DGB boss Fahimi: "Those who vote for AfD are voting away their own rights"

From Nora Miethke

Ms. Fahimi, is strike action still the last resort in industrial action?

This is generally the case. That is why Germany is not a country with a particularly high number of strike days, but ranks in the lower midfield in a European comparison. I therefore consider the excitement in parts of politics and business about the recent strikes to be completely inappropriate. It's an easy-to-see attempt to push back the interests of self-confident employees at a time of economic tension.

So the feeling that wage disputes are being fought out more fiercely than a few years ago is deceptive?

Of course, there can always be more intensive strike phases. A democracy must be able to withstand this. However, it is unacceptable that the right to strike is being called into question across the board with the battle cry of critical infrastructure. All those who were praised as systemically relevant during the pandemic are now to be deprived of their constitutional rights. That is absolutely outrageous. I find it irresponsible to treat constitutional fundamental rights so carelessly.

Why can't you agree to restrict the right to strike?

Because it would mean that employees would be dependent on the goodwill of the employer and would no longer have any means of negotiating on an equal footing. Anyone who claims that this is only about critical infrastructure and is therefore permissible is throwing smoke and mirrors. The fact is that in Germany we are only allowed to call strikes after the end of the peace period anyway, i.e. during collective bargaining and even then only in certain phases. Incidentally, it is common practice to have emergency plans for hospitals or power plants. No production plant, no human life is put at risk by strikes. Incidentally, because this is also a popular argument: Economic damage is not caused by employees going on strike.

But what?

It is the result of employers' collective bargaining. This now leads to economic losses of 130 billion euros every year. This results from the gap in social security contributions, income tax and loss of purchasing power. It not only affects the employees in question if they are not paid according to collective agreements, it also affects society and the economy as a whole.

Collective bargaining coverage is low in eastern Germany. What is the impact of the collective bargaining flight there?

Saxony has the weakest collective bargaining coverage in Germany, with 42% of employees covered by collective agreements. The wage gap between employees covered by collective agreements and those not covered by collective agreements is currently an average of 870 euros per month for full-time employees.

The CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag wants a maximum limit for weekly working hours instead of a daily limit. What do you think of this?

So I wonder when the last time was that those who demand this have seen the inside of a company. There are thousands of different, highly flexible working time models in Germany. The Working Hours Act provides a good framework for this. It is a protective law that does not follow the political arbitrariness of a few and their perceived facts, but is based on occupational health studies. These set minimum requirements for the organization of working hours so that a long working life is actually possible in good health. If you want more working time flexibility, you should conclude a collective agreement and promote the existence of a works council in the company. Then you can find comprehensive, good and reliable working time models that don't destroy employees.

The German government wants to stabilize the pension level at 48%. You are calling for this to be made permanent. How can this be achieved in view of the high rate of part-time work and demographic change?

Statutory pension insurance is a system based on solidarity across the generations that has proven its worth and that we should urgently hold on to. However, an intergenerational contract is only worth its name if it applies equally to all generations. That is why we are committed to a permanent stabilization of the pension level. The 48 percent is the minimum. We must not give the impression that this level of security will only apply to some in the next few years and then we'll see. That is not a good signal.

And how do you achieve this?

The question is, how can we mobilize people who are perhaps currently in mini-jobs, in part-time employment or who are not permanently employed due to a lack of training? Employers can do something about this by making the effort to work with people who need more support. And politicians can do something by improving the infrastructure for caring for children and relatives in need of care. This would give many women in particular more opportunities to work full-time. And we need skilled workers from abroad to maintain a high level of employment.

This requires staying power. So how is long-term stabilization to be financed?

