FairShare Labour. Minimum wage. Basic income: An Alliance for Quality Work and Living in Dignity! Three claims and three movements that belong together

(A paper from the attac working group for FairShare Labour, february 5th 2009,  to clarify understanding and enable orientation[1]This concerns a text from the Attac working group “FairShare Labour”. The working group members responsible are Herbert Behrens, Annegret Gestrich, Peter Grottian, Helmut Horst, Stephan Krull, Mohssen Massarrat,  Heidrun Rudolph, Werner Schmiedecke, Margareta Steinrücke and Fritz Tiemann.)

The true face of neoliberal capitalism is now coming to light. The financial crisis has developed into a global economic crisis. Shrinking of the aggregate output, sinking demand, reduction in excess capacities and the destruction of jobs the world over - probably over 700,000 in Germany alone - growing anxiety in people even with “safe” jobs, increasing poverty and insecurity. This is the result of three decades of “neoliberal” policies in extensive parts of the world. Now is the time to take action. 

We argue for a political project in which trade unions, social protest movements, left schools of thought in parties, the churches and Attac are encouraged to join forces and take action together. The project brings together the groups FairShare Labour, Minimum Wage and Basic Income. Then the central debate about social justice will become effective in actual practice with campaigns against neoliberal policies.  We cannot and will not simply accept the scandalous situation that in Germany, one of the most affluent countries in the world, 9 million people (unemployed, those living on Hartz IV benefits, contract workers, those receiving benefits to top up income to subsistence level, low wage earners, the homeless, migrants) are living in poverty and that many millions of people live in fear of becoming unemployed. The lasting effects of the social protests give us grounds for encouragement. Attac can and should set this approach to the project in motion.

Let us remember what neoliberal ideologies have forced through pitilessly with the promise of creating more jobs and giving the unemployed wages and putting bread on the table: the job market was made more flexible and protection against redundancy relaxed. The unemployed must accept any job anywhere and at almost any wages. The result: a low wage sector with over 8 million workers and wages that are not enough to live on; more than 700,000 contract workers, who are exposed to many kinds of discrimination. They have to accept jobs paying the lowest of wages and often under immoral, anti-social and unreasonable conditions. Forcing people to work under conditions which resemble slavery is a disgrace.

Neoliberal ideologies have forced through the disgraceful Hartz IV regulations with the slanderous allegation “the unemployed are themselves to blame”. They have exposed millions of people to the snooping terror of bureaucracy, forcing them to move and subjecting them to other harassment. Those affected have been relegated to third-class citizens and most of them driven into poverty. With the insinuating claim that national debt was the greatest of injustices, social systems were raided; at the same time the rich received gifts from the taxman. The result is however neither jobs nor economic growth; in their place, excess capital which is not reinvested by the large multinationals but is smuggled into speculative financial dealings on the hunt for ever more capital. These ideologies have led to partial privatisation of public property such as the post office, health care, communal energy and water supplies and even the railways on the grounds of deregulation. Profitable investment spheres were created for drifting capital masses to the detriment of the users of public goods. Privatisation of many public areas is also undermining the principles of democracy.

We observe: The outcome of neoliberal policies is a catastrophe for mankind. The rich are getting richer, the poor poorer. Working hours have increased, the level of wages lowered, the trade unions weakened and forced to make concessions, social systems have been run down, millions of people have been robbed of their dignity. Things were made easy for conglomerates and banks to increase their profits without any risks. Neoliberalism is the reason behind the spread of insecurity and lack of prospects and why competition, aggression and instability are reaching new highs. This policy is truly a step backwards for all mankind.

Enough is enough: let’s put an end to it!

