Friday, May 22, 2015

Bundestag vote on bargaining unit from law –

Date: 05/22/2015 09:13 clock

in the law to bargaining unit are the ghosts: disproportionate interference with the right to strike or necessary measure to enable small craft unions with strike may not cripple the country? Today the Bundestag decides.

Ironically, the SPD, you can hear again and again. Why exactly does a social democratic labor minister a law on collective bargaining unit, which restricts the right to strike at least indirectly, in the opinion of many experts. But as surprising as it is now again not that Andrea Nahles this law now permeates. Because as of 2010, the decades applicable principle of “one operation, a collective agreement” has been tipped in court because it was not just the former CDU-Labour Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who wanted to tackle the difficult task of formulating a constitution contemporary collective unit law: “It is now for the policy exercise on high bar, “said von der Leyen at the time.

The SPD wanted to communicate urns. Among other things, because not only the employer made a lot of pressure for a bargaining unit, the law, but many unions. Social Democratic leaders argued that there was a national economic interest in that sector unions could not cause permanent conflicts, to impose their particular interests. A grinding the unions among themselves was feared – and only strong, some unions are good unions


No problem in black-red coalition agreement

In the black-red coalition negotiations in 2013, the bargaining unit Act was not among the contentious issues and landed without problems in the coalition agreement. Last fall, alternating strikes by train drivers and pilots were the perfect backdrop for Labour Minister Nahles, to promote the law: “Laying that some craft unions for their particular vital functions of our entire country paralyzed, is not in order.”

The government wants to put an end to the fact that in an operation for the same profession different collective agreements of competing trade unions may apply. In the future it should be such that these competing unions must try to find a common line . – that could separate, for example, but its contents same collective agreements succeed this agreement does not, takes up the majority principle: It is the collective agreement that union that represents most employers a profession in one operation

craft unions fear for their rights

craft unions of train drivers, pilots or doctors now fear for their rights. Because as a minority union in a company, it would not allow them to conclude a collective agreement colliding. A call to strike could therefore be classified as disproportionate and therefore illegal in court. The craft unions see this as a de facto ban on strikes and want to complain to the Federal Constitutional Court


Impact of the Law on railway tariff dispute

The complex situation in itself is therefore already controversial enough – the ongoing labor dispute at the railway has made them even more explosive. While emphasizing the SPD labor market expert Katja Mast: “The law is not a bargaining unit,” Lex-Bahn “law.” But in the train fare dispute all the time is the proposed law but like the proverbial white elephant in the room. Many suspect that the divisions of the train drivers’ union and her boss Klaus Weselsky also so let the muscles because they desperately want a successful conclusion before the new law comes into force in early July. Others threw the web before, to play for time in order to draw the labor dispute about the brand in early July and the GDL so to take their bargaining power.

Now that a settlement will , is the most likely scenario that there is a collective degree before the beginning of July. And who would then grandfathering. For all the statements that are made before the entry into force of the law will not be affected for the duration of their term. Only in the next round of collective bargaining in the railway is expected to then show how the law affects bargaining unit concrete. If it then has on hand and is not tilted in court.


No comments:

Post a Comment