the other hand, global problems, geoeconomic
rivalry is a permanent competition, the purpose of which is to improve the "tournament position" in the world market of one's country, creating conditions for continuous and rather dynamic economic growth. The struggle to maximize resources and opportunities in the context of globalization generates only one real alternative facing each of the countries - dynamic outstripping development or decline and marginalization.
Minor concepts: globalization.
XW Terms: marginalization, geoeconomics, GDP, WTO, IMF. How would you define the process of globalization? 2) What are the manifestations of globalization in the economic sphere? What is cultural globalization? What are the main contradictions of the globalization process? 5) Describe the role of scientific and technological revolution and information and communication technologies in the process of globalization. How would you describe the current situation of the poorest countries in the South? 7) What signs of globalization can you observe in your hometown (region, republic)?
Think, discuss, do Two essentially opposite points of view on globalization are widespread. One assumes that globalization is fundamentally beneficial and progressive, which will contribute to the solution of the main problems facing humanity. The other, on the contrary, focuses on the negative consequences of globalization. Which point of view seems to you more adequately reflecting reality and why? On the streets of Russian cities, the emergence of foreign fast food eateries "McDonald's" is noted. Consider whether this phenomenon has anything to do with globalization. The famous Chinese researcher He Fang noted in one of his works: "Competition and struggle for a leading role in the economy, sanctions and retaliatory sanctions, patronage and counter-patronage have become the main forms of struggle between states." Do you think this trend is a consequence of the development of globalization processes or, on the contrary, a manifestation of the inertia of the past? Representatives of trade unions in one of the European countries are trying to put pressure on employers in order to achieve the most acceptable conditions of remuneration for employees of the respective firm (enterprise). However, the business "~~~"
bartering defies pressure and redirects investment to other parts of the world, shutting down factories and leaving workers out of work altogether. How is the intransigence of the business community related to the processes of globalization?
Work with the source
Read an excerpt from the work of an American researcher on the global economy.
The economy of the information age is global. The global economy is a completely new historical reality, different from the world economy, in which capital accumulation processes took place all over the world and which ... has existed since at least the sixteenth century. A global economy is an economy in which national economies depend on the activities of a globalized core. The latter includes financial markets, international trade, transnational production, to a certain extent science and technology and related types of labor. In general, the global economy can be defined as an economy whose main components have the institutional, organizational and technological ability to act as a community (integrity) in real time.
Caste Lier M. Global Capitalism and the New Economy: Significance for Russia // Postindustrial World and Russia. - M .: Editorial URSS, 2001, - P. 64.
®W $ amp ;. Questions and tasks to the source. 1) What is the difference between the modern global economy and the world economy of previous eras? 2) What exactly are the components that make up the globalized core of the modern world economy?
In the second half of 1910, an upswing in the industry of Russia began.
A sharp rise in the strike movement, the revitalization of the activity of trade organizations took place after the Lenskoye (April 1912) shooting by troops of a peaceful demonstration in the gold mines. The economic struggle has risen to a new level. The workers began to defend their rights, putting forward broader demands, seeking to raise the standard of living. Economic demands began to intertwine with political ones.
Trade union representatives were part of the "working commission" created by the deputies of the Social Democratic faction of the IV State Duma (worked from November 15, 1912 to February 25, 1917). Trade unions prepared proposals on labor legislation, submitted requests to the government through deputies regarding the persecution of trade union associations.
The struggle for the adoption of the law "On the 8-hour working day" was of great importance for the trade unions. The bill, introduced by the Social Democratic faction, provided for an 8-hour working day for all categories of employees; for miners - 6-hour, and in some hazardous industries - 5-hour day.The law provided for measures to protect the labor of women and adolescents, the abolition of child labor, the prohibition of overtime and restriction of night work, the obligatory lunch break, the introduction of annual paid holidays.
Naturally, this bill had no chance of being passed by the Duma, which was conservative in its composition.
The development of labor legislation under tsarism was reduced to the introduction of a system of social insurance against accidents due to illness. It only extended to workers in the factory, mining and mining industries, who constituted about 17% of the Russian working class.
Trade unions have launched a broad "insurance campaign", demanding the active participation of workers in the organization of insurance institutions. They organized protest rallies and "insurance strikes", and sought the election of their representatives to the insurance funds. With the support of trade unions, the magazine "Insurance Issues" began to be published.
The importance of the "insurance campaign" was especially great for those enterprises where the existence of trade unions was difficult. In this case, the sickness funds turned out to be the only form of legal association of workers.
By July 1, 1914, there were 1982 sickness funds in Russia, which served 1 million 538 thousand workers.
The First World War affected all aspects of Russian life, including trade unions. After the introduction of martial law, the police unleashed massive repression on all workers' organizations. Many of them became illegal. The very first months of the war had an acute impact on the position of the workers. By the end of 1914, prices for basic food products in St. Petersburg had grown by 30.5%.
________________________________
By June 1915, in cities, both large and small (with a population of less than 10 thousand people), the rise in prices leads to an urgent need for essential products. This also determined the nature of the basic demands put forward by the workers during the strikes. Strikes demanding higher wages in the first year of the war accounted for 80% of all protests.
The position of the working class deteriorated further when the government overturned labor protection laws. Working hours were increased to 14 hours, women and children were employed, and overtime work was widely used. All this led to the strengthening of the strike movement.
In June 1916, according to far from complete data, almost 200 thousand workers went on strike. The authorities began to realize the need to restore trade unions. It is no accident that the survey of the workers 'movement compiled by the Petrograd police department speaks of a sharp awakening of workers' interest in professional organizations. Despite the fact that since the middle of 1915 there has been a revival of the trade union movement, the activities of the trade unions have been sharply limited. So, by the beginning of 1917, 14 illegal unions and 3 legal ones worked in Petrograd: pharmacists, janitors and employees of printing establishments.
An ever-increasing economic and political crisis, famine and devastation led in February 1917 to the collapse of the Russian autocracy.
_______________________________
The state of the trade union movement in Russia after the October Revolution of 1917.
Studying the attitude of trade unions to the accomplished revolution, it should be borne in mind that the new government sought to win the confidence of the working people by carrying out popular reforms. Many demands expressed by trade unions on the eve of the October events were reflected in the decrees of the Soviet government.
On October 29, 1917, the Council of People's Commissars (SNK) adopted the Decree on an 8-hour working day. New working hours were introduced at all enterprises, and overtime work was prohibited. The decree set the duration of the rest v at the end of the week for at least 42 hours, prohibited night work for women and adolescents, introduced a 6-hour working day for the last, prohibited factory work by adolescents under 14, etc.
The Soviet government also adopted other decrees that improved the position of the working people. On November 8, the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V. I. Lenin signed a decree on increasing pensions to workers and employees who suffered from accidents. On November 14, a decree was adopted on the free transfer of all medical institutions of enterprises to the sickness funds. In December 1917, the People's Commissariat of Labor published the "Regulations on the Insurance Council" and "Regulations on Insurance Presences". Most of the places in these organizations were given to workers. On December 22, 1917, a decree was issued by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Council of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies on health insurance. According to this decree, sickness funds were established everywhere, which were supposed to provide cash benefits to workers and employees during illness in the amount of full earnings, provide free medical care to the insured and their families, and also provide them with the necessary medicines, medical supplies and improved nutrition free of charge. In the case of pregnancy, women were released from work for eight weeks before and eight weeks after childbirth, while retaining their earnings. A 6-hour workday was set for the nursing mother. All expenses for the maintenance of health insurance funds were borne by the entrepreneurs. Workers were exempted from contributions.
The introduction of workers' control in production was of great political importance. On November 14, 1917, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars adopted the "Regulations on workers' control." To guide workers' control throughout the country, the All-Russian Council of Workers Control was created, which included representatives from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the executive committee of the All-Russian Council of Peasant Deputies and the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions. The regulation abolished trade secrets. The decisions of the supervisory authorities were binding on all business owners. Representatives of workers' control, together with entrepreneurs, were responsible for order, discipline and the protection of the property of enterprises.
Increasing wages became one of the most important tasks. In an effort to satisfy the demands of the workers, the Petrograd Soviet on December 4, 1917, adopted a resolution in which it established the minimum wage for unskilled workers from 8 to 10 rubles a day. The plenum of the Moscow Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies on January 16, 1918 adopted a Decree on the minimum wage. According to this decree, the following minimum wages were set for all workers in Moscow and its environs: for men - 9 rubles, for women - 8 rubles, for teenagers - from 6 to 9 rubles per day. At the same time, women performing the same work with men were also given equal wages. In January 1918, an attempt was made to determine the cost of living on an all-Russian scale.
Implementation of these decrees met with resistance from employers. For example, with a shorter working day, entrepreneurs began to cut wages. In response, workers began to create at enterprises under trade unions special committees (unions, cells) of labor protection, which forced employers to comply with Soviet decrees.
The first legislative acts of the new government could not but touch upon the rights of trade unions. Counting on the support of the trade unions, the Soviet government passed a series of laws that were supposed to ensure broad freedom of the trade union movement. Thus, the Decree on Workers' Control stated:
"All laws and circulars restricting the activities of factory, factory and other committees and councils of workers and employees are canceled."
The right of workers to form trade unions was proclaimed in the Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People. In Art. 16 of the Declaration stated that “in order to ensure for the working people the real freedom of unions of the RSFSR, breaking the economic and political power of the possessing classes and thereby eliminating all obstacles that hitherto hindered workers and peasants in bourgeois society from enjoying the freedom of organization and action, provides the workers and for the poorest peasants every kind of assistance, material and otherwise, for their unification and organization. "
In accordance with the Declaration of the RSFSR, it provided the citizens of the Soviet Republic with the right to freely organize rallies, meetings, processions and the like, guaranteeing them the creation of all political and technical conditions for this.
Thus, formally, at the level of legislation, trade unions were given complete freedom of growth and organizational development, and the authorities were obliged to provide them with all kinds of assistance in their activities.
However, even the implementation of popular measures did not mean unconditional support for the new government on the part of all trade unions.
The Executive Committee of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions did not participate in the preparation and conduct of the October armed uprising. Not a single meeting of the Executive Committee was held from October 24 to November 20.
At the same time, the Petrograd Council of Trade Unions, together with the Central Council of the FZK and the Petrograd Soviet, appealed to the workers to stop all economic strikes that had not been completed by the time of the uprising. The statement stated that "the working class must, must show in these days the greatest restraint and endurance in order to ensure the fulfillment of all tasks for the people's government of the Soviets."
The Moscow Council of Trade Unions adopted a resolution at the beginning of November 1917, which stated: “Considering that as long as the government of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the people is in power, a political strike is a sabotage that must be fought against in the most decisive way - the replacement of those who refuse to work is therefore not by strikebreaking, but by the fight against sabotage and counter-revolution. "
Following the trade unions of Petrograd, the Soviet government was supported by the majority of workers' unions in Moscow, the Urals, the Volga region and Siberia.
During the period of sabotage, which was organized by the opponents of the new government, the trade unions allocated their specialists to work in the people's commissariats. So, the chairman of the metalworkers' union A.G. Shlyapnikov was appointed people's commissar of labor, the secretary of the same union V. Schmidt was the head of the labor market department, the head of the Petrograd printers N.I. P. Glebov-Avilov was appointed head of the People's Commissariat of Posts and Telegraph.
Trade union representatives took part in organizing the work of the people's commissariats of education, social security, and internal affairs. The first group of employees of the People's Commissariat of Labor was made up of chemists from the Urals and employees of the Central Committee of the Metalworkers' Trade Union.
Trade unions played an important role in the organization and activities of the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh) - the central economic body of the Soviet Republic.
However, not all trade unions supported the Soviet regime. A significant group of trade unions were neutral. Among these trade unions are the unions of textile workers, tanners, garment workers.
A significant part of the trade unions, uniting the intelligentsia and officials, also opposed the Soviet regime. The unions of civil servants and teachers went on strike, which lasted almost until mid-December 1917. On December 3, 1917, the All-Russian Teachers' Union appealed through its newspaper with an appeal "to stand guard over the freedom of enlightenment through open disobedience to Soviet power."
