Strike Conference | "The enemy is becoming more aggressive and clever"

You are both not only trade unionists, but also politically active people who want to change the unions themselves. What do you consider the major challenges facing your organizations? In what direction do you think the unions need to develop?

Anja Voigt: I am a member of the Federal Collective Bargaining Commission for the Public Sector, and in the collective bargaining dispute we recently had, it was clear that employers are now taking a much tougher stance. The political winds have also become more intense: There are repeated threats to restrict the right to strike in the public sector. If we don't want to be crushed, we must move away from the social partnership model of the past, become more combative, and enter into disputes more decisively. The outcome of the most recent collective bargaining round in the public sector is very difficult. And in my opinion, this is not least due to the fact that we lacked the power to mobilize in many areas. In some companies, we would have been able to call strikes to enforce the agreement. But overall, there was too little. But fighting strength doesn't just fall from the sky. We have to build it systematically.

Michael Erhardt: My biggest concern with the industrial unions is that we're losing our industrial base. Entire locations are at risk. Added to that is demographic change: many union members will soon be retiring. Both of these factors have significant consequences for us. We're experiencing what Anja described for the public sector here too. Employers are increasing the pressure, and you can't counter that by adopting a more defensive stance. If we want to remain effective, we have to organize successes. Only that gives hope for future collective bargaining rounds. The same applies, of course, to the political disputes. What's unfolding in Berlin with the new government is making things tougher. We need fighting spirit.

Left-wing unionists have always advocated for arms conversion—the conversion of defense production to civilian production. Now the reverse process is taking place: civilian production is being converted to defense goods . How should IG Metall respond to this?

Erhardt: First of all, we must acknowledge that the majority of our membership supports the rising defense spending. Those who, like us, demand a conversion to arms are in the minority within the unions. There is a consensus that wars must end and that a ceasefire is a prerequisite for this. But that's where it ends. I would like to see a clearer position from the unions against rearmament. As leftists, we must promote the conviction that rearmament cannot be a means of securing peace.

"In our labor disputes, decisions are not made top-down ; instead, the members themselves determine what demands are put forward and what our red lines are."

Anja Voigt ver.di

Ms. Voigt, you are active in the Berlin Hospital Movement (BKB) . The hospital strikes of the last ten years have changed ver.di considerably: You have struck in areas that were considered difficult to organize, and you have democratized your labor disputes. How did you achieve this?

Voigt: The Berlin hospital movement shows above all that we can win - if we position ourselves accordingly. Transparency was crucial to our success. Decisions in our labor disputes are not made top-down , from the top down. Instead, the members themselves determine which demands are put forward, what the red lines are, and which negotiation results should be accepted. Our decision-making processes are truly broad-based. People from all areas and wards are involved, and the demands are then passed on upwards via "team delegates," and the negotiation results are fed back to the grassroots. This democratization process creates a completely different understanding of difficult results. People understand what is enforceable and what is not . Once a grassroots organization has been involved in this way, it will no longer accept negotiations taking place behind closed doors.

But the hospital strikes were about individual clinics. The public sector collective bargaining round involved negotiations for 2.7 million employees. Is participation even possible?

Voigt: It's more difficult, of course, because many more companies and all federal states are involved. But in the current collective bargaining round in Berlin, we also managed to use a feedback project to communicate the status to the grassroots after each round of negotiations via "team" or "strike delegates." I think this must serve as a model for future disputes. If we have to fight tougher conflicts in the future, we need more strength at the grassroots level.

You mentioned that you consider the collective bargaining agreement in the public sector to be difficult. A major problem is certainly that it allows for longer working hours. Yet exhaustion caused by the intensification of work and the longer working hours is a key problem for employees. Why did ver.di accept this?

Voigt: The Federal Collective Bargaining Commission did recommend approval, but with dissenting votes: 37 of 99 members voted against. In this context, it's important to note that many members of the commission don't come from militant sectors and have never conducted a successful conflict. They naturally have respect when they hear the term "enforced strike." I think we simply need to prepare better for future conflicts. We need to ensure that we are capable of engaging in forced strikes. The CDU/CSU wants to increase working hours, restrict the right to strike, and further intensify work. The money should be put into armaments instead of public services. We must mobilize against this.

Erhardt: In principle, I agree with Anja, of course. But I think what ver.di managed to achieve in terms of mobilization during the collective bargaining negotiations was quite remarkable. The financial results aren't bad. For example, you managed to get €75 for the trainees twice. We had to fight endlessly to achieve a similar result in the last round of collective bargaining.

