The restructuring of the pool in the Amsterdam harbor (see also our article 'Port of Amsterdam half-time score' published in January 1998 on Labournet) has been occurring at a rapid pace in the past few years. The number of harbor workers decreased from 530 in 1986, to 400 in 1995, and 110 in 1998. In contrast, transshipment rose from 28 million tons in 1990 to 37 million tons in 1998. Business is going well for the Municipal Harbor Company: a cumulative profit of approximately 200 million guilders.
For many years the collective harbor workers, with and without the union, have fought hard for a decent contract. The final attack has now been launched on all of their accomplishments. The contracts expired on June 17, 1998 at which time the future of the pool was to become clear. Who could stay and why?
The pool is now called the Stichting Personeelsvoorziening Amsterdam Noordzeekanaalgebed (Staffing Foundation Amsterdam North Sea Canal Area).
The board consists of representatives from the FNV Bondgenoten (the name of the largest biggest union in the Amsterdam Port. FNV Bondgenoten is a merger of several unions including the Vervoersbond FNV, the transport-union previously responsible for the port), CNV Bedrijvenbond (a much smaller Christian union) and the Arbeidsbureau (governmental employment office).
This board was to make the future of the pool known in mid-June. The harbor workers were left completely in the dark. Their representatives on the floor, union activists and works council were kept out of brainstorming sessions and decision-making processes regarding the future.
The union and the negotiating team respected the gag order: no one leaked any information to the press or to union members. Everyone watched their mailbox carefully as D-day approached. In vain. Only early on the morning of D-day itself was a list posted in the hall of the pool with the names of the people who were allowed to 'stay'. The workers had been summoned to appear; those who were not able to be present had to wait another two weeks before the new contract arrived at their doorstep. After careful reading it became clear to which group they belonged.
The people in the pool, 85% of whom are organized in the FNV Bondgenoten, had high expectations of their FNV-representatives on the board. They were conspicuously absent. While June 17 had been planned long ago, one was on vacation and the other has problems with his car. He came late in the afternoon and made a token appearance.
The FNV magazine (official magazine of the FNV Bondgenoten) rejoiced over the results: thanks to the efforts of the union, the pool was saved. And the 350 effected harbor workers?
Let us judge this jubilant response on its merits, or as union officials are so fond of saying: let us take a level-headed look at reality. 110 harbor workers with an on-call contract for three days a week remain. The rest were thrown out the backdoor with nothing more than an on-call contract for one day a week, plus obligatory (re)training for work elsewhere. A little math.
The number of 110 for a three-day work week comes to 66 persons based on a five-day work week and 82 persons based on a four-day work week. In short, a poor outcome and a deceptively attractive social plan. The only thing the plan contains is a vague promise that everyone will be taken care of. Those who voluntarily resign will receive a supplement of a maximum of one thousand guilders per month above the difference between their old and new salary for one year. However, they will then lose their right to (re)training.
Two-thirds of the personnel was let go by the foundation's board. What were the selection criteria? Quote: "The operating, non-limiting factors are as follow:
The 'old' harbor worker, who stood for permanent jobs, union organization, solidarity, workers' struggle, and no competition for work conditions, needed, then, to be replaced by a new kind of worker who meets the selection criteria above; in other words, workers who have been molded by the neoliberal school of thought. This is evident in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, but also worldwide (Liverpool, Australia, etc.). The union's approval leads one to suspect that this neutralized harbor worker fits in well with the profile of the new union member.
This suspicion is well-founded if we consider the period after the accord of December 1997. The accord was approved by the union membership with a narrow margin. The ink was hardly dry before the employers started grumbling again.
They did not live up to their promise of financially guaranteeing 17,500 shifts (thanks to hiring from outside the harbor). Conflict loomed. Union management went to court. The judge found that the accord was poor and too vague. He therefore went along with the employers' arguments. The employers got off easy; they had only to pay a small amount in compensation.
Members were not informed nor mobilized. Evidently, they no longer had confidence in the power of the union. An opportunity lost.
The director Bosschieter (who has a background in the field of temporary employment) informed the works council of the business plan and his departure in a letter dated June 14, 1998. "Based on the assumptions of a free market economy, the pool has a right to exist. (…) The board agrees to the majority of the contents of the plan, but views the time period for implementation as premature." The director goes on to thank the works council for its constructive contribution and ends with "well-intended advice. (…) Keep cool and don't let emotions and destructive moves get the better of you. (…) the solution will come provided that all of you do your utmost to prevent 'trouble'."