The greatest danger to the Soviet government in the first days of its existence was the speech of the All-Russian Executive Committee of the Railway Trade Union (Vikzhel). It was created at the I All-Russian Constituent Congress of Railway Workers in July-August 1917. The Vikzhel consisted of 14 Social Revolutionaries, 6 Mensheviks, 3 Bolsheviks, 6 members of other parties, 11 non-party members. The Vikzhel demanded the creation of a homogeneous socialist government, threatening a general strike on transport.
Part of the Petrograd trade unions came out for the search for a compromise between the left-wing parties. A delegation of workers from the Obukhov plant demanded to explain what caused the postponement of the agreement between the socialist parties. Supporting the Vikzhel program, they declared: "We will drown your Lenin, Trotsky and Kerensky in one hole if the blood of the workers is shed for the sake of your dirty deeds."
Reflecting these sentiments, the Petrograd Council of Trade Unions, at its meeting on November 9, 1917, adopted a resolution demanding an immediate agreement of all socialist parties and supporting the idea of creating a multi-party government from the Bolsheviks to the People's Socialists, inclusive. However, the conditions for the creation of such a government (the immediate transfer of land to the peasants, the proposal of immediate peace to the peoples and governments of all the belligerent countries, the introduction of workers' control over production on a nationwide scale) were unacceptable for the representatives of the Mensheviks and Right Social Revolutionaries.
Fearing to declare this openly, the right-wing Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries put forward a demand to remove V. I. Lenin and L. D. Trotsky from the government. The negotiations were thwarted. Despite the protest and the departure from their posts of supporters of the compromise, prominent trade unionists D. B. Ryazanov, N. Derbyshev, G. Fedorov, A. G. Shlyapnikov, the majority of the trade unionists supported the position of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b). On November 22, at an enlarged meeting of the Petrograd Council of Trade Unions, the Central Council of Factory Committees and Union Boards, a resolution was adopted in which the trade unions called for all-round support of the Soviet regime and immediate activity in the field of control and regulation of production.
The resolution emphasized that "the Workers 'and Peasants' Government, put forward by the 2nd All-Russian Congress of Soviets, is the only authority that faithfully reflects the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population."
It is characteristic that already in this resolution only two tasks of the trade unions were indicated: political - to support the Soviet regime and economic - to control and regulate production, at the same time, there was no mention of protecting the interests of workers as sellers of labor.
Finally, the question of the attitude of trade unions to the Soviet regime was decided at the I All-Russian Constituent Congress of Trade Unions (January 1918).
In accordance with the decisions of the congress, the trade unions, as the class organizations of the proletariat, were to take on the main job of organizing production and rebuilding the undermined production forces of the country.
The congress changed the organizational structure of the trade unions. It was based on the production principle, which became possible after the merger of the FZK and the trade unions and the transformation of the FZK into primary trade union organizations at enterprises.
The resolution on the regulation of industry, adopted by the left majority of the Congress, emphasized that “state syndication and trusts of at least the most important branches of production (coal, oil, iron, chemical, and also transport) is a necessary stage for the nationalization of production”, and “the basis of state regulation is the workers' control in the enterprises syndicated and trusted by the state ”. In the opinion of the majority of the congress, the absence of such control could lead to the emergence of a "new industrial bureaucracy." The trade unions, built according to the production principle, had to take on the tasks of ideological and organizational leadership of workers' control. Counteracting the manifestation of private and group interests of workers in certain professions and industries, trade unions would act as vehicles for the idea of centralizing workers' control.
The decisions of the Congress marked a radical turn in the development of the country's trade union movement. A course was taken towards the nationalization of trade unions. The victory of the Bolsheviks was consolidated in the elections to the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions. It included 7 Bolsheviks: G. E. Zinoviev (chairman), V. V. Schmidt (secretary), G. D. Weinberg, M. P. Vladimirov, I. I. Matrozov (editor of the journal "Professional Bulletin"), F. I. Ozol (treasurer), D. B. Ryazanov; 3 Mensheviks: I. G. Volkov, V. G. Chirkin, I. M. Maisky; 1 Left Socialist-Revolutionary - V.M. Levin. The following were elected as candidates to the executive committee: Bolsheviks - NI Derbyshev, NI Ivanov, AE Minkin, MP Tomsky; Menshevik - M. Spectator.
The main result of the work of the First All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions was the victory of the policy of nationalizing trade unions. From this moment, the formation and development of a fundamentally new type of trade union movement began, which was supposed to contribute to the strengthening of the state, which proclaimed itself the state of the victorious proletariat.
The creation and operation of trade unions in England (XIX- StartXxcenturies)
At the end of the 17th century, the transition from commercial to industrial capital began in England. There is a disintegration of the workshop and manufactory production and the development of factory production. Industry and cities are developing rapidly. The first associations of employees appear (they were built on a guild principle, they combined the functions of a mutual aid society, an insurance fund, a recreation club and a political party). The reaction of employers to the emergence of associations is negative. The unions continued to develop, becoming illegal. Found support among the young bourgeois intelligentsia, forming a party of radicals (radical reforms). It was believed that if there was a legal right to form alliances, the economic struggle with the masters would become more organized and less destructive. There were also supporters among the large landowners in the House of Lords (Lord Byron, Lord Ashley). In 1824, the English. Parliament was forced to pass a law allowing complete freedom of workers' coalitions. But in 1825, the law was curtailed by Parliament by the Peel Act, which provided for harsh measures against the workers. actions could, in the opinion of employers, be directed to the detriment of production.
The growth of the trade union movement by the mid-1850s led to new union bans. These bans led to the fact that trade unions were outside the law and could not use its protection if necessary. So, in 1867, the court refused to accept a claim from the union of boiler workers against the treasurer who had squandered their funds, referring to the fact that he, the union, stands outside the law. The desire to preserve their funds as a guarantee of fighting efficiency in the event of a strike struggle led to yet another pressure from the trade unions on the authorities in order to legalize their activities.
The result of this struggle was the recognition by parliament of the Trade Union Act of 1871. In accordance with it, trade unions received the right to legally exist. The law provided full protection to the funds of the unions, without affecting their internal structure at all.
At the same time, this law was supplemented by a “bill of amendments to the criminal law”, which retained the essence of the “law of intimidation”, which made it possible to protect strikebreakers. The most peaceful announcement of a strike was considered by the bill as a threat to the entrepreneur, and any pressure on strikebreakers, picketing an enterprise was a criminal offense. So, in 1871 in South Wales, seven women were imprisoned just because they said: "Bah!" when meeting with one strikebreaker.
Parliamentary efforts to restrict trade union rights have led to the politicization of the union movement. Seeking universal suffrage, the workers of England achieved independent parliamentary representation in 1874, vigorously promoting the replacement of the liberal government of Gladstone by the Conservative Cabinet of Disraeli, which made concessions to the workers. The result was the repeal in 1875 of the 1871 Criminal Bill, including the Intimidation Act and the Lords and Servants Act, under which a worker who violated an employment contract was prosecuted and an entrepreneur was only sentenced to pay a fine. The 1875 law abolished criminal reprisals against the common actions of workers fighting for their professional interests, thereby legalizing collective bargaining.
Organizational structure of the first English trade unions
During the 19th century, the structure of trade unions was constantly improved. This largely depended on the tasks that the trade unions had to solve.
In the first half of the 19th century, after the adoption of the Trade Union Act of 1824, there was a widespread growth of the trade union movement. The created unions were united in "national" federations of individual trade unions. The lack of centralized strike funds, which led to the defeat of the Lancashire paper mill strike in 1829, prompted the workers to create a “Great General Union of the United Kingdom,” led by an annual delegate convention and three provincial executive committees. In 1830, the "National Society for the Protection of Labor" was created - a mixed federation uniting textile workers, mechanics, molders, blacksmiths, etc. In 1832, a federation was created uniting builders.
However, the main trend in this period was the desire to unite all manual workers in a common organization. In 3834, under the influence of Robert Owen, the All England Great National Consolidated Workers' Union was formed with half a million members. He united various industrial national federations. The union began a vigorous struggle for a 10-hour working day.
The entrepreneurs reacted negatively to the creation of this association, demanding from their workers to sign an obligation not to join the trade union, widely using lockouts (closing of enterprises and mass layoffs of workers). The lack of strike funds led to the defeat of the Union and its collapse.
From the middle of 1850, the period of existence of classical trade unions began, which were built not according to the production, but according to the guild principle, including exclusively qualified workers. Highly skilled workers fought to improve wages and working conditions only for their profession. The first large trade union organizations differed sharply from their predecessors. One of the first associations of skilled workers was the United Amalgamated Society of Mechanical Engineers, created in 1851, which includes seven unions with 11 thousand members. In the shop trade unions, high membership fees were established, which made it possible to accumulate large funds in order to insure their members against unemployment, illness, etc. All departments of the Union were subordinate to a central committee, which disposed of funds. Trade unions have sought to regulate the wages of their members through collective bargaining.
The presence of centralized strike funds allowed the workers to wage an organized strike struggle against the employers. In the course of this struggle, trade unions of builders (1861), tailors (1866), etc. were formed. The strike of builders, which occurred in 1861, led to the formation of the London Council of Trade Unions, the so-called Junta. In 1864, the Junta, with the help of the Glasgow Council of Trade Unions, convened the first national congress of trade unions, which became a regularly meeting national inter-union center. It united the 200 largest trade unions, which comprised 85% of all organized workers in England. The Congress had 12 regional sections and an executive body - a parliamentary committee. The main task of the parliamentary committee was to work on labor legislation.
The increase in the number of skilled workers has led to an increase in the number of trade unions. By 1874, the trade unions had 1,191,922 members in their ranks.
At the first stage of the development of the trade union movement in England, there was only a guild principle of building a trade union. The narrow professional structure of the British trade unions led to the existence of many associations of workers of various specialties in one industry. For example, on the railways there were three parallel trade unions, in water transport the specialization was even greater. Among the workers in the water transport were trade unions of river shipping workers, sea workers, helmsmen, stokers and sailors, mechanics and stokers on fishing boats. Initially, in the organizational structure, there was a desire to create local branches of shop trade unions. Along with the national union of transport workers, there was a special union of transport workers in Northern England, there was a union of drivers of the Liverpool region, an alliance of coal movers in the Cardiff region, etc. Each of the unions was completely independent and retained its sovereign rights. The guild principle of construction led to the fact that there were 116 trade unions in the metalworking industry alone.
This organizational structure had several disadvantages. First, it created competition between unions over the members of their associations. For example, the National Union of Railway Workers constantly had conflicts with the Union of Engineers and Firemen regarding the involvement of representatives of these professions in its ranks. Secondly, it gave rise to a complex system of management of the unions, when some of the elected bodies of the unions duplicated their activities. Thirdly, the large number of unions weakened the labor movement, as it prevented the organization of solidarity actions of representatives of various professions.
Realizing the weakness of their organizational structure, the British trade unions sought to create centralized national unions, which were supposed to cover, if not the whole production, then at least a number of related professions. This led to the creation of trade union federations. They fell into two categories:
Federations built on the principle of uniting local unions.
Federations built on the principle of uniting national unions of various guilds.
The amalgamation of trade unions took place at a very slow pace. This was largely due to the traditions of the British trade union movement. Many unions had from 100 to 150 years of continuous existence by the end of the 19th century. In addition, the leaders of these unions did not want to part with their jobs and salaries, which they inevitably could lose in the merger of unions. To justify the impossibility of merging shop trade unions in the federation, the leaders of these associations argued that the united trade unions would not take into account the interests of highly qualified specialists, and the merger of finances would lead to material damage for the members of their union.
The psychology of the English workers allowed them to be patient and gentle with the need to merge shop unions.
This phenomenon can be demonstrated with an interesting example. To the question of the Russian revolutionary I. Maisky, who worked in the British trade unions, about the delay in the merger of the two shop unions in the metalworking industry, ordinary members of the unions answered: “What can you do? Our secretary general doesn't want to. Their secretary doesn't want to either. Both secretaries are old men. Let's wait until they die - then we will unite. "
By the beginning of the 20th century, there were 1,200 shop unions in England, and the process of their unification proceeded at a very slow pace.
If we talk about the form of management of unions, then it is necessary to note the striving of the workers for a democratic order.
In small unions, all issues were resolved at general meetings, which were elected by the executive committee and officials (secretary, treasurer, etc.). The secretary was not relieved of his main job and received only compensation from the union for the "lost time" in the service of the organization.