IG Metall recently organized days of action to defend industrial jobs . 80,000 people participated. Were you satisfied with the content of the days of action and the level of participation?

Erhardt: That was quite a remarkable success—but one that we also put considerable effort into. I think it's absolutely right to focus on defending industry. Compared to France or the USA, industry accounts for more than twice as much of total value added in Germany. So we have a lot to lose. The second central demand of our days of action was the defense of social policy. That, too, was absolutely correct in terms of content. However, I think we now need to take our economic democratic demands to the workplace.

What kind of demands are these?

Erhardt: It's about deciding what to produce, where, and how. In factories that currently manufacture combustion engines or cook steel with coke, it's perfectly clear that production will cease at some point soon. Here, you have to plan what to produce instead. Business owners believe it's none of our business. Many say, "We'll build the last combustion engine. We're not interested in the rest." They want to continue as long as they can and then close the shop—similar to Ford in Saarlouis, where they're now largely winding down production. We can't leave the question of which products to manufacture and which services to offer to the business owners. It's a question that the workforce must have a say in.

Isn't the defense of industrial jobs a difficult issue for left-wing unionists? One runs the risk of getting caught up in a debate about industrial locations. Mr. Ehrhardt, you have always been a strong advocate for internationalist union policies—does that seem contradictory to you?

Erhardt: I certainly see the problem, but I think it's been worse before. In my opinion, people are very clear that they can't be played off against each other. Whether that works everywhere and at all times is something I can't judge. If Ford announces that it's closing one of its two locations in Saarlouis and Valencia, that inevitably creates a competitive situation. But I'm not experiencing any pronounced location nationalism at the moment.

Is it actually easier to do politics at ver.di as a left-wing unionist? After all, the conflict situation in the public sector seems clearer: Public infrastructure is underfunded, and the expansion of nursing and healthcare systems is a fundamental component of progressive politics. When defending industrial jobs, however, a left-wing unionist must always also advocate for restructuring—for the transformation of the automotive industry, for example.

Voigt: It's certainly true that the lines are clearer here. On the other hand, we often hear the argument: "If the economy is doing badly, we shouldn't push it too far." This mentality that "the state is financed by companies" is also widespread among our membership. Within ver.di, I would say there are two camps. On the one hand, there are those who believe that things won't be so bad if we keep quiet. And on the other hand, there are those who, like me, come from successful conflicts and advocate not burying one's head in the sand, but fighting. It will be exciting to see which direction this develops.

The collective bargaining agreement in the public sector was reached through arbitration proceedings. Left-wing union members have long been demanding the termination of the agreement , which allows for arbitration proceedings. Why?

Erhardt: Well, I'd like to say upfront how glad I am that we don't have arbitration procedures in the metal industry. I can't imagine how anyone would mobilize for a labor dispute if arbitration is inserted. We only have something comparable in disputes over social collective agreements – there are often parallel so-called conciliation boards. But in major disputes over collective bargaining agreements, the only thing that matters to us is our capacity for mobilization. We have to determine in how many companies we can conduct an enforcement strike.

Voigt: Arbitration procedures pose a huge problem because they interrupt the mobilization of the membership. The conflict is put on ice, and negotiations take place behind closed doors. No one knows what's being discussed inside. After such an interruption, it's extremely difficult to get people back on the streets. In Berlin, we therefore demanded that arbitration be abolished during the last round of public sector negotiations. It slows us down every time, and it's difficult to get going again.

As far as I know, both sides – employers and unions – could unilaterally withdraw from the arbitration agreement at the end of the quarter.

Voigt: Yes, if we wanted to, we could. But as I said, the majority of the Federal Tariff Commission sees things differently, partly because they are not convinced of our strength.

A key tool for increasing one's own power is union organizing. Hardly anyone has popularized this approach as much as the American Jane McAlevey, who passed away too soon in 2024. Ms. Voigt, you wrote that McAlevey's methods were very important to you. What is it about?

Voigt: When I first heard about McAlevey's approach, I was quite skeptical. But then I experienced in my own company how successful her methods actually are. It's about approaching labor disputes in a very structured way: drawing up a plan, creating a "mapping" to determine who the people are who need to be recruited as multipliers. Organizing "strength tests" to see how strong you are at any given moment... This is how you gradually build up fighting power. Essentially, it's about getting workers to lead their own struggle. We've now worked with it in a wide variety of institutions. In North Rhine-Westphalia, we won a 60-day strike at university hospitals, and at the Hannover Medical School, we secured relief in October 2024. But organizing is not only successful, it's also sustainable. In the past, people often left quickly after collective bargaining rounds. But if organizing engages them more actively, they stay for the long term.

