Toespraak van minister mr. J.P.H. Donner van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid tijdens de eerste World Social Assembly op 17 november 2009 in Utrecht
Ladies and gentlemen,
The World Social Assembly – it is indeed an honour and a pleasure for me to address this meeting. It is, of course, attractive to speak of the first World Social Assembly in the hope that this meeting will be the first in a long line. But it is somewhat presumptuous to speak of the first Assembly before the second has been convened. Moreover, we are commemorating this year the ninetieth anniversary of the founding of the International Labour Organisation. The first meeting of the ILO should by rights be considered the first World Social Assembly. And, finally, haven’t we all been taught by the Letter of James that we – who do not know what tomorrow will bring - ought to say: ‘If it is the Lord’s will, this will be the first …’. ‘Deo volente’ or ‘Sub conditione sancti Jacobi.’
That brings me to a second aspect of the human condition; since the Tower of Babel men have been scattered over the face of the earth and have divided into different nations and speak different languages. Here we are gathered together from different nations and speak different languages. Since the Day of Pentecost people have been unable to speak in their own language and be understood by people of another language. Thus Spanish and French speakers will have to use the secular equivalent – a translator. This immediately highlights one essential aspect for the success of social dialogue, namely the willingness and ability to listen to one another. And that is not just a question of languages: speaking the same language doesn’t mean we listen to each other or hear the same message. Real dialogue is possible only if people are open to one another.
Social dialogue has a long history in the Netherlands. On 8 May 1945, the day the war in Europe ended and only three days after the Netherlands had been liberated, employers and employees published a manifesto in which they, metaphorically speaking, rolled up their sleeves and set to work together to build a new future on the ruins caused by the Second World War. Their desire to realise this together, on the basis of a social dialogue, springs from the following text. I quote, ‘Our Fatherland has been impoverished and plundered. But the path to rebuilding and recovery is open. Employers and employees, realise what your task is – the task of working in harmonious cooperationto rebuild our country.’ End of quote.
The manifesto was signed by representatives of organisations of employers and employees, among them Antoon Stapelkamp, chairman of the National Federation of Christian Trade Unions. The subscribing organisations agreed to establish a common consultative body, which still exists: the ‘Stichting van de Arbeid’ (Labour Foundation). Its objective was and is ‘to promote social peace, order and justice’. The purpose was to establish a practice of joint consultation in the area of social and economic policy. Trade unions and employer organisations would have to work together with the government to combat poverty and rebuild the economy. It started a system of consultation and agreement between the government and social partners for the development and implementation of socioeconomic policy. This is what we have come to call the ‘polder model’.
The origins of the polder model are even older. This year we commemorated the ninetieth birthday of the adoption of a set of social legislation in the Netherlands, which included the establishment of a High Council for Labour as an institution for consultation, settlement of conflicts and agreement. The origins of this concept go even further back; they go back to the concept and ideas that gave rise to the establishment of the National Federation of Christian Trade Unions. The CNV was established a century ago on the basis of the rejection of the concept of class struggle and the affirmation that all men, rich and poor, are created by the same God and that henceforth social relations should not be based on class struggle and conflict of interest, but on the basis of harmony of interest and the bridging of differences.
Foreigners often confuse the idea of the polder model with the endearing of picture of Hansje Brinker, the boy who put his finger in the dike in order to stop the water seeping through. That is not the essence of the polder model: everyone fighting his own corner and dealing with his own threat. On the other hand, the polder model is often decried as synonymous with delay, endless debate, compromise decisions and muddling through, where clear-cut decisions are required. It has to be admitted that at times the model does exhibit some of these symptoms.
However, the essence of the polder model is the willingness to work together in order to combat a common foe rather than to put our particular interests and differences first. It is the experience that we must never allow our disagreements and controversies to prevent us from working together to pursue our common interests and deal with our common threats.
The establishment of the Labour Foundation in 1945 marked the start of a social dialogue that would make an important contribution to combating poverty and promoting employment in our country, both then and now. At that time this dialogue resulted in wage restraint, accelerated economic recovery and the creation of a strong social system based on solidarity. It was one of the keys to the successful reconstruction of a ravaged country.
And, after all this time, we now find ourselves dealing once again with the very same subjects, in other words how to implement wage restraint, accelerate economic recovery and maintain a stable social system based on solidarity.
Although we are in a much better position, economically speaking, than just after the war, the challenges ahead are no less daunting. I am referring to the challenge of coping with the effects of the worst crisis since the thirties while dealing with the emerging labour shortage, the growing energy and water shortage, and the urgent need to combat the causes of the threats to our climate and environment.