The structure of the national union, uniting workers of a particular profession, was built in a certain way. It was based on a local branch, which was governed by a general meeting and a committee elected by it. The main areas of his work were collecting contributions and monitoring the implementation of collective agreements and agreements with entrepreneurs. However, the strike funds and mutual aid funds of the trade unions were strictly centralized, since the issues of the strike struggle were within the competence of the higher authorities.
The next higher authority was the district, which included several local branches. The district was headed by a district committee consisting of delegates from local branches. The district secretary was elected by general vote and was a paid union functionary. The district enjoyed considerable autonomy. The district committee had the right to regulate relations with employers, pursue a professional policy, and conclude collective agreements. But, like the local branches, the district could not decide whether to hold a strike.
The highest authority of the union was the national executive committee. Its members were elected from constituencies by universal suffrage of the members of the union. They did not receive salaries from the union, but only payments for "lost time." The current work of the executive committee was carried out by the general secretary, elected by general voting. In keeping with the traditions of the British labor movement, the secretary-elect held his post for life on many occasions, unless he made major mistakes. The National Executive Committee, as the supreme union body, disposed of the union treasury, paid all types of benefits, and resolved all questions about strikes.
The trade unions also had a supreme legislative body - the Congress of Delegates. Only he had the right to amend the charter.
Referendums were of great importance for the life of the trade unions. It was through them that the issues of concluding collective agreements and agreements, the announcement of a strike and the election of trade union officials took place.
The national federations had a slightly different structure. At the very bottom of their structure were local branches, which were called "lodges". The next instance was the constituency, headed by an "agent" elected by general suffrage. The most important structure was the regional federation, which had large financial resources at its disposal, led the economic struggle in the region, and determined the trade union policy.
The National Federation had no real power, since it was deprived of financial resources and did not have its own apparatus.
In addition to associations by industry, the British trade unions sought to create inter-union associations. There was three types of inter-union association: local councilsunions, the Congress of Trade Unions and the General Federation of Tradeuniono v. Union councils did not have a common charter and mainly performed a representative function, taking upon themselves the solution of socio-political issues. They played a large role in local city elections, supporting certain candidates or revealing the political mood of the workers. Union councils were also involved in professional propaganda and cultural and educational work. The financial base for the activities of the Soviets consisted of voluntary donations from local branches of trade unions.
The Trade Union Congress was a national union of various trade unions. Congress met once a year and sited for a week. However, his decisions were not binding. The Parliamentary Committee, elected by the delegates to the Congress, performed a purely representative function, focusing in its activities on information and analytical work. In 1919, the Parliamentary Committee was transformed into the General Council. Immediately after its formation, the General Council began a struggle for the consolidation of trade unions, conducting extensive professional propaganda and agitation.
The desire of a number of guild trade unions to concentrate their forces gave rise in 1899 to a new structure - the General Federation of Trade Unions. However, without receiving support from below, this association could not compete with the Congress of Trade Unions by the beginning of the 20th century.
The British trade union movement was deservedly considered "the first rich man in the trade union world."
The first source of replenishment of the union fund is membership fees. Contributions to British trade unions varied in type and size. First of all, it should be said about the entrance fee. If for a low-skilled worker it was not high (1 shilling), then a highly skilled worker paid 5-6 pounds sterling for joining the union. Upon joining, union members had to pay a periodic fee - weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or three-month. The fees were paid at the union's premises and collected by a special cashier. In some cases, the collection of contributions was entrusted to special local cashiers, who received a commission of 5% for their work on the amount collected.
A feature of the British trade union movement wasavailability of targeted contributions... For example, contributions to the pension fund, the strike fund, etc. Special funds were managed separately from the all-Union funds and could be spent only for specified purposes. Targeted contributions should include political contributions, which were paid once a year by union members who joined the Labor Party.
Another source of funds was the interest received by the trade unions on their capital. For the English worker, the secretary general's ability to invest in a profitable business has always been the best attestation of the latter. Very often the unions invested money in cooperative organizations, cooperative banks, building associations, etc. Trade unions also invested money in private industrial and transport companies.
The third source of financing for trade unions was the state. Under the unemployment insurance law, trade unions could, by agreement with the Ministry of Labor, take over the functions of insurance bodies. In this case, the Ministry of Labor paid the unions a special subsidy.
The funds collected by the trade unions were strictly centralized. All trust funds were administered only by the center. If the local branch of the union wanted to have its own funds, then it could introduce additional local fees.
The financial and organizational strengthening of the trade unions led to an increase in their activity. In the second half of the 19th century, trade unions in England campaigned extensively in favor of shorter working hours. They managed to achieve a 54-hour workweek in the metallurgical industry. Trades unions have sought widespread collective bargaining. At the same time, conciliation councils and arbitration courts were established. The unions insisted that wages should fluctuate in line with profits and depend on market prices.
At the beginning of the 20th century, a new generation of workers began to be involved in the trade union movement in England. The older generation of workers in England was formed in the absence of a vocational education system. The worker, as a rule, acquired the skills to operate only one machine. Through a long apprenticeship, the worker learned to work only on a specific machine. Because of this, he was a highly qualified specialist with a narrow specialization. In the new conditions, due to the need for constant improvement of machines, workers were required who could navigate any technical innovation. In a number of industries, a new type of worker has emerged, which, even with certain qualifications and skills, could not have a monopoly position in the labor market. All this entailed the emergence of new organizational principles in the trade union movement.
The powerful strike movement of railway workers and miners, which took place in 1911-1912, caused shifts in the organizational structure of trade unions. The 1911 congress of trade unions in Newcastle unanimously decided on the need to move to the production principle in the structure of trade unions.
Gradually, various organizational principles of building trade unions began to develop in the English trade union movement. Along with industrial associations (National Railroad Union, National Union of Scottish Miners), there were guild associations (Bricklayers Union, Modeling Union, London Typesetting Society), as well as intermediate type unions (Steam Engine Manufacturers Association, Amalgamated Furniture Association). The production principle of building trade unions was most fully implemented in the Federation of Miners of Great Britain, which was an amalgamation of industrial unions, where the primary trade union organization included all mine personnel, regardless of profession, with the exception of persons who did not perform the main functions of the mining business (fitters, locksmiths, etc.) etc.).
The general scheme of organizational construction of such industrial federations was the following picture. The local cell was organized from a section committee, which included representatives from local associations of the unions that make up the federation. At the oblast level, oblast committees were created, consisting of representatives of regional organizations of unions. The supreme body was the conference, in which all unions united by the federation were represented. To manage the current work of the federation, an executive committee of 7-15 people was elected.
By 1914, there was a powerful militant alliance of three production federations in England: the Federation of Miners of Great Britain, the National Union of Railroad Workers and the Union of Transport Workers.
Summing up the formation of the organizational structure of the British trade unions, it should be noted that until the beginning of the XX century it was not unambiguous. At the same time, lessons from the development of the organizational structure of trade unions are important for the modern trade union movement.
Attitude of trade unions to political parties. Problems of trade union neutrality in theory and practice.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the theory of "neutrality" of trade unions was widespread in the West, which is often attributed to Karl Marx himself, referring to his interview with the newspaper "Volksstaat" on September 30, 1869. It is not included in the collected works of Marx and Engels. Marx said at the time that trade unions should in no way be associated with or dependent on political societies if they want to fulfill their task. This formulation of the question reflected the situation when the socialist parties were only taking their first steps and could not even count on any significant influence in the much stronger and more numerous trade unions. Moreover, the trade unions consisted of workers of the most varied political and religious convictions, who were united by a desire to stand together in solidarity with capital. Over time, the theory of "neutrality" of trade unions in relation to political parties lost its original meaning, as society actively followed the path of politicization, the strength of the socialists grew, and the problem of the unity of action of socialist parties and trade unions became more and more urgent. Thus, one of the most authoritative leaders of the German Social Democracy and the entire Second International, a worker by his initial social status, August Bebel believed that trade unions could not stand aside from politics. At the same time, they should not pursue a "narrow-party" line, which can only damage the unity of the trade union movement and cause its split. This point of view dominated the Second International and was adopted by the Russian Social Democrats. In 1907, in the preface to the collection of his works "For 12 Years," Lenin solemnly declared that until 1907 he was an unconditional supporter of the "neutrality" of the trade unions, and only after the V Congress of the RSDLP and the Stuttgart Congress of the Second International came to the conclusion that "neutrality" trade unions "cannot be defended in principle." In fact, Lenin's departure from the position of "neutrality" occurred earlier, back in 1905-1906, when, in the context of the first Russian revolution, a fairly massive trade union movement began in our country. In 1907, by the end of the revolution and after the legalization of trade unions in March 1906, according to historians, there were no less than 1,350 trade unions in Russia. They united at least 333 thousand workers. Moreover, these data are clearly incomplete. The trade union press developed greatly: in 1905-1907 more than a hundred trade union periodicals were published. In the midst of a revolution, it was impossible to isolate trade unions from politics. And if we consider that the Social Democrats, who played the role of the initiator and initiator of many political actions in the revolution, also took an active part in organizing workers' trade unions, then the RSDLP could hardly resist the temptation to make the trade unions their strongholds and assistants in the labor movement. Moreover, under the conditions of the split in the RSDLP, both the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks strove to consolidate their own factional influence in the workers' trade unions. The difference between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was that they understood the extent of this influence differently.
At the beginning of the twentieth century and in the Second International, there was a realization that the isolation of trade unions from socialist parties could lead to the strengthening of purely reformist, trade unionist tendencies in trade union work. That is why the call for closer rapprochement between trade union and party organizations was supported at the Stuttgart Congress of the Second International. Moreover, a delegate from the RSDLP, one of the then leaders and ideologists of Menshevism, Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov, proposed an addition to this formula: "without compromising the necessary unity of the trade union movement." His offer was accepted. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, with their increased social activity and inclination to authoritarian decisions, wanted to lead the trade unions, which in practice would mean nothing more than party diktat, the transformation of the unions into obedient guides of the Bolshevik tactical line in the revolution. Lenin quite unequivocally stated this in the draft resolution on trade unions prepared by him in the spring of 1906 at the 4th (unification) congress of the RSDLP. His intentions in this regard went so far that he admitted the possibility that, under certain conditions, one or another trade union could directly adhere to the RSDLP, without excluding non-party members from its ranks. It was suggested that they ignore the fact that such tactics are leading to a split in trade unions. After all, non-party workers might not want to remain in the Social Democratic trade union. As a result, up to 1917, there were two approaches to the problem of relations between the party and trade unions - the Bolshevik and the Menshevik. Although in practice the Mensheviks, especially after the new split of the RSDLP initiated by the Bolsheviks in 1912, also sought to use their leading positions in one or another trade union in the interests of the factional struggle against the Bolsheviks. The latter did the same, but even more openly and aggressively. The Mensheviks have always attached more importance than the Bolsheviks to the economic struggle of the working class. The Mensheviks recognized the intrinsic value of the struggle of the proletariat so that the current generation of workers, and not their children and grandchildren, could live in human conditions. The strength of this "economism" was also the desire to involve the real proletarian masses in the movement, to give its leadership not only to the intellectuals, but also to the most authoritative and capable leaders among the workers themselves. Use all kinds of legal organizations, be they trade unions, mutual aid funds, cooperatives, or educational societies. The Mensheviks, earlier than the Bolsheviks, responded to the appearance of the first trade unions in Russia, emphasizing in a special resolution of their Geneva conference in May 1905 the need to support the young trade union movement. Without belittling the concrete contribution of the Bolsheviks to the development of the Russian trade union movement, it is difficult to disagree with the Mensheviks that attempts to pull trade unions towards one or another of the numerous parties are fraught with only a split. And, consequently, the weakening of the trade union movement. At the same time, the thesis of the old Russian Social Democrats that the trade unions should participate in the political struggle, which has already been in force for almost a century, remains in force today. Not forgetting, however, that their main task is to protect the economic interests of the working people, and not turning into a simple appendage of any one political party or movement.
Discussion about the role and place of trade unions in the Soviet state (1920-1921).