The “rescue packages” of the governments in Germany and elsewhere serve to rescue neoliberalism. We, in the social movements, are not ready to simply accept this. We, together with the victims of neoliberal terrorism and the social scandal, are determined to declare battle on such politics, in particular in conjunction with the trade unions. We will overcome the divide that still exists between agencies representing the socially disadvantaged, unions and social movements. The relevant interests and demands that belong together can, once combined in an Alliance for Quality Work and Living in Dignity, unleash a dynamic political force which extends beyond individual horizons. In order to set up this alliance, we need to overcome our differences which have hitherto been an obstacle,

Minimum wage, basic income and FairShare Labour belong together!

The demand by unions for a statutory minimum wage is on the political agenda. It is finding support in society. Only fanatical neoliberals are unwilling to make the slightest concession although the requirement will not even harm the system. It is of paramount importance that an aggressive campaign is organised in conjunction with unions, churches and social movements. The demand for a comprehensive statutory minimum wage is an initial and important step. In order to form an alliance that is anchored outside the remit of the unions, the struggle for a minimum wage must be understood as part of a social and labour policy perspective. This reduces insecurity and anxiety, which like a wedge make mobilisation of large sections of society difficult. This includes further steps to overcome mass unemployment.

We are convinced that an Alliance for Quality Work and Living in Dignity can be created and can restore the trade unions to a position of strength. This alliance calls upon people to support other goals apart from minimum wage:

• abolishing the Hartz IV system, because it humiliates people with snooping terror, deprives them of their dignity and violates basic human rights Article 1 of the German Constitution: “Human dignity is sacrosanct. It is the obligation of any state authority to respect it and to protect it.”
• Establishing protection of basic subsistence that is resistant to poverty, needs-dependent and free from repression
• Abolition of mass unemployment with fair redistribution of labour
• Completely equal rights for subcontracted workers with regard to payment and treatment
• Basic income for activities of benefit to society that can be chosen freely

There are mutually exclusive positions on the issue of basic income: on the one hand an unconditional basic income for all in combination with gainful employment. This version can be attributed to neoliberal thought, since it leads to the expansion of the low wage sector. Another position involves an unconditional basic agreement justified by those who view gainful employment critically: this is the anti-capitalist version. The neoliberal model is not worth discussing as far as we are concerned. The anti-capitalist version is partly supported by Attac and in society. It is conceivable and appealing as an option beyond capitalism. But since it challenges the concept of gainful employment, it is not suited for an alliance e.g. with trade unions, which consider themselves representatives of those dependent on gainful employment. A prerequisite for an alliance are proposals for a basic income, which are achievable today both from the political and economic aspect. They may not be in opposition to the justified interests of those who continue to work in gainful employment - and this means the majority. At the same time they should form an option that is necessary for people who can or want to carry out wage-earning work of their choice.

This is why we plead the case first for a needs-based basic income that is resistant to poverty and does not entail snooping and humiliating interference in the private lives of people, instead of the Hartz IV system. This basic income corresponds to the interests of those receiving Hartz IV benefits as well as those who are gainfully employed. We generally support the Memorandum Group that in 2006 demanded:

:”...the gap in ensuring basic subsistence must be stopped with a needs-oriented basic protection, which enables the beneficiaries - and that means all those who do not have other income or not sufficient other income - to live free of poverty and in dignity. ....we suggest the introduction of a needs-dependent basic subsistence protection at a level of 940 euros (per individual household). Index-linking will be automatic due to orientation to the 60 percent criterion of the EU and, as a statutory right, will thus be independent of considerations of fiscal policies and spending cuts. .... The criteria governing what is reasonable should be reviewed in depth and should include income qualification protection and regional mobility protection to “prevent substandard employment” (Jobs Promotion Law - Arbeitsförderungsgesetz - 1969). With this kind of regulation as part of a needs-dependent basic subsistence the pressure to accept any job is eliminated. (http://www.memo.uni-bremen.de/docs/memo06-kurz.pdf)

Unlike the memo group we however want an individual right to a basic income without setting it off against any partner’s income.