All these developments will have major economic implications and will require much dialogue, cooperation and agreement between the social partners.
One could ask why social dialogue is so important, particularly since the practice of coordination and agreement would prompt the imposition of severe anti-trust measures in any other market. It is precisely because labour is not a commodity and the labour market is not any other market. Labour cannot be dissociated from its provider: the labourer.
Labour is not just a commodity that can be traded, exchanged or sold like any other commodity, because in the end we are trading, exchanging and selling people. However, that doesn’t mean that economic laws of supply and demand do not apply. It is precisely because they would otherwise apply that the labour market cannot be left to function as ‘normal’. Because we don’t want to accept that the value of people diminishes if they are in abundant supply.
The labour market will therefore always require special rules and procedures in order to protect labour and labourers from the raw operation of economic laws.
That is the deeper reason why government and the social partners engage in ongoing consultation with one another and conclude central agreements in the social and economic fields, and take joint decisions on a wide range of subjects.
I am telling you this not to bore you with a lesson in Dutch history but to show you that here in the Netherlands we have a long tradition in this field and that social dialogue has been of inestimable value to us. As it still is. Indeed, it is thanks to social dialogue that the Netherlands is the country it is today.
This is why we are also working at the international level to promote ‘decent work’. And by ‘we’ I do not just mean the government, but also and above all the CNV and FNV trade union federations.
The concept of ‘decent work’ was launched about ten years ago by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). In 1999 the ILO’s Director-General Juan Somavia published a report entitled ‘Decent Work’, in which the primary goal of the ILO was formulated against the background of the globalisation trend. I quote, ‘The primary goal of the ILO today is to promote opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work, in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity.’ End of quote.
There are four strategic objectives.
First, to promote and realise standards and fundamental principles and rights at work.
Second, to create greater opportunities for women and men to secure decent employment and income.
Third, to enhance the coverage and effectiveness of social protection for all.
And, last but not least, to strengthen tripartism and social dialogue between strong and independent organisations of employees and employers.
Since then, decent work has become a worldwide concept. There is broad international consensus that productive employment and decent work for all are the main keys to achieving fair globalisation and reducing poverty.
I have been asked in particular to talk about strengthening social dialogue. By that we mean all types of negotiation, consultation or simply the exchange of information between representatives of governments, employers and workers, on issues of common interest relating to economic and social policy. Such dialogue can exist as a tripartite process, with the government as an official party to the dialogue, or it may consist of bipartite relations only between labour and management, or trade unions and employers’ organisations. Social dialogue processes can be informal or institutionalised, and often they are a combination of the two. The main goal of social dialogue itself is to promote consensus building and democratic involvement among the main stakeholders in the world of work.
In the Netherlands we have achieved good results with social dialogue, and I would therefore have no hesitation in recommending the export of our polder model, were it not for the fact that I think we should be cautious about this. A model that works in the Netherlands need not necessarily work in other countries.
The manner in which social dialogue is established can vary from continent to continent and from country to country. And within countries. It is only right to point out here – in the year in which the CNV has existed for precisely a century – that this federation was focused on social dialogue from the outset. When it was established in 1909, its constitution literally stated that ‘The National Federation of Christian Trade Unions accepts as its foundation Christian principles and therefore rejects class struggle.’ So the CNV chose not to man the barricades but to build bridges. It opted for the dialogue model rather than the conflict model. This was in keeping with the Christian concept that no contradictions exist between the individual and the community, between right and obligation, between freedom and restraint. These are not contradictions but two sides of the same coin; one cannot exist without the other. According to this view, the central factor in society is not the market or the government. They are necessary, but it is cooperation, mutual support and shared responsibility between people that are the motor of society. Our society is based not on individual interests pursued through the market or obligations enforced through the government but on cooperation voluntarily given in a spirit of mutual accommodation. Support and assistance must in the first place be sought from other people; this means that people must have the space to act as they choose and be responsible for their own actions.
This is why, according to this vision, it is society that is the central driving force, not the government or the market. This society is reflected not only in the existence of democratic and representative bodies but also in a multitude of social institutions and links that equip people to bear responsibility for others and for themselves.
Society must enable people to bear this responsibility. Government must guarantee the social conditions for a decent existence, but should not needlessly interfere in people’s personal and social life. Basically, this involves allowing people to realise their potential, protecting their dignity and enabling them, together with others, to achieve their goal in life.