Diskattalk about the trade unionNSzah, discussion about the role and tasks of trade unions that took place in the RCP (b) in late 1920 - early 1921, in the context of the transition of the Soviet country from the Civil War to peaceful construction. New tasks required a change in the policy of the party and the Soviet state, the forms and methods of political, organizational and educational work that had developed in wartime conditions. The Central Committee of the RCP (B) was preparing to replace the policy of war communism with a new economic policy, designed to strengthen the alliance of the working class with the peasantry on an economic basis, and developed measures aimed at developing the creative initiative of the working people and involving them in socialist construction. Under these conditions, the role of the trade unions increased (with more than 6.8 million members at the end of 1920). In order to strengthen the trade unions and revitalize their activity, which weakened during the war years, the Central Committee of the RCP (b) considered it necessary to abandon the military methods of trade union work and move to a consistent workers' democracy in trade union organizations. A member of the Central Committee of the party, L. D. Trotsky, opposed this. At the 5th All-Russian Conference of Trade Unions and in the theses presented by the Central Committee of the RCP (b) (November 1920), he demanded further "tightening the screws" - the establishment of a military regime in the trade unions, "shaking up" their leading cadres by administrative methods. The plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) (November 8-9, 1920) rejected Trotsky's theses and, at the suggestion of V.I.Lenin, created a commission to develop measures aimed at developing trade union democracy. Violating party discipline, Trotsky brought the differences on the issue of trade unions outside the Central Committee, imposed on the party a discussion that distracted the party's forces from solving urgent practical problems, threatening the unity of the party ranks. Trotsky's anti-party speech intensified the vacillations generated by political and economic difficulties among unstable party members, revived opposition elements in the RCP (b).
The disagreements on the role of the trade unions were in fact disagreements on the foundations of the party's policy during the period of peaceful construction, on the party's attitude to the peasantry and the non-party masses in general, on the methods of involving the working people in the construction of socialism. This determined the character and acuteness of the discussion. The platform of the Trotskyists (Trotsky, N. N. Krestinsky, etc.) demanded the immediate nationalization of the trade unions - their transformation into an appendage of the state apparatus, which contradicted the very essence of the trade unions and actually meant their liquidation. The Trotskyists put forward methods of coercion and administration as the basis of trade union work.
A group of the so-called workers' opposition (A. G. Shlyapnikov, S. P. Medvedev, A. M. Kollontai, and others) put forward an anarcho-syndicalist slogan for transferring the management of the national economy to the trade unions represented by the All-Russian Congress of Producers. The "workers' opposition" opposed the trade unions to the party and the Soviet state, and denied the state leadership of the national economy.
"Democratic centralists" (T. V. Sapronov, N. Osinsky, M. S. Boguslavsky, A. S. Bubnov, and others) demanded freedom of factions and groupings in the party, opposed one-man management and strict discipline in production. NI Bukharin, Yu. Larin, G. Ya. Sokolnikov, EA Preobrazhensky, and others formed a "buffer" group, which in words advocated reconciliation of differences and prevention of a split in the party, but in deeds supported the Trotskyists. During the discussion, the majority of the "buffer" group openly sided with Trotsky. The platforms of all opposition groups, despite all their differences, were anti-party, alien to Leninism. The party opposed them with a document signed by V. I. Lenin, J. E. Rudzutak, I. V. Stalin, M. I. Kalinin, G. I. Petrovsky, F. A. Sergeev (Artyom), A. S. Lozovsky and others, - the so-called "platform of 10". It clearly defined the functions and tasks of the trade unions, emphasized their enormous role in the restoration of the national economy, in the development of socialist production.
The struggle against opportunist groupings and trends was led by the majority of the members of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), headed by V.I. Lenin. Lenin's articles and speeches, which helped communists and non-party people sort out the discussion, were of decisive importance for exposing the opportunist essence of opposition groups, their disorganizing, splitting activities: his speech on December 30, 1920 "On the trade unions, the current situation and the mistakes of Comrade Trotsky" (1921 ), the article "The Crisis of the Party" (1921) and the brochure "Once again about the trade unions, about the current situation and the mistakes of Comrades. Trotsky and Bukharin "(1921). Lenin showed the importance of the trade unions as an educational organization, as a school of administration, a school of management, a school of communism, as one of the most important links connecting the party with the masses. He deeply substantiated the need to conduct trade union work primarily by persuasion. The overwhelming majority of party members rallied around the Leninist line of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), and the opposition suffered complete defeat everywhere. Tenth Congress of the RCP (b) (March 1921) summed up the discussion, adopted Lenin's platform and condemned the views of opposition groups. In a special resolution "On Party Unity", adopted at the suggestion of Lenin, the congress ordered that all opposition groups be immediately disbanded and that any factional actions in the ranks of the party should not be allowed in the future. The ideological defeat of anti-party groups during the discussion was of great importance for the implementation of the transition to NEP, for strengthening the unity of the party and the further development of Soviet trade unions. Lenin's instructions on the role of trade unions as a school of communism are still one of the most important principles of the CPSU's policy towards trade unions.
Trade unions of Russia during the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917.
The collapse of industry and military defeats prepared the revolutionary explosion in February 1917. Immediately after the victory over the autocracy, the workers set about organizing trade unions. Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries created initiative groups at individual enterprises, reviving or reorganizing trade unions. Already on March 2, the newspaper Pravda addressed the workers with an appeal: "The Petrograd Committee invites comrades to immediately organize trade unions on a private basis."
This was the time of the real "revolutionary creativity of the masses." In the first two months after the overthrow of the monarchy, more than 130 unions were created in Petrograd and Moscow alone, and over 2 thousand throughout Russia. In Petrograd alone, as of October 1, 1917, 34 trade unions were operating, uniting 502,829 members, while the 16 largest trade unions had 432,086 members, or 86%.
However, the growth in the number of trade unions has outpaced the growth in their real strength. This was due to the fact that the previously established practice of their actions was not adapted to the conditions of the revolution. It was designed for a period of industrial growth in conditions of stable development of society, when workers could fight for higher wages, better working conditions, based on the economic capabilities of the enterprise. Meanwhile, in conditions of disorganization of production, a lack of raw materials, fuel and financial resources that threatened to shut down enterprises, the flight of entrepreneurs and the administration of state-owned enterprises, other methods of fighting for the interests of workers were required. During this period, the slogan of establishing workers' control over production became very popular among the workers of large enterprises.
At many enterprises, special working bodies arose: factory committees (FZK), which, along with exercising workers' control, assumed some of the functions of the trade unions. Initially, this form of workers' organization arose outside the framework of the trade union movement and was built on the production principle. FZK were elected by all employees of the enterprise.
For the current work of the FZK, presidiums and secretariats were elected, commissions were created: conflict, pricing, for the distribution of work among the employees of the enterprise, technical and financial control, food, cultural and educational, etc. In large centers of the FZK, territorial and sectoral associations began to be created. Unlike the trade unions, the FZK advocated workers' control over production, including "complete regulation of production and distribution of products." In the fall of 19S7, about 100 central councils of the FZK operated in 65 industrial centers in Russia. The FZK manifested syndicalist tendencies in their activities, actively intervening in the economic life of Russia.
The existence and development of such associations could not but lead to a conflict with the Menshevik wing of the trade unions. This was especially clearly manifested at the III All-Russian Conference of Trade Unions, held on June 21-28, 1917 in Petrograd. By this time, trade unions had 1.5 million members. The Mensheviks and their supporters had a numerical superiority over the representatives of the Bolsheviks and other left-wing parties. The bloc "unity of the trade union movement" included the Mensheviks, Bundists, Jewish socialists, the right wing of the Socialist-Revolutionaries (about 110-120 people). The bloc "revolutionary internationalists" included representatives of the Bolsheviks, "Mezhraiontsy", the left part of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, "Novozhiznets" (about 80-90
human).
At the heart of all the disagreements at the Third Conference lay a different assessment of the nature of the revolution.
Despite internal differences, the Mensheviks opposed the utopian ideas of "the immediate transformation of the bourgeois democratic revolution into a socialist one." In their opinion, while remaining militant class organizations, the trade unions had to defend the socio-economic interests of their members in a bourgeois democracy. The emphasis was placed on peaceful means of struggle; conciliation chambers, arbitration courts, development of tariff agreements and collective agreements. It was proposed to use economic strikes only as a last resort and in the presence of a powerful strike fund. In his closing remarks, the interim chairman of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions V. P. Grinevich formulated his view of the development of the trade union movement during the development of the revolution: the basic tasks of the trade unions, which are caused by the very structure of the capitalist system and which are created by the international struggle of the proletariat of all countries, have not changed either. Therefore, we must categorically declare that the main tasks of the trade unions remain, as they were, the tasks of leading the economic struggle. "
The leaders of the Bolsheviks assessed the situation quite differently. In the theses of G. Ye. Zinoviev "On the Party and Trade Unions", prepared for the III All-Russian Conference of Trade Unions, it was stated that "the working class (of the whole world) is entering a period of grandiose social battles that must end in the world socialist revolution."
The Bolsheviks reproached the Mensheviks for not noticing the economic devastation, posing before the trade unions only the old tasks of the economic struggle. Recognizing the strike as the only revolutionary method of struggle, the Bolsheviks proposed placing it at the forefront of the activity of the trade unions.
The opposition of the parties manifested itself most sharply during the discussion of the issue of control over production. The majority of the delegates rejected the proposals of the Bolsheviks about the transition of trade unions from control over the activities of the administration of enterprises to the organization of economic life.
By the decision of the III All-Russian Conference, the central bureaus were renamed into councils of trade unions. It was decided to create an All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions (AUCCTU), where 16 Bolsheviks, 16 Mensheviks and 3 Social Revolutionaries were elected. V.P. Grinevich became the chairman of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions. Thus, the conference organizationally formalized a single trade union movement in Russia.
Despite the victory of the Mensheviks, since it was their resolutions that were adopted by the III All-Russian Conference of Trade Unions, by October 1917 the situation in the trade unions began to change. As the economic and political crisis in the country intensified, the balance of power in the trade unions began to tilt in favor of the Bolsheviks.
This was largely due to the fact that the Provisional Government was unable to fulfill its promises to improve the position of the working class.
The Provisional Government chose a tactic based on the principle of gradualness: the introduction of an 8-hour working day not throughout Russia and not at all enterprises at once. Under pressure from trade unions, the Provisional Government decided to establish an institute of labor inspectors and to restrict night work for women and children under 17 years of age. At the same time, the application of this legislation was not allowed at defense enterprises.
In the field of social insurance, the Ministry of Labor has prepared a number of laws: in July - the law “On health insurance”, in October - “On maternity insurance”, “On the reorganization of insurance councils”, etc. However, with the exception of the first, they did not enter into action.
Given the rise in inflation, unions have fought for higher wages, advocating for new tariffs based on collective agreements. Until October 1917, 70 tariff agreements were concluded in the country. However, tariff agreements were not able to radically improve the material situation of workers.
This was largely due to the continuing decline in industrial production and rising unemployment. The rise in prices led to a sharp drop in real wages, which in 1917 was 77.6% of the 1913 level.
It was on the basis of social despair that the determination of the masses of workers to put an end to the rule of the Provisional Government was strengthened. There was a radicalization of the masses, their trade unions and factory committees. The influence of the left parties began to increase in the trade unions.
If in April 1917 in the Petrograd Central Bureau of Trade Unions during the decisive votes there was an equality of votes (11 Mensheviks and 11 Bolsheviks), then after the July events the plenum of the Council of Trade Unions by a majority of votes adopted a political declaration on the report of L.D. Trotsky, declaring the revolution in danger and calling the working class and peasant democracy in an organized way rally around the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies "to bring Russia to the Constituent Assembly, to wrest it from the embrace of the imperialist war, in order to carry out all the social reforms necessary to save the revolution."
On August 24 and 26, the Council of Trade Unions, together with the Central Council of the FZK, adopted an even harsher resolution. The resolution demanded the immediate implementation of workers 'control over industry, the organization of a workers' militia, control over the actions of the military authorities of Petrograd, etc.
By October 1917, most trade unions in Russia were Bolsheviks. Shortly before the October events, a delegate meeting of the Moscow Union of Metalworkers took place in Moscow. The resolution adopted by the majority of the meeting participants emphasized: “Industrial capital, organized in a powerful syndicate, sets itself the goal - by disorganizing production and the resulting unemployment - to pacify the working class and at the same time suppress the revolution, provoke workers into partial strikes that undermine that upset production. " The meeting demanded from the Soviet of Workers' Deputies an immediate transition to the "revolutionary organization of all industrial life", forcing the entrepreneurs to satisfy all the economic demands of the workers by issuing a decree on the control of factory committees over hiring and dismissal.