The budget crisis will not be solved by telling us that we all have to tighten our belts now. Anyone who says that ultimately means that employees have to tighten their belts. Yet there are huge assets in Germany. Throughout all the crises of the last 20 years, we have seen time and again that the rich are getting richer. In this respect, it is incomprehensible why we are still a tax haven for the wealthy in Germany. One percent of German citizens own over 30 percent of the country's total wealth without contributing sufficiently to the common good. In a social market economy, broad shoulders bear more than others. However, this must also be enforced and practiced. That is why we must finally introduce a wealth tax - and the constitution allows for this.

How are the trade unions using the large-scale settlements in the semiconductor industry to strengthen collective bargaining coverage in Saxony?

Our member unions are working very hard to support Infineon, Bosch and now TSMC in setting up such plants from the outset and to win employees over to the issues of co-determination and collective bargaining. These are not luxury issues, but basic conditions for future-proof locations in Germany. However, we must not just focus on the big beacons. Our aim is to achieve greater collective bargaining coverage across the board. Saxony has also made notable progress in this area in recent years.

What do you have in mind?

For example, the NGG successfully fought for collective bargaining at the dairy in Niesky. A lot has also been achieved in the food industry. It's great to see the pride that our colleagues feel when they realize that they can actually achieve something themselves. This is the way to get Saxony out of the low point of collective bargaining coverage so that it is no longer at the bottom of the league in a few years' time.

Is this reflected in rising DGB membership figures in Saxony?

Nationwide, there was a significant increase in membership figures in the DGB trade unions last year. Saxony also saw an increase in membership.

You are calling for more co-determination rights for the trade unions in the transformation processes. What are you thinking of?

Transformation often means far-reaching technical changes in companies and departments. Employees need to be retrained for this technical transformation. That is why we need a stronger right of initiative in further training and personnel planning in companies. As a large part of this technical change is digital and digital today means the introduction of AI, we must have preventative co-determination. It must be possible to agree the aim and purpose of AI between the parties in the company before it is introduced. We want business models and processes to be optimized, not people to be controlled and researched.

Are there any role models?

IBM, Deutsche Telekom and Deutsche Bahn have already created corresponding company agreements. It would be good if this did not just happen in these large companies or labs, but was ensured across the board for employees. To achieve this, the Works Constitution Act needs to be amended accordingly.

AfD policy is unfriendly to employees

At the DGB's Future Conference in Dresden, a works council member from VW Saxony reported how he was put under pressure by his own works council members, who belong to the AfD and the Free Saxons, not to make any political statements. Is this an isolated case or are you observing an increasing influence of the AfD in works councils?

Fortunately, these are isolated cases, but we take them seriously. On the whole, people with discriminatory, misanthropic and right-wing extremist views have hardly been able to gain a foothold in companies so far. This is also because we as works councils and trade unions have done a good job of standing up to them. In the few individual cases where this is not the case, it is all the more important that we take a clear stance. Those who are themselves very openly committed to the AfD, Free Voters and other far-right parties like to demand that others keep politics out of the workplace. Of course, this is not possible because issues relating to economic, tax, environmental or energy policy or social and societal policy always have a concrete impact on the company and its employees. And then you have to take a stand. It is also a fact that AfD functionaries repeatedly try to mobilize employees against strikes in serious disputes such as forced strikes. In the end, it is AfD functionaries who try to instrumentalize co-determination against the interests of the employees. We see something similar in parliaments.

What do you mean specifically?

The anti-worker policies of the AfD. They are voting against an increase in the minimum wage. They want to undermine the pension system and are in favor of tax breaks for the rich and companies. It is important that we as a trade union, but also the works councils in the companies, make it clear to our colleagues: Anyone who votes AfD is voting away their own rights.

What is your advice for works councils in the event of such influence?

I would stick to the very practical explanation of politics. In other words, why certain demands in the city council or state parliament come from one party or another and what impact they have on the company and on your own social security. I would want to motivate people that every conversation is worthwhile and that they shouldn't avoid it. It helps to set clear boundaries. You don't always have to get into heated arguments. I understand that some people shy away from this. But you can simply say: "Stop! What you're saying is indecent, I won't accept it." Sometimes that's enough.