We want – going further than the Memo Group– a basic income that ensures subsistence also for activities of people’s own choice, which are performed by everyone by means of accreditation by recognised not-for-profit organisations. By demonstrating the benefits to society of an activity chosen freely by people, the concern about a basic income voiced by critics from the trade unions will be eliminated. This would result in a legal right to activities, which would release a great potential for creativity and increase productivity in society in spiritual, cultural and artistic areas. This would be of benefit to society as a whole. A new sector of self-managed, self-determining individuals and/or community enterprises, producing useful, material and immaterial goods in a new way, would be created.  Ultimately this development will lead to a limitation of the capitalist sector and counteract commercialisation of major areas of life. With this modest legal right, a protected space for alternative working and living models would be created that not only opposes the megalomaniac claims of neoliberalism in symbolism alone. A free society that is based on the cooperation of its members can only assert itself and last if people have the opportunity to choose between and take advantage of alternatives.

Redistribution of labour and showing solidarity by reducing working hours.

In view of the crisis an initiative for fair distribution of labour is urgently needed, following the historical development of decreasing working hours. This should always serve to assist people looking for gainful employment in finding a job. It should help to improve the living conditions of the gainfully employed and should eliminate their permanent fear of sliding into poverty as a result of unemployment. Mass unemployment is the greatest social scandal. It robs people of a subsistence level and drives them into poverty. Unemployment must not be accepted in a democratic society, as it weakens trade unions as a counterweight to capital, reduces bargaining power, divides employees who are dependent and helps to encourage racism and hostility towards foreigners in this way. Unemployment represents a permanent risk to democracy.

Mass unemployment results from rapid increases in productivity in saturated markets and restricted potential for growth with material goods. Growing productivity makes it possible to produce goods and services with ever fewer staff. Instead of using the workforce that is now free for social purposes, culture, education and participation, neoliberal governments have chosen to accept mass unemployment instead. In this way productive energies have become destructive energies, because millions of people have been denied access to gainful employment. Others are worn out prematurely by excessively long working hours. As a result of increased productivity and restricted growth reserves in manufacturing sectors, boosts to the economy cannot eliminate unemployment What is more, in 2009 the current crisis has partly been caused by over-capacity, which, as in the car industry, was eliminated by mass redundancies and the closing of factories. Many companies introduced periods of short-time work: limited reductions in working hours, the results of which are borne by the employed, the tax payer and unemployment insurance. There exists only one sound alternative to mass unemployment with all its consequences: a general reduction in working hours and redistribution of labour.

A democratic and social society that is founded on gainful employment requires a continual reduction in working hours in parallel to an increase in productivity. The connection between working hours, health and family requires shorter working hours to combat stress, to prevent illness. Redistribution of labour benefits family relationships, children, women and men; it promotes sexual equality.

 People gain time for living, loving and laughter; they gain time to spend on their relationships and in caring for others, for community work and for themselves. This is why fair distribution of labour must cover several aspects: sharing of gainful employment among the employed and the unemployed, long-term employed and those who have no choice about working part-time and in mini-jobs, as well as a sharing of housework and care between women and men.

A reduction in working hours is a liberating project because only this makes living as you choose in dignity possible. In order to achieve this, a reduction in working hours is needed with a level of flexibility that is in relation to the needs of the employees. This applies to the distribution of working hours on a daily, weekly, monthly and annual basis and according to life patterns, that emphasises different needs at different stages of life. In order to avoid the mistakes made in the past, in particular increasing intensity of labour, a strategy of shorter working hours requires an addition with offers in cultural activities, further education, voluntary work and self-realisation. The FairShare Labour project is a task for society that covers the civil society beyond negotiations for collective wage bargaining.