The inconsistency of the Provisional Government led to the discontent of the working masses, who took an active part in the October Revolution of 1917. According to MP Tomsky, the headquarters of the Military Revolutionary Committee (VRK) was located in the premises of the Petrograd Council of Trade Unions. On October 25, the board of the Petrograd Metalworkers' Union allocated 50 thousand rubles to the Military Revolutionary Committee, and the delegate council of the union, which passed on November 5, approved these appropriations and the position of the board as "correct and worthy of a large proletarian organization."
In Moscow, part of the headquarters of the uprising was located in the premises of the metalworkers' union, and part of the trade unions sympathizing with the revolution created their own Revolutionary Committee of 9 people, which operated in the rear of the troops loyal to the Provisional Government.
At the same time, the Executive Committee of the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions, whose activities were paralyzed by its almost parity membership, did not take part in the preparation of the revolutionary action. According to the memoirs of P. Garvey, a member of the AUCCTU executive committee, the secret meetings of the Bolshevik part of the AUCCTU leadership, dedicated to organizing the uprising, were held on the first floor of the Smolny Institute. S. Lozovsky and D. B. Ryazanov took part in their organization.
Under the influence of the Bolsheviks, part of the trade unions took an active part in the overthrow of the Provisional Government. The transport workers' union confiscated cars from the garage of the Provisional Government, transferring them to the use of the Provisional Revolutionary Committee. Many trade unions created workers' detachments that took part in the seizure of the most important points of Petrograd.
Summing up the activities of the trade unions in Russia during the development of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917, it must be said that within the trade unions there was a fierce political struggle between the two currents of Russian social democracy. Trade unions were faced with a choice: social partnership within the framework of bourgeois democracy or participation in political struggle and the establishment of control over production. The political and economic situation prevailing in the country, the inconsistency of the social policy of the Provisional Government inevitably led to the victory of the supporters of the radical revolutionary movement within the trade unions.
Historical experience of relations between trade unions and political parties in the Х1Х-beginning XX centuries. (on the example of one country) - Let's take Russia. see # 4 + below.
Russian trade unions were formed later than political parties. There were no trade unions yet, but practically all political parties, to a greater or lesser extent, had developed programs of activity in these organizations. In Russia, political parties sought to exert not only ideological influence on the trade unions, but also to lead them. In many European countries, on the contrary, trade unions contributed to the formation of workers' parties, while at the same time defending the "neutrality" of the trade union movement.
From the very beginning of their existence, the trade unions of Russia have been politicized. The Bolsheviks, who tried to introduce socialist ideals into the trade union masses, played a particularly active position in the matter of "politicizing" the trade unions. At the Stuttgart Congress of the Second International (August 1907), the Bolsheviks, with the support of the Left Social Democrats, succeeded in rejecting by the Congress the thesis of "neutrality" of the trade unions. Congress passed a resolution guiding the trade unions towards rapprochement with party organizations.
An important feature of the Russian trade union movement was the close connection between the economic and political struggle, which was natural. As you know, trade unions in Russia emerged during the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907, which left a big imprint on the workers' struggle for social and democratic rights. Only by their participation in the political struggle, the trade unions could achieve concessions from the tsarist government, ensuring their legal existence. Along with economic demands, Russian trade unions constantly put forward political slogans: freedom of speech, press, assembly.
Trade unions in the period of the new economic policy (1921-1925).
The implementation of a new economic policy, the introduction of new forms of management caused significant changes in the position of the trade unions.
During the summer of 1921, a number of decrees were issued that stimulated the development of industrial cooperatives. The latter received the rights of legal entities, could use hired labor, not exceeding 20% of the people working for them, and were not subject to control by the People's Commissariat of Workers 'and Peasants' Inspection.
The next step was the return to private management and control of those industrial enterprises that had previously been nationalized and taken from their owners. A resolution adopted by the party conference in May 1921 recognized the right of “local economic bodies” to lease out enterprises under their jurisdiction. On the basis of this decision, on July 6, 1921, the Council of People's Commissars issued a decree establishing the conditions for the leasing of nationalized enterprises. The tenants, in accordance with the Civil and Criminal Codes, were responsible for the serviceability and maintenance of the leased enterprises, and were also fully responsible for the supply of enterprises and those working for them.
The census of 1,650,000 industrial enterprises, conducted in March 1923, showed that 88.5% of enterprises are in the hands of private entrepreneurs or are leased. State-owned enterprises accounted for 8.5%, and cooperative enterprises - 3%. However, 84.5% of workers were employed in state-owned enterprises.
All this presented the trade unions with the need to restructure their work. On January 17, 1922, the Pravda newspaper published the theses "On the role and tasks of trade unions in the conditions of the new economic policy" adopted by the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b). The theses outlined a new course for the trade unions in the conditions of NEP. The document indicated that in conditions when the development of trade and capitalism is allowed, and state-owned enterprises switch to self-financing, a contradiction will inevitably arise between the working masses and the administrations of enterprises. Given the inevitability of conflict situations, the theses called the main task of the moment to protect the class interests of the proletariat by the trade unions. For this, the trade union apparatus was asked to restructure its work in such a way that it would be able to actively defend its members in the face of employers. The trade unions were recognized as having the right to create conflict commissions, strike funds, mutual aid funds, etc.
By the early 1920s, the trade union movement had an extensive system of union and inter-union bodies. The All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions included 23 branch trade unions with 6.8 million members.
In order to meet the needs of the times, the trade unions had to change their organizational structure. During the Civil War, all the work of the trade unions was concentrated around the inter-union associations. Inter-union bodies existed everywhere: provincial councils of trade unions, bureaus or authorized representatives of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions, county bureaus and local secretariats.
Provincial councils of trade unions and county bureaus have practically concentrated all union work in their hands. Production (sectoral) associations were constantly decreasing in number, passing into subordination to inter-union associations. After the IV Congress, their number was reduced to 21.
Under the conditions of NEP, the leadership of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions regarded the strengthening of regional inter-union bodies as "harm to the trade union movement."
The All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions decisively opposed the strengthening of the gubernia trade union councils, not allowing them to close the local branches of the industrial unions. Since 1922, the restoration of some unions, previously absorbed by other unions, begins. Thus, the union of art workers separated from the union of educators, and the unions of water workers and railroad workers were divided. The restoration of governorate departments and district branches of industrial trade unions began, while the apparatus of inter-union associations began to decline.
Finally, the idea of a "united union" was rejected by the V Congress of Trade Unions, which took place on September 17-22, 1922.
The resolution on the organizational issue adopted by the congress noted that the structure of trade unions should correspond to the task of protecting the rights and interests of the working class by trade unions. In accordance with the variety of forms of organization of branches of the national economy (trust, centralized management, non-coincidence of areas of operation, etc.), the congress recognized the need to shift the center of gravity of work to the production unions. This decision was supposed to help protect the interests of workers through collective agreements and tariff agreements in various industries.
The congress decided to introduce voluntary trade union membership. In the opinion of the congress delegates, individual membership was "the best form of communication between an ordinary worker and his union." The resolution emphasized that simultaneously with the introduction of individual trade union membership, "agitation work among the backward strata of the proletariat should be intensified."
Simultaneously with the introduction of individual membership in trade unions, sectional construction was introduced in the practice of organizational work, which made it possible to involve in trade unions representatives of those industries that were isolated from the main production.
The new economic policy inevitably led to a reduction in the state budget, and, consequently, to a reduction in funding for trade unions. The trade unions were faced with the question of self-financing of their activities. During 1921-1923, the transition of unions to existence was completed entirely at the expense of membership fees.
Organizational changes in the trade unions contributed to the growth and strengthening of the trade union movement. The rapid pace of the revival of industry, the increase in the number of workers employed in industry and other sectors of the national economy, ensured an increase in the number of trade unions. By the spring of 1926, there were 8 million 768 thousand people in the trade unions. Trade unions united 89.8% of all workers and employees in the country.
The largest trade unions were the unions of metal workers, miners and textile workers.
The growth in the number of trade unions was accompanied by the expansion of the network of trade union organizations and an increase in the trade union activism. In many respects, this was facilitated by a new form of organization of trade union work - shop bureaus. These trade union bodies, elected in the shops, made it possible to strengthen the leadership of the trade union activist, to speed up the resolution of industrial conflicts.
Summing up the changes that took place in the work of trade unions during the period of the new economic policy, it should be noted that the positions of industrial branch associations of trade unions were strengthened, while maintaining the general leadership of the inter-union centers. A number of organizational reforms (voluntary and individual membership, section building, development of an independent financial base) contributed to the development and strengthening of trade union ties with the masses, helped them get out of the protracted crisis of the Civil War period.
Concern about working conditions, about the payment of wages, the leisure of workers and their family members, the solution of housing, food and many other issues allowed the trade unions to strengthen organizationally, to increase their numbers. The growth of the authority of the trade unions allowed them to mobilize workers for economic construction, which revived during the period of the new economic policy, to develop their creative initiative and activity.
Activities of Russian trade unions to protect the rights and interests of workers in 1905-1907.
Trade union movement in Russia during the first Russian revolution (1905-1907)
Since the events of January 9, 1905 (all dates beforeJ917 leadold style), which went down in history as "Bloody Sunday", the first Russian revolution began.
140 thousand St. Petersburg workers, driven to extremes by poverty and political powerlessness, went to the Winter Palace with a petition about their plight. Fire was opened on them. According to various sources, from 300 to a thousand demonstrators were killed and wounded. In response to the execution, the St. Petersburg workers responded with a mass strike. In support of them, strikes of solidarity took place throughout Russia. The total number of strikers across the country in January was about 500 thousand people, which was more than in the entire previous decade.
The first Russian revolution played a decisive role in the emergence and formation of Russian trade unions. The process of the formation of trade unions was of an avalanche nature and involved workers of various professions.
At first, trade unions arose in St. Petersburg, Moscow, where the workers' movement was most developed, the proletariat was the most united, organized and literate. The first trade unions were formed among highly skilled workers. Accountants, office workers and printers were among the first to form their own trade unions. They were followed by the unions of pharmacists, construction workers, salesmen. The first trade union organizations appeared at the industrial enterprises of the city - Putilovsky, Semyanikovsky, Obukhovsky plants. In the spring and summer, a wide variety of alliances began to form throughout the country.
The motive that pushed workers to join trade unions can be clearly seen in the speech of the chairman of the union of watchmakers, apprentices and clerks at a general meeting of workers in December 1905. The speaker said: “The union is something grandiose for the working people and formidable for the owners, since it marks an organized economic struggle against capitalist exploitation. With the help of the union, by developing self-awareness and raising our legal, mental and material level, we will become free citizens. Not miserable and scattered cowards, but brave and proud of their solidarity, fully armed with justice and truth, we will present our demands to those voracious sharks who are our masters. "
From the first days of their existence, trade unions have joined in the struggle to resolve pressing economic issues of workers: establishing an 8-hour working day, raising wages, improving working conditions, etc. The lack of general statistics does not allow us to accurately trace the influence of trade unions on the course and results of the economic struggle. therefore, by way of illustration, we will refer to examples. In 1905, workers in Samara and Orel achieved an 8-hour working day. At all the factories of the maritime department, the working day was reduced to 10 hours, and in the port workshops - to 9 hours. The workers also achieved some success in raising wages, which increased by 10%.
Under the influence of the strike struggle of the proletariat, representatives of employees, the intelligentsia, and students began to create their unions. In May 1905, 14 such unions merged into the Union of Unions.
But even the first experience of organizing workers' demonstrations showed that small, insufficiently organized and united trade unions, which do not have a strike fund, are not in a position to conduct a successful long struggle. In this respect, comparative figures for the duration of strikes for 1895-1904 in European countries, where there was a developed trade union movement, are indicative. In England the strike lasted 34 days, in France - 14 days, in Austria - 12, in Italy - 10, in Russia - 4 days.
Practice has shown that in the conditions of the upsurge of the labor movement in the trade unions, the question of the need to create leading, coordinating centers arose. In September 1905, the process of creating a city union of trade unions in St. Petersburg began. On November 6, representatives of six unions of the capital (unions of woodworkers, gardeners, workers, weavers, trimmers and braids, tailoring workers, shoemakers and shoemakers, printing workers).
formed the Central Bureau of St. Petersburg Trade Unions. V.P. Grinevich became its chairman.
