Unions withdraw from labour and employment committee

On Thursday, the trade union alliance between the Independent Luxembourg Trade Union Confederation (OGBL) and the Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (LCGB) declared it would no longer participate in meetings of the Standing Committee on Labour and Employment (CPTE), significantly disrupting the nation's longstanding model of social dialogue.

An item was added to the agenda of Friday's Government Council meeting to address the sudden decision.

In response to an enquiry from RTL, Minister of Labour Georges Mischo stated the government would communicate its position only after internal discussions. Parties in the Chamber of Deputies were more forthcoming, with all expressing regret over the unions' decision and a shared concern for the health of the Luxembourg social model.

While regretting the move, opposition parties, in particular, showed understanding for the unions' position. The Left Party (Déi Lénk), which had already declared the social dialogue "in tatters" earlier in the week, called the decision a logical consequence of the government's recent actions.

Left Party MP Marc Baum argued that the government has abdicated its role as a neutral mediator, siding with employers on issues like the flexibilisation of working time. He stated that the government's pre-determined stance on matters meant to be negotiated within the CPTE had eroded trust.

"If the government were to take social dialogue seriously," Baum contended, "it would guarantee to the social partners that it would only implement what both sides agree on." He concluded that such a move could rebuild lost trust, but expressed doubt the current government was capable of it.

Georges Engel, an MP for the Luxembourg Socialist Workers' Party (LSAP) and former Minister of Labour, also placed responsibility for the situation squarely on the government. Engel accused the coalition of being incapable of forging compromises, stating, "It turns out you simply can't run a country like a company with a CEO." He argued that effective governance requires "a feel for the people, for the social partners and for the employers, for everything that moves people," a quality he believes the current government lacks.

Engel warned this could have "serious consequences," eroding a key national advantage. He lamented that Luxembourg had historically distinguished itself from other European nations through its social peace, a product of its ability to address the wishes of both employers and trade unions through dialogue. "But that's gone now, that's a thing of the past – this government has destroyed social dialogue," Engel concluded.

Sam Tanson, spokesperson for the Green Party (Déi Gréng), agreed that the union's decision was a direct result of the prolonged tensions of recent months. She expressed surprise at the government's assessment of the situation, noting, "What is all the more astonishing is that just last week the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour truly misjudged the situation and were of the opinion that everything was perfectly fine." Tanson added that officials had also stated there was no "Plan B" for a scenario that was widely foreseeable.

The Green Party now urges the government to quickly develop a contingency plan and re-engage with the trade unions to analyse how to tackle the various problems, "and above all, how this relationship can be repaired again, something that seems relatively distant."

To this end, the party has formally requested an urgent meeting of the parliamentary committee to hear from the Prime Minister and the Labour Minister on how the government intends to proceed.

Pirate Party MP Sven Clement described the unions' withdrawal as the "logical consequence" of what he termed "Luc Frieden's dictate to break off the social rounds." From the unions' perspective, Clement argued, it became impossible to participate in talks where the outcome appeared to be predetermined in advance.

According to the MP, the process of social dialogue has degenerated into a "social dictate." He claimed that "CEO Luc Frieden passed off his position as a compromise, even though it was already decided in the morning before the talks began."

While Clement stated he could understand the unions' position, he also expressed regret over the consequences of their exit. He warned that the decision jeopardises the discussion of all positions established during the social dialogue that were meant to be negotiated within the CPTE. This development, he concluded, even calls into question the validity of the minimal compromises that were previously reached.

The Alternative Democratic Reform Party (ADR) questions why the unions are pulling back and insists on dialogue. The parliamentary group president Fred Keup:

"This looks like a power struggle between the unions and the government. What we need now is an honest will to improve things. For Luxembourg, for the people, for the economy. Not a power struggle. We need to take responsibility and engage in discussion. A confrontational course ultimately harms our country and helps no one, not even the unions. The ADR is therefore clearly in favor of a willingness to engage in dialogue from all parties involved."

The majority parties also find it regrettable that things have come to this point.

CSV parliamentary group president Marc Spautz reminds us that social dialogue has played an important role in Luxembourg since the 1970s, and that it’s only through this channel that compromises have been found for the good of the country and its people.

He is convinced that it’s important to maintain this dialogue in all committees so that even difficult and conflict-laden discussions can be steered in the right direction and lead to results that serve the interests of the country and its people.

"I am convinced that it is important that in these bilateral discussions, which will now take place, trust can be rebuilt between the social partners, so that it will once again be possible to return to the well-known Luxembourg model of social dialogue and seek solutions that make our economy more competitive, give our people the security they need, and provide what people require for the future."

Regret was also expressed by the liberal coalition partner. DP deputy and party president Carole Hartmann:
 
"Looking back, we have to admit that not everything went perfectly, especially at the start of the legislative period. Now the unions have proposed moving to bilateral talks. For us, that doesn’t mean the door is closed, on the contrary. For us, it’s important that social dialogue continues. That means discussing topics such as working time organisation with the social partners. And it also has to be clearly the goal to bring all social partners back together at the table and to search, through dialogue, for the broadest possible consensus on such topics, as has long been the tradition in Luxembourg."

RTL also reached out to the employers’ association to ask how they view the unions’ decision. The president of the Union of Luxembourg Enterprises (UEL), Michel Reckinger, said it was a "regrettable" situation, but he did not want to go into detail so soon after the announcement from OGBL and LCGB. He said further information was still lacking.