Is it true that organizing methods have long been viewed somewhat skeptically within IG Metall? I mean, the "opening up" of non-unionized companies, i.e., the establishment of the first works council, has always been part of IG Metall's core business. But didn't that have a somewhat different focus?

Erhardt: No, I wouldn't say that. Over the past 15 years, we've also integrated organizing into our standard work at IG Metall. The crucial difference to ver.di is that most of our organizers work directly with IG Metall. Ten years ago, we employed around 120 people, most of whom work in the offices as specialized union secretaries. Beyond that, however, our goal is also to become capable of dealing with conflict. Regarding how this can be achieved, I completely agree with Anja: participation, participation, participation... When decision-making processes are truly democratized, people become active and can identify with difficult outcomes. For us as unions, it's really crucial that decisions aren't made over people's heads. To be honest, though, it's also quite difficult. The neoliberal zeitgeist hasn't left our colleagues unscathed. The willingness to organize in solidarity and take on active responsibility still needs improvement sometimes.

Do unions actually communicate enough with each other? To stop the rise of the right and the employers' offensive, surely a strong political union movement would be needed.

Voigt: I can think of several examples of good communication among each other. IG Metall recently invited us to Hesse to present our team delegate principle. That was a really good experience. And in the volunteer sector, I experience a lot of exchange among colleagues anyway. However, I would agree that we need much more inter-union communication. The enemy has become more aggressive and clever, and the rulings in labor courts are also becoming more disadvantageous for us. To survive in this situation, we need more cross-sector thinking. In some areas—for example, in the education sector between ver.di and the GEW—there is an old competitive mentality that we urgently need to overcome. I believe the DGB has a responsibility to ensure much more systematic exchange.

Erhardt: I would describe it similarly. We get along well locally. The longest strike we had in Frankfurt lasted seven and a half weeks, and all the other unions were there during that time. So, as far as solidarity goes, I can't complain at all. But as far as joint mobilization for political goals goes, I agree with Anja: The unions need to build more joint political pressure.

If we want to stop the right, we must prove that it is possible to successfully take on the rich and powerful and ensure redistribution from the top down.

Michael Ehrhard IG Metall

A central concern is the fight against the far-right. Sociologist Klaus Dörre and others have found some evidence that the extreme right is gaining ground, especially among workers at risk of social decline. Could and should IG Metall do more in this regard?

Erhardt: First of all, I don't believe that the AfD voter share among our members is higher than that of ver.di. And by the way, colleagues with a migrant background often tell me that they would vote for the AfD if they had the right to vote. I think this is a long, difficult battle that will ultimately be won not at fancy events, but in the workplace. Our shop stewards and works council members have to fight for people's hearts and minds on a daily basis. But for that, we also need a credible political response to key social problems: housing shortages, inflation, a lack of daycare places... Our task as a union is to put forward and enforce demands so that social problems are solved in ways other than by kicking down the ladder. In other words: We have to prove that you can successfully take on the rich and powerful and ensure redistribution. The key problem today is that many of the workers no longer believe us. They doubt that redistribution from the top down is possible—and are therefore vulnerable.

Voigt: I absolutely agree with Michael: In the end, what counts is what the company sets an example for itself. For me, industrial action is an important part of that. At the picket line, you spend a long time together with colleagues and can perhaps initiate a change of thinking. Are migrants and recipients of social benefits really the problem in our country, or is it social inequality? This is a task we must continually address in discussions.

Under the new government, massive social cuts are likely to occur. What can the unions do about this? Should the peace and anti-austerity movements be more closely linked?

Voigt: Absolutely! At ver.di, we also have a clear resolution on this. But in my opinion, it rarely makes it into the public discourse. My union needs to take a louder and more committed stance on this.

Ehrhardt: I'm quite satisfied with the resolutions passed by IG Metall. At the last union conference, they were significantly better than those of ver.di—partly because some additional amendments were introduced. They now say: We reject ever-increasing rearmament. However, my perception is that this mood is currently changing. The arms industry is being normalized. And it's our job to say: If unlimited resources are invested in armaments, this money will be lacking elsewhere.