In accordance with the charter, the Central Bureau consisted of three people from each union with a decisive vote and three people from each socialist party with an advisory vote. The voting procedure was established by the votes of those present, and not by the unions. The decisions were not binding.
A permanent secretariat of nine people was set up to handle current affairs. The Secretariat was the executive body of the Central Bureau. Representatives of the Central Bureau were members of the Executive Committee of the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Deputies with a decisive vote. The main activities of the Central Bureau were: the organization of general meetings of unions, the organization of libraries, medical and legal assistance.
As the trade movement expanded, there were changes in the charter of the Central Bureau. In December 1906, the principle of proportional representation was introduced into the Bureau's charter, which strengthened the influence of the large trade unions. At the same time, the principle of compulsory implementation of the adopted decisions was introduced.
Similar associations began to be created in other cities of Russia. The first meeting of "deputies of various professions in Moscow" took place on October 2, 1905. The meeting created a special "executive commission" of five workers, with an invitation to it representatives from political parties and trade unions, numbering more than a thousand people. The unions entering the urban association were supposed to be proletarian in nature, that is, not to include in their ranks the owners and representatives of the administration, which was supposed to create its own special professional associations. This was the beginning of the creation of the Central Bureau (CB) of trade unions in Moscow. Its charter, approved in September 1906, stated that any union has the right to send two of its representatives to its governing body, regardless of its size. The Executive Commission and the Joint Commission for Assistance to the Unemployed were elected to carry out the day-to-day work.
The Central Bank of Moscow Trade Unions developed an approximate charter, which determined the main goals and objectives of the professional association: protecting the legal and economic interests of workers, providing them with material assistance, promoting their mental, professional and moral development. The charter provided for trade union rights to rent premises; own property; organize meetings and conventions; provide legal and medical assistance to its members; to issue cash benefits during unemployment and sickness; enter into an agreement with the employers on wages, working hours and other working conditions; create clubs, libraries, reading rooms; arrange lectures, excursions, readings, courses; have your own organ. All workers without distinction of gender, religion, nationality could join the trade union.
In 1906, central offices were established in Kharkov, Kiev, Astrakhan, Saratov, Nizhny Novgorod, Odessa, Voronezh and other cities. By 1907, central bureaus were operating in 60 cities across the country.
An indicative factor in the striving of the Russian trade union movement for unity and strengthening was the 1st All-Russian Conference, held in Moscow on October 6-7, 1905.
It discussed two issues: the formation of the Central Bank of Moscow Trade Unions and the preparation of the All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions, which was planned to be held in December 1905;
But political events in the country changed all plans. Already during the conference, on October 7, 1905, workers and employees of the Moscow-Kazan railway went on strike. They were joined by workers from other railway junctions. By October 11, the strike of railway workers covered almost all major roads in the country.
The speech of the railway workers served as a powerful impetus for the deployment of the strike movement throughout the country. It took only five days for the individual strikes to merge into an all-Russian political strike. The workers' protests were joined by white-collar workers, petty officials, representatives of the intelligentsia, and students. The total number of strikers exceeded 2 million, with most of the speeches taking place under political slogans. No other country in the world has known such a powerful strike.
Under these conditions, the tsarist government was forced to make concessions. On October 17, Nicholas II signed a manifesto in which democratic freedoms were "granted" to the population: conscience, speech, assembly, parties and unions.
The social democratic and bourgeois press reported that if the January and May strikes pushed the workers to unite in trade unions, the All-Russian October political strike led to the widespread creation of trade unions in all industries. According to the latest data, in the first half of 1907 there were 1,200 trade unions in the country with 340,000 members.
The successful strike struggle of enterprises forced the government to amend the legal conditions for holding strikes. The government commission on the labor question came to the conclusion that a strike is a completely natural phenomenon, organically connected with the economic conditions of industrial life. At the same time, strikes involving damage or destruction of property were punishable.
In addition, a severe punishment was established (up to 1 year 4 months in prison) for strikes on railways, postal and telegraph offices.
Later, in one of its explanations, the Senate recognized the unions' right to have their own strike fund. But in practice, the provincial presences closed the unions for economic strikes, did not allow the very word “strike” to be mentioned in the statutes, and the police continued to expel strikers as instigators of the riot.
After the defeat of the December armed uprising in Moscow, the revolutionary and strike movement in Russia declined. The government brutally cracked down on the participants in the revolution. Martial law was introduced in many counties, and military courts were in operation. Trade union leaders and activists were harassed. In St. Petersburg, about a thousand people belonging to workers' organizations were arrested, almost 7 thousand activist workers were expelled, 10 trade union magazines that published materials on the labor and trade union movement were closed, meetings and rallies were prohibited, and union boards were deprived of the right to occupy premises for their work.
From the beginning of January 1906, the Moscow Union of Shoemakers ceased to exist, from January 20 - the Union of Tobacco Workers, the organizations of textile workers and printers were on the verge of collapse. Despite the downturn in the trade union movement, the unions clearly understood the need for organizational strengthening and strengthening of unity of action. Therefore, already in 1906, at a meeting of the Central Bank of Moscow Trade Unions, with the participation of representatives of the Central Bank of St. Petersburg Trade Unions, the issue of convening the II All-Russian Conference of Trade Unions was discussed.
The II All-Russian Conference of Trade Unions was held illegally in St. Petersburg on February 24-28, 1906. It was attended by 22 delegates from ten different cities. During the conference, reports from the field were heard on the state of the trade union movement, the next tasks of the trade unions were discussed. In particular, they discussed the problems of interaction between trade unions and political parties, the attitude of trade unions to the economic and political struggle. At the conference, an organizing committee was chosen to convene a congress of trade unions, which included 5 people.
The conference had a great influence on the further development of the trade union movement in Russia in terms of identifying ideological differences, developing the main directions of the work of trade unions, and their organizational strengthening.
Along with the creation of inter-union bodies, the trade unions were consolidated in the branches of the economy. In 1906-1907 passed; a conference of tailors of the Moscow industrial region (Moscow, August 25-27, 1906), a conference of textile workers of this area (the first - February 1907, the second - June 1907), a conference of architectural and construction workers (Moscow, February 2-6, 1907 g.), All-Russian conference of unions of workers of the printing business (Helsingfors, April 1907), conference of trade employees of the Moscow industrial region (Moscow, January 1907).
In the spring of 1906, after the rise of the political activity of the broad masses of the people associated with the elections to the State Duma, the growth of the labor movement began again. First of all, the proletariat had to fight to uphold the economic gains that it sought in 1905.
The most notable demonstrations of 1906 include the strike of 30 thousand textile workers, which took place in May-June in the Moscow province.
Particularly successful was the struggle to expand their rights among workers in the printing industry, where the influence of trade unions was very great. At this time in Russia there is a rapid growth in the production of printed products, which is associated with the well-known struggle of the press, the weakening of censorship, the expansion of book publishing. According to the calculations of V.V. Svyatlovsky, the first editor of the Trade Union magazine, from 120 to 150 thousand copies of various publications of trade union bodies alone were published monthly in St. Petersburg. Shorter working hours, higher wages, better working conditions were the basic requirements of any trade union. At the same time, each of them had their own special, pressing issues that required resolution.
Commercial and industrial officials sought Sunday and holiday rest. Architectural construction workers, who were closely associated with the village and were seasonal workers, opposed long-term hiring. The janitors' union fought against their police performance.
After the successful strikes, the number of union members rose sharply. Thus, in the first half of 1906 alone, more than one thousand people joined the printers 'union, 1.6 thousand new members joined the baker's trade union, and the Moscow metalworkers' union increased by 3 thousand members.
But the rapid growth in the number of members of trade union organizations during the period of the rise of the strike movement also had some negative consequences. This was due, first of all, to the arrival of insufficiently class-conscious workers in the trade unions, who relied only on the help of the trade unions, often refusing to even pay membership fees.
The defeat of the strike had a particularly negative effect on union membership. After the setbacks, the number of trade unions declined sharply. The defeat of the strikes weakened the unions, and a lot of organizational and explanatory work was required to strengthen them. The workers were understandable. They wanted quick immediate benefits, since the replenishment of the working class, and therefore the trade unions, came at the expense of people from the countryside, where there were very difficult living conditions, where hunger and crop failure were frequent guests in the huts. In the cities, people from the countryside expected hard unskilled labor and a minimum of livelihoods.
With the development of the professional movement, the trade unions of Russia were faced with the task of improving the forms and methods of their activities, and working out a development strategy.
It is obvious that in the period of the upsurge of the masses associated with revolutionary actions, active offensive actions of the trade unions, right up to the general strike, are most effective and effective. But during the recession of the revolution, when the trade unions were not yet ready to conduct wide protest actions, either organizationally or materially, it was more expedient to conduct a local struggle with solidarity support from other unions. The Russian labor movement has rich examples of class solidarity.
The proletarian solidarity of the trade unions was most clearly manifested during the period of the ód lockout. In December 1906, the owners of the 10 largest textile factories in ód dismissed 40,000 workers. Thanks to the trade union press, which called on the workers to provide moral and material assistance to the Lodz comrades, the whole of Russia became aware of this. Not only weavers, but also workers of other professions took part in raising funds for the fund for helping the Lodz textile workers.
The issues of providing workers with various assistance from the trade unions have become acute since their inception. In conditions of poverty, lack of rights, lack of state and municipal insurance, medical and legal assistance, workers immediately drew attention to trade unions, which, in the opinion of workers, should strive not only to improve working conditions, but also to help those in need.
The trade unions faced a problem that has not lost its acuteness at the present time: to turn into a "mutual assistance fund" or to direct all forces and resources to protective activities.
Taking into account the real Russian reality, the trade unions settled on a compromise option. Thus, the II All-Russian Conference of Trade Unions noted that a trade union should in no case turn into a mutual aid fund, but should be a militant organization of workers to fight for better working conditions, allocating most of all cash receipts to a special strike fund. Yet delegates admitted that unions could establish unemployment benefits, road travel assistance to find jobs, and accumulate funds to organize legal, medical and similar assistance.
During this period, providing assistance to the unemployed by trade unions became one of the most difficult tasks. At the beginning of 1906, there were 300 thousand unemployed in Russia, of which about 40 thousand were in St. Petersburg, 20 thousand were in Moscow, and 15 thousand were in Riga. Of course, it was very difficult for the trade unions, which were still insufficiently organized and strengthened, with insignificant funds, to provide real assistance to the unemployed, but, whenever possible, this work was carried out constantly. According to the calculations of the chairman of the Central Bank of St. Petersburg Trade Unions, V.P. Grinevich, by the fall of 1906, about 11 thousand rubles were received in favor of the unemployed. In some unions, especially in the union of bakers and confectioners in Moscow, instead of material assistance, the unemployed were provided with free hostels and meals.
The administrative arbitrariness of the authorities in every possible way interfered with the cultural and educational activities of the trade unions. On the one hand, lectures were not allowed, on the other hand, persecution of "unreliable" lecturers was established.
But, despite this, from the moment of their inception, the trade unions began to actively engage in cultural and educational work. Lack of education, illiteracy, political lawlessness, and harsh exploitation determined the very low cultural level of the broadest working masses. The charters of all unions aimed at raising the cultural and educational level of their members. Many large trade unions have their own libraries. Of the 35 St. Petersburg unions at the beginning of 1907, 14 had them, 22 libraries were formed by the trade unions of Moscow.
In 1905-1907, 120 trade union newspapers and magazines were published. Of these, in St. Petersburg - 65, in Moscow - 20, in Nizhny Novgorod - 4.
The trade union press promoted the importance and objectives of trade unions in society, contributing to its cohesion. The press regularly covered questions of the economic and political situation of the working class, problems of labor legislation.
The release of leaflets by trade unions in connection with various economic and political actions was of great importance.
The trade union that emerged during the first Russian revolutionthe movement has gone through a genuine school of struggle for the rights of its members, for its own survival. Russian trade unions are actively involved inThey took part in the strike struggle and other actions of the proletariat.By defending the vital interests of workers, trade unions are a way topromoted their social awakening, the formation of citizensself-awareness. Expansion and organizational strengtheningthe trade union movement in Russia inevitably led to its recognition by the state authorities, which could no longer ignoreto establish the existence of mass workers' associations.