This view of society and the role of government is conducive to a climate in which social dialogue flourishes. When talking about social dialogue in the fight against poverty it is only right to pause and consider the concept of poverty. Anyone in a rich country such as the Netherlands who talks about poverty runs the risk of being misunderstood by two different audiences. If I were to say that poverty exists in the Netherlands, people from the poorest countries of the world would shake their heads in disbelief. ‘Poverty?’ they would exclaim. ‘That’s what we call affluence here!’
But if I were to say that poverty in the Netherlands is not so bad, certainly when compared with the situation in the poorest countries of the world, people here would shake their heads and take me to task for indulging in an exaggerated sense of perspective. This I am not doing. The Netherlands is a rich country. It has the lowest at-risk-of-poverty rate of the European Union, but even in our country some people rightly feel that they are poor. Despite all the social care and security, we cannot prevent people from getting into financial difficulties. And despite all the wealth and all the central government schemes, we cannot prevent people from becoming socially isolated. Poverty is experienced differently from country to country, but in general we can say that people are poor if their means are so limited that they are excluded from living standards accepted as the minimum in the country where they live.
If you have any questions about our approach in practice, please feel free to ask me later, but I now wish to focus above all on the core of our approach to poverty. I could summarise this in two words: decent work.
Work – decent work – is the best route out of poverty. Work has traditionally been an essential part of our lives. You can read this in Genesis: ‘In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread’. The danger of this approach is that work is likely to be seen as a punishment. Anyone who doesn’t work won’t eat.
Humanists such as Moore and Erasmus praised work as the best remedy against poverty and social deprivation. Luther and Calvin proceeded on the assumption that people were basically responsible for their own income. Only those who were really incapable of supporting themselves should be assisted. They considered that it was necessary from the point of view of society for people to pursue their vocation and work. If everyone works, production increases and prosperity rises.
As you’ll appreciate, a true Calvinist nods affirmatively at this point!
But work is about more than earning our daily bread, our daily rice. We not only work to live, but also live to work. In modern society, work places us by definition in a social environment. It is partly through our work that we count in society. The social contacts and networks which we have through our work foster a sense of security and solidarity. Work brings us into contact with other people, creates involvement in social developments and keeps us in touch with advances in modern technology. People who lose their jobs or who are unemployed for a long period not only suffer financially but also run an increased risk of social isolation. When people have to scrape along for a long time on the bare minimum or are permanently unable to get by on their income, without themselves being in a position to do anything about this, there is a real chance that they will end up in poverty. Moreover, people in this position are often unable or barely able to participate in social and community life. People who lose their job lose more than just their income; they lose certainties and social contacts.
Work has an added value for many Dutch people. When asked what they would do if they were to win 25 million euro in the state lottery, only one in seven Dutch people says that he or she would stop working completely. They would all buy nice cars and go on holidays to exotic destinations, but they wouldn’t contemplate stopping work. The right to be lazy, as advocated by Paul Lafargue, the son-in-law of Karl Marx, has never really caught on in the Netherlands. However much Dutch people sometimes grumble about their work and workload, most of them relish the feeling of being occupied and making a contribution to society.
Of course, I should immediately add that this certainly does not apply to all working people. The notion that work is more than income alone implies a certain degree of affluence. Anyone who spends all day scratching around for food has little time for reflections on the merits of work. In such cases life is work and work is life. Only where there is a choice can there be an appreciation of the merits of work.
This is why we are focusing, nationally and internationally, on decent work for all. Decent work to combat poverty. Decent work to promote health and good working conditions.
Poverty is more than a financial issue. Policy on poverty must therefore not be confined to incomes policy alone; it must also be designed to help people to support themselves again independently and to connect them with society. Social security is about more than just offering income security. Social security is about offering work security. Ensuring that people can find and keep decent work. Ensuring that everyone can play a fully fledged role in society.
Poverty is about more than a lack of money. Poverty is about a lack of prospects and scope for participation in society. This is precisely why social dialogue is important in the battle against poverty. Combating poverty is not the monopoly of government bodies; the organisations of employees and employers have an important role to play, nationally and internationally.
In the Netherlands we know the value of social dialogue. We reap the benefits in many fields: from the labour market to health and safety at work and from the rise in incomes to social security.
Immediately after the liberation of the Netherlands the organisations of employers and employees joined forces to combat poverty and rebuild the country. Look around and you see the result. Now that we are standing on the worldwide ruins caused by the credit crisis, the time has come to follow this good example. In unity and social dialogue we must take concerted action to tackle the problems of poverty.
Let me end with the words that concluded the historical manifesto to which I have already referred:
‘Realise that concerted efforts are required from all in order to relieve the distress and repair what has been lost. Employers, keep your gates open! Employees, do your duty! A new future lies before us. Let us get down to work!’
Thank you.