Per capita available labour has declined by almost a quarter since 1975. The inherent advance in productivity must be balanced by a reduction in working hours in order to lower mass unemployment that has been on the increase since 1975 in both an open and disguised manner. After this, full employment would be possible again - at least considering the bare figures - by distributing work equally at a level of 30 hours per week. Only a new kind of full employment like this creates a balance of power between trade unions and business, which is needed to ensure that those dependent on wages and salaries retain full purchasing power in their hands, instead of it being channelled into the cycle of the financial sector for the purposes of speculation by businesses as “excess capital”. This balance of power based on quality work with shorter working hours is also an important prerequisite in order to succeed in pushing through social projects for the future like basic income and minimum wages over the long term. For this reason FairShare Labour represents an important contribution in avoiding future financial crises and is a central component of the three projects, which combine different interests and social groups with each other and strengthen the foundations of an Alliance for Quality Work and Living in Dignity Good Labour and a Life in Dignity.

Attac as a pioneer for an Alliance for Quality Work and Living in Dignity

Attac is a politically active component of civil society. Thanks to the pluralism of various social movements with subjects concerning social and ecological issues and policies for peace, Attac is predestined to link issues on an international level. All three projects in an Alliance for Quality Work and Living in Dignity are anchored in Attac, they must be consolidated more strongly than before. The Attac groups that champion a basic income, minimum wage and FairShare Labour, can persuade each other that these socio-political projects complement each other and an alliance of these approaches will lead to a new political quality. This would be an important step in winning over to this alliance critical forces, trade unions, agencies representing the socially disadvantaged, churches, those who are active in educational, health and women’s political issues. This would constitute the powerful counterweight to neoliberalism and its inhuman projects like Hartz IV, increasing working hours and the low wage sector. We can make use of the experience from the struggles against the EU Services and Working Time Directives and the networks that have formed.

A condition for an alliance like this is first to agree on the basic principles and to leave the details to the dynamics of the process. An understanding and agreement that, for example, adequate minimum wages are necessary, is crucial. The amount can and should be established with the trade unions in a second stage depending on political pressure. It is equally important to reach agreement on the version for basic income that is capable of obtaining a majority in place of Hartz IV and for the activities to be chosen by individuals. Details and terms should be determined in a second stage following scientific groundwork that has been carried out. Ultimately it is necessary to reach a consensus that fair distribution of labour is a project of historical significance for society as a whole with opportunities for society and individuals. The power of capital will be limited, a growing number of people will be freed from the forces of capital accumulation. Details on the scope and form of wage compensation and drawing up a new concept for the length of working lives will be left to the dynamics of the process. What is important is that all three blocks are discussed and established as a platform for the alliance. Concentration on the key issues, in the trinity of FairShare Labour, minimum wage and replacing Hartz IV with a basic income without snooping, as an initial step will make it easier to obtain a consensus in order to bring about clarification of the details in a dynamic search process, instead of holding an isolated discussion of the models at cross purposes.

The next steps

• Discussion and agreement on a joint strategy within Attac (coordination of Attac groups, presentation of the project in the coordinators' circle/Attac council)
• Start of the dialogue with trade unions, agencies representing the socially disadvantaged, churches, and schools of thinking in the parties which are well disposed towards the project.
• One or more pluralistically composed preparatory conferences in 2009 with the participation of trade unions, agencies representing the socially disadvantaged, cultural and educational bodies, socially oriented health centres and churches, experts from science and politics, starting with the “Capitalism Congress” in March 2009.
• Draft for a general manifesto.
• Socio-political congress with public impact in 2010
•  Political activity on the European level 2009 - 2010
• Joint action that mobilises people and gets noticed, that reinforces the determination of all those involved and demonstrates this.

Experience in the past has shown that to successfully push through important demands, like those now on the political agenda, demonstrations alone are not enough. There will therefore be legitimate forms like strikes and actions of civil disobedience too.

Translated from German by Cherry Shelton-Mills, Coorditrad

[1] This concerns a text from the Attac working group “FairShare Labour”. The working group members responsible are Herbert Behrens, Annegret Gestrich, Peter Grottian, Helmut Horst, Stephan Krull, Mohssen Massarrat,  Heidrun Rudolph, Werner Schmiedecke, Margareta Steinrücke and Fritz Tiemann.