The first law on trade unions in Russia
The manifesto of October 17, 1905 gave the workers the right to meet and organize unions. At the same time, the lack of clear directives and laws allowed the authorities to disperse general meetings of workers and hinder the activities of trade unions.
The growing labor movement forced the government to make concessions.
In the spring of 1905, the government was forced to recognize the need for a law on trade unions.
The drafting of the bill was entrusted to F.V. The developed project was a parity law, that is, equalizing the rights of workers and entrepreneurs. The laws of Belgium and England were taken as a model of the project, as well as the first charters of trade unions of carpenters and tailors, which were developed in the initial period of the first Russian revolution.
In accordance with the project, trade unions could be created at the request of workers to develop the terms of an employment contract and working conditions, as well as to protect their economic interests. Unions could be built both according to class (united only workers) and mixed (united workers and entrepreneurs) types. Trade unions received the right to create strike funds and funds to help the unemployed. The closure of unions could only take place through a court order.
This project turned out to be too liberal for the tsarist government. Minister of Trade and Industry V. I. Timiryazev and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers S. Yu. Witte made their additions and changes to it.
The new bill still preserved some of the "gains" of the workers' unions. For example, trade unions continued to depend on the judiciary rather than police brutality, and various union associations could exist.
The State Council, as the last instance, made its additions on the basis that "freedom of association would not serve to the detriment of the interests of the state."
The Council found it unacceptable to keep the labor unions under the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Members of the State Council feared that the courts might fall under the influence of public opinion. This could be avoided only by transferring the running of the trade unions into the hands of the administrative authorities, that is, the bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The State Council also limited the right of unions to create inter-union associations and their own branches.
The most conservative minority (18 people) proposed to prohibit women from participating in trade unions. In the journal of the General Meeting of the State Council, representatives of this group pointed out that “we should not forget that according to the current ... laws, women do not enjoy political rights. Therefore, admitting them to participate in the public life of the country as part of various societies or circles pursuing political goals is hardly a necessity. " Interestingly, the conservative part of the State Council referred to the Prussian legislation on trade unions of March 11, 1850, which limited the participation of women in the activities of unions. This point of view was not supported by the remaining 67 board members.
In general, the discussion of the bill showed that the members of the State Council tried in every possible way to limit the rights of unions, seeing in them a serious danger to "public peace and order." Adopted on March 4, 1906, "Provisional Regulations. On Professional Societies Established for Persons in Trade and Industrial Enterprises, or for the Owners of These Enterprises" were met with harsh criticism from Russian public opinion.
In the final version, the law reduced the activity of trade unions to the issuance of benefits, to the organization of mutual aid funds, libraries, and vocational schools. But they had no right to create strike funds and organize strikes.
The ban on the formation of trade unions extended to railway workers, post and telegraph workers, government employees and agricultural workers.
The existence of trade unions was allowed only directly at the enterprise, that is, the activities of the union were limited to the factory territory.
The law placed professional societies under the control of the police and state authorities. A union could be closed down if its activities threatened "public safety and tranquility" or took a "clearly immoral direction." Despite the restrictions, trade unions were able to defend workers as legal entities. They could defend workers in arbitration courts and chambers of conciliation, they could negotiate with entrepreneurs and conclude collective agreements and contracts.
Trade unions were able to find out the size of wages in various industries and trade, as well as provide assistance in finding work.
The rules provided for the procedure for creating a trade union. For the registration of unions, city and provincial presences were created for the affairs of societies. Within two weeks, it was necessary to submit a notarized written application and charter to the senior factory inspector, who further sent them.
Failure to comply with and non-compliance with articles of the law was punishable by arrest up to three months.
Despite many prohibitions and restrictions, the "Temporary Rules" became a piece of legislation that gave employees the right to form trade unions and carry out their activities.
The adoption of the Law "On Trade Unions" of March 4, 1906 marked the beginning of the formation of Russian legislation on trade unions. At the same time, it should be noted that the adoption of this law pursued the goal of restraining the further development of the trade union movement generated by the revolution. The tsarist government sought to extinguish the initiative of the workers to create trade unions on an unannounced basis, thereby placing the latter under strict control of the state power.
Despite its shortcomings, the Provisional Rules remained the only trade union law until 1917.
Trade union representatives work in the parliaments of the EU countries. Not a single law is adopted without their agreement.
An acquaintance of the head of the HR department of a Scandinavian company recently complained: "I was tired, there were difficult negotiations with the trade unions - two employees were fired." And in response to my surprise, he clarified - "in the EU, you cannot terminate a contract with an employee without his consent, agreement with the trade union and solid compensation." Trade unions in Europe are stronger than political parties. Can Russia benefit from the experience of partners?
We are talking about this with Marina Viktorovna Kargalova, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Chief Researcher of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of the Center for Problems of Social Development of Europe.
- Yes it is. But trade unions in Europe are very different. The whole spectrum of the political orientation of society is presented - from the left wing, uniting workers, supporting socialists and communists, to the so-called “yellow” or “home” trade unions created by entrepreneurs. The problems they have to solve are practically the same. At some enterprises, one trade union is stronger. On others, the other.
The trade unions are financed in part by the state, local authorities and business owners. Union members pay monthly dues - about 1-2% of their wages.
To protect the interests of personnel, there are also so-called enterprise committees. Representatives of all trade unions represented in this enterprise work in them. It is with the enterprise committee that employers negotiate. The role of trade unions is large enough. For example, the post of deputy director of an enterprise for personnel is traditionally held by a representative of the most authoritative trade union at the enterprise. This alone speaks of how professional organizations are reckoned with in Europe.
The most effective phase of the trade union movement falls on the period after the Second World War, when the activity of the people was on the rise. Since the 70s, with a change in the economic and political situation, this movement has declined, today it covers about 10-15% of working Europeans. Nevertheless, anyone working in the enterprise can contact the union for dismissal, wage increases, etc. All these problems are solved by the local trade union and the enterprise committee.
- Why are Europeans leaving trade unions today?
- After the end of the Second World War, under the influence of the popular movement in Europe, an advanced system of social protection of workers was formed. It remains so to this day. All social programs were legislatively enshrined and debugged. So Europeans today do not need to actively fight to expand their rights. At present, all activities of trade unions, as a rule, are reduced to preserving everything they had, to protect themselves from the negative consequences of globalization. Beneath its rink, social protection systems that have been formed over the years in a particular European country are crumbling. The conditions for doing business have changed, even the amounts required to support those in need have changed. And although all EU member states consider themselves social, which is enshrined in their constitutions, they are unable to provide a high standard of living for all Europeans. This is especially true for southern Europe - Portugal, Greece, Spain and the new eastern members of the Community.
Today it has become clear that without the help of business and the private sector, the state is unable to maintain high social guarantees for workers. It is known that the population of Western Europe at one time received the name "golden billion". And apparently not by chance: after all, two-thirds of Europeans consider themselves to be middle class, which speaks for itself.
- What is the difference between the middle class in Europe and Russia?
- The living standard of Europeans is quite high. The middle class are apartment owners, and a family has not one apartment and a car, but three or four. The living space is different from ours. An Italian family friend of mine has apartments in Rome and Florence. I have stayed with them several times, but I could not figure out how many rooms they have. The apartment is located on two floors in an old palazzo.
- Who is considered poor in Europe?
- Any worker with an income of less than two thousand euros. (This is the average salary in the European Union.) He is entitled to an allowance and social benefits. Moreover, the benefits apply to housing, food, education, health care. I remember that my French friend complained - "I got sick, and the money for the medicines was returned only after two months." We would have their worries.
- Yes, their income cannot be compared with ours ...
- As well as taxes, which reach 40-50% of the income of a European with an average income.
- Many experts believe - a problem that can bring down the social system of Europe - migrants.
- This is the most serious challenge. In recent decades, the influx of immigrants to the EU countries has become massive and often uncontrollable. This is due to both the increased demand for additional labor and the changed political situation in North Africa and the Middle East. The high standard of living of Europeans is also an attractive force. After all, everyone who legally resides in the territory of 28 EU countries has the right to all social benefits of the indigenous population. Often, the claims of visitors do not match their contribution to the economic development of the host countries. In England, for example, there were demonstrations of migrants demanding payment of benefits for children left in the countries from which they came.
Are Europeans becoming victims of democracy?
- The EU welcomed migrants very hospitably. But some of their categories pose big problems. For example, the Roma issue, which is directly called a social danger for Europe. According to unofficial data, more than 10 million Roma live in the EU. Special laws were adopted for their social and professional adaptation. However, they prefer to lead a nomadic lifestyle, moving in search of the most favorable conditions. But they do not want to work according to their qualifications, as a rule, they are low. They say that if we work hard, we won't earn more than 50 euros a day. And if we dance, tell fortunes, steal - less than 100 euros will not work. So they wander around Europe. But not in wagons, but in trailers with all the amenities. They stop wherever they want. You can't go to this place later. Theft, dirt, fires, conflicts with the local population ...
The EU has programs for the construction of social housing, which are designed to ensure settled life. In Slovakia, I visited a town for gypsies, which consisted of multi-colored four-storey houses with all amenities, equipped with modern household appliances. There is a modern playground in the yard.
After two or three months, nothing was left of it. Even the bathtubs were taken out of the apartments and the doorknobs were unscrewed. Numerous cars were parked on the playground. A similar picture is observed in other countries. The main income of most Roma families is child benefits. The reason for dissatisfaction, up to the riots, was the decision of some European countries to pay benefits only up to the fifth child.
- How does the European Union manage to solve social problems and maintain a high standard of living?
- It is hardly legitimate to say that the European Union is successfully solving social problems. The proof is the numerous protests of workers in different member states against reforms in the social sphere. Organized protests are initiated by trade unions. In their opinion, the planned reforms of pension systems, social security, and cuts in social budgets will inevitably lead to a decrease in the living standards of the population. Demonstrations of workers took place in Italy, France, Spain, Germany. Of course, each country has its own characteristics. However, not everyone is capable of solving their problems at the national level. Many problems are moving to the supranational level. This requires a pooling of forces. In this situation, a significant role can and should be played by the European Federation of Trade Unions, which unites 60 million people.
This trade union association has become an equal partner of business and government agencies. Its representatives are in the legislative and executive structures of the EU. In the European Commission, which can practically be regarded as a pan-European government, there are directorates dealing with the sphere of interests of trade unions. The Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, in which trade unions and business are represented, are actively operating. Without discussion in these committees, no law is submitted to parliament for approval.
Trade union representatives work in the parliaments of the EU countries. No law is passed without their agreement. Trade union representatives are members of the economic and social councils of each EU country.
Business social responsibility programs, the creation of which has become an indispensable condition for the activities of each enterprise, are coordinated with the state and the trade union. The EU strives to develop a person's professional capabilities through special programs and in various courses. Thus, there are two forms of vocational training for young people - colleges and training directly at the enterprise. This, incidentally, involves the subsequent provision of a job. What we called mentoring is an experienced professional sharing experience with a beginner. Today these programs are being cut due to the crisis. But many new courses, projects, programs have appeared.
And not only for young people. For example, the program “Lifelong Learning”, within the framework of which you can get a new profession, improve your qualifications, master a new technique throughout your life, regardless of age.
In every European enterprise a collective agreement is concluded between the trade union and the employer. In 2014, the collective agreement received legislative status. It is considered binding. For its violation, there is not only administrative responsibility. This is the loss of the company's reputation, which is very important for the largest European companies.
- And if the trade union has entered into an agreement with the employer, who will protect the interests of the employee?
- If an employee has not received protection from the trade union, he has the right to file a complaint with the state and receive from him, for example, a wage increase. Such cases are not uncommon. Workers often win such trials in court. Although annually in the EU, workers' wages are raised from 2 to 4%. But for some, this is not enough. Once in Rome, I witnessed a demonstration. The main requirement is to raise wages by 15%. I ask: "Do you really think they will raise?" "Of course not. But they will give at least another 7% ”.
Trilateral dialogue is of great importance in Europe. It is led by representatives of civil society, business and government. Any problem has been discussed within this format for over 100 years! At first, this form was practiced at enterprises, then at the level of industries, at the national and supranational levels. During the dialogue, the parties realize that as a result, both the reputation and the profit of the enterprise grows. It is not for nothing that one percent of an enterprise's income is paid to unions for critical reflection on business proposals.
- Which EU countries are the most socially protected?
- The first place in social protection in Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland). The role of the state is great there. Social spending is 40% of GDP. In the European Union, a lot is also spent on social programs - 25-30% of GDP. The amount is very decent. But the crisis is cutting the budget. However, today it is important for Europe to preserve all the social gains that it has.
In Germany, everything is clearly spelled out, each land has its own forms of collective agreement. In Greece, it comes to an anecdote. Demonstrations are taking place - employers do not want to pay the 14th salary. In the recent past, clerks there received 300 euros for coming to work on time. They also paid locomotive drivers to wash their hands frequently due to dirty work. Such social protection is not good.
- Are Russian business and trade unions adopting European experience?
- I am pleased that scientists have begun to be involved in the development of social programs in Russia. Thus, the trade union of our large oil company Lukoil uses the experience of Europeans. I am familiar with their Social Code and the collective agreement and I can say that they are not inferior to their European counterparts in terms of the degree of protection of workers. Our oil workers provide recreation, education, medical services and even additional payments to workers' pensions, which are not available in the EU countries. But sometimes it happens that they are trying to implement the European experience, not taking into account the peculiarities and traditions of our country. So, borrowing the form of social dialogue, our trade unions did not quite understand the content. The Trilateral Commission was created and a rather lengthy process of formation and development of social dialogue was missed. It turned out that we have launched a social dialogue, but there should be a mutual movement towards each other.
Dear Mikhail Viktorovich, I would like to start our conversation with a clear understanding of the role of trade unions. To what extent is the significance of trade unions changing now, within Russia and in the world? How is Russia's more active participation in the international division of labor reflected on the activities of trade unions?
I must say that trade unions as an economic organization depend on the economy in which they operate. Twenty years ago there was a planned socialist economy and there were trade unions that operated within this economic system. Naturally, their actions were significantly different from the functioning of trade unions operating in the framework of the capitalist market economy. It is clear that during the transition from one economy to another, trade unions were forced to change in order to fulfill their role, their task, and this task is constant for all types of economic systems - it is the protection of the social interests of workers, primarily this concerns wages, but not only, these are social guarantees, and conditions, labor protection, the possibility of advanced training. The working conditions have changed, the methods of activity of trade unions and Russian trade unions are now fully consistent with trade unions in countries with a capitalist market economy. The trade unions of Russia, France, Germany, Sweden, the United States, with some peculiarities in each country, work on the same principles, with the same approaches, the same as those of our colleagues, our brothers in all countries.
Globalization now permeates the economies of all countries, including Russia, since dozens of transnational corporations work in Russia, and Russian citizens work for them. Russia occupies its own niche in the international division of labor. We criticize the raw material orientation of the development of our economy a lot, but we must state that the raw material component today is a significant sector of our economy, a significant number of workers, members of trade unions work there, it has its own specifics; in trade there is another specificity, in mechanical engineering, metallurgy, the third. Each trade union, each primary trade union organization must adequately respond to the type of production in which people work.
And what about efficiency today?
trade unions?
Those collective agreements that are currently concluded by trade union organizations, sectoral tariff agreements are generally satisfactory to workers. This is exactly the same trilateral cooperation or, as it is
it is now accepted to formulate social partnership. These terms have been introduced into circulation by the International Labor Organization. The cooperation of trade unions, employers and the state is organized on these principles. Of course, there are also labor conflicts, conflicts between trade unions, employers and owners. They are resolved in different ways - sometimes through negotiations, sometimes by force, there are strikes, hunger strikes. Employees do not always win, but if we take the ratio, then in most cases the workers' demands are satisfied.
If these requirements are not met, then unacceptable damage is caused to the business. Taking into account the needs of employees gives the business the opportunity to develop. There are owners who simply leave Russia when faced with the protection of the interests of workers. Means,
they don't really want to work here.
Unlike Europe and North America, capitalism is believed to have existed in Russia for only fifteen years. It is clear that the experience of relations between workers and employers abroad is much
more. How applicable is this experience in Russia? How much does collaboration with colleagues help Russian trade unions? On the other hand, from specialists and activists of the Western trade union
movement, one often hears that in connection with globalization, the complication of international economic life, there is a weakening of trade union identity. Transnational corporations acquire new instruments of pressure on trade unions, people are more interested in keeping their jobs than in meeting the accompanying demands. Is it possible to observe
is this process in Russia?
First, let us note that capitalism appeared in Russia not for the first time fifteen years ago. The main Russian trade unions also have more than a century of history. The trade unions began their history during the reign of Nicholas II - they received a legal opportunity to act as a result of the 1905 revolution. That revolution had two results: legal activity of trade unions was allowed and a decision was made in the elections to the first State Duma. Revolution of 1917
was largely due to the fact that "wild" Russian capitalism was selfish. The results of their labor were not shared with the workers, and without workers, more than one owner would create any surplus product.
Capitalism that emerged in the nineties is also quite “wild”. All generic diseases of this economic system manifest themselves clearly in our country. In this sense, our interaction, our exchange of experience with colleagues
abroad, which all the time operated in a market economy, gave a lot to our trade unions. At the moment, almost all Russian trade unions are members of international associations, and the all-Russian
The Federation is a member of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). Our Federation is actively working within the CIS. Our representatives, including myself, occupy prominent positions in these structures. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that all these positions are elective, our candidates have the support of colleagues. For example, I am the vice-president of the ITUC, the president of its All-European Regional Council and the president of the general trade union confederation, an association of trade unions operating in the CIS countries. The authority of the Russian trade unions in the world is quite high. The loss of positions by trade unions is related to the character
work. The labor process is becoming more and more individualized. Because of this, traditional types of trade unions are beginning to weaken. When a person works at home at a computer, it is difficult to talk about any trade union activity. However, in the future there will be a need to create new trade unions. This process is already underway in the most developed countries of the world. In the meantime, we see a relative decline in the number of trade union members.
True, in the economies of the northern countries of Europe the trade union movement is still strong - over the past seventy years there the coverage of trade union organizations has not dropped below 80%. We have about
50% of employees are members of trade unions. We are experiencing a decline in membership due to the restructuring of the economy, due to the transition of a significant number of people to self-employment or work in small enterprises. However, we have now launched a two-year project that we are confident will bring results in the creation of trade unions in small and medium-sized enterprises.
Trade unions do not exist in an airless space. What is the situation with interaction with other public structures, executive and legislative authorities today?
at the federal and regional levels, with the recently created Public Chamber of Russia?
If we are talking about the development of civil society in Russia, trade unions, due to their organization and size, are the basis of Russian civil society. Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia
is the largest public organization. We have 28 million members in our unions. As part of civil society, we manage to interact with elements of the political structure. Within the framework of civil society, we have organized our partnership with employers. Thus, a trilateral partnership becomes possible, on
on the basis of which special agreements are concluded that become
then the basis for collective agreements for individual enterprises.
With the renewal of such contracts, salaries are constantly increasing today. The price of labor is understated in our country against the background of existing prices for surrounding goods and services. Trade unions are a non-political organization, nevertheless, they have their own political interests, since many aspects of life are regulated by law. We are interested in working closely with the Federal Assembly, at the regional level with local legislative assemblies. This is an active and effective interaction - deputies must confirm their powers through elections, they turn to the population for support, and trade unions can either say “no” to a deputy who puts forward anti-popular proposals, or he relies on the opinion of the working people, protects their interests in the legislative assembly ...
A new element of Russian life is the Public Chamber. In my opinion, this is a fairly effective body with which we also have active relationships. The first composition of the Public Chamber consisted of seven people, representatives of trade unions, I myself am a member of the first composition.
Now elections are taking place to the Public Chamber of Russia of the second convocation, in which representatives of trade unions will also work.
Let's look at the activities of trade unions more broadly: it is no secret that Russian enterprises, especially small and medium-sized businesses, have not yet developed a culture of relations between workers and employers. Do you think that such a dialogue is being established now?
Unfortunately, this process is going slower than we would like. We have many owners and employers who behave not like owners, but like “owners”. They do not reckon with the fact that a person is not a cog, he is a citizen; any worker should be treated as a person and a citizen. On the other hand, employees do not always love their company that much and care about its development and prosperity. The initiative to solve these problems should nevertheless come from the employer: if he wants to build
a normal business, he must treat his employees like a human being. If it is, then the workers reciprocate.
Today, many small and medium-sized businesses do not have trade unions, because no one is forcing them to create trade unions. This is a voluntary matter. Workers unite to jointly defend their interests. A person can feel strong enough to defend his interests alone, he can do this completely, relying on the Labor Code. But then more effort is required from him.
The trade union movement is not the same - there are differences by industry, by region and by the form of ownership in the enterprises where the trade unions operate. Where unions manage to organize their work
more effective?
The form of ownership here plays a secondary role - often in state-owned enterprises, an employee is less comfortable than in a large transnational corporation that builds its activities at a modern level. Much depends on the activity of the trade union itself.
Not instantly, over the course of several years, step by step developing the foundations of interaction with owners, trade unions become an influential force, actively influence the personnel and internal policy of the enterprise and
entire industries. There are trade unions that are less active, there are internal contradictions.
An example of active trade unions is the trade unions of metallurgists and coal miners. Among the state employees I can mention the trade union of educators. And the trade unions, which have many problems, is the trade union of workers in the textile and light industry, firstly, due to the fact that these
the industries are going through hard times, and secondly, there is less active trade union work. There is another case: the trade union of trade workers. Trade is expanding and union activities are poor.
How do foreign investors behave? Do they have enough respect for their Russian employees?
For example, there is such a transnational corporation "McDonald's", which uses rather intensive work for low wages, employs young people, practically not observing the requirements of the Labor Code. This is happening all over the world, not only in Russia. And all over the world, this corporation fights against trade unions, prohibits their creation at their enterprises. This is a direct violation of Russian labor law. Several years ago, a conflict broke out in Moscow when they threatened the life and health of an activist who “dared” to create a trade union. I had to defend him, turn to law enforcement agencies, to the management of the company, the presumptuous manager was replaced, but, nevertheless, the attitude towards the trade unions did not change. Trade unions around the world are fighting against McDonald's. Other multinational companies, on the other hand, are quite socially oriented, offering normal wages and an additional social package.
Agree that you look at many issues from the position of the head of the Russian trade unions. And if you look from below: what is the greatest incentive for a person considering joining a union? In Soviet times, the trade unions had a serious system of social institutions. Has this system survived? Perhaps there are other attractive factors that can revitalize the trade union movement?
The incentives are different now. In the days of the Soviet Union, the opinion was that the trade union only distributes vouchers and tickets to the New Year trees, organizes summer vacations for children. Many of today's capitalists, business leaders would like to drive the trade unions back into this niche so that the trade union is a social department under the boss. This is unacceptable for the trade unions, we have left this niche. Trade unions must protect the interests of workers, first of all it concerns wages, labor protection, social package. All this, naturally, hurts the interests of the owners, as it raises labor costs. The employee must understand that the union will protect him in the event of a conflict. I repeat: the trade union forces the employer to treat the employee, not as a cog, but as a person. Hundreds of thousands of conflicts involving trade union lawyers go to trial every year. Trade union legal aid is free of charge for union members. More than 90 percent of such cases are resolved in favor of the employee. This is the main incentive. As for the preferences for trade union members, at most large enterprises, recreation centers and children's summer camps have been preserved and are actively functioning in accordance with collective agreements. Now
a large program is underway throughout Russia, according to which a discount on vouchers for trade union members is twenty percent or more. But this is an additional little candy.
Summing up the interim results of your activity: what do you see as the main achievement of the Russian trade unions, and where would you like to devote more efforts?
The fact that the trade unions were able to restructure and today are adequate to the type of economy that now exists in Russia, the fact that every year wages are growing by twenty-five percent in nominal terms (our foreign friends and colleagues are always very surprised at this, but we explain that we have a very low starting level, so we still have to grow and grow to the average European level, and this is our goal) - this is the achievement and the basis of our activity.
In the tasks for the future, wages are still in the first place. We are worried about the low level of pensions, because the pension is part of the employment contract. When a person works, he should know that in the end he will receive a decent pension. There are different world estimates, but we intend to reach the level of 40-60% of the lost earnings, because today it is only 10 to 25%.
It remains only to wish you success in this matter on behalf of the "Recognition" magazine and all organizations that are part of our "public holding".
