The first austerity measures and pension reforms introduced by Belgium’s new Di Rupo government were met with trade union protests. After a hastily organised public sector strike, the first general 24-hour strike since 1993 was called by three union confederations. The direct cause of the protest was the lack of social dialogue on proposed reforms to the pension system. However, a more fundamental issue has become the polarisation over handling the current crisis.
After a record breaking 541 days of political negotiations, a new coalition government was sworn in on 6 December 2011 in Belgium led by Walloon socialist Elio Di Rupo. The new government quickly embarked on an ambitious reform and austerity programme, bringing the country's budget deficit in line with European Union rules and keeping the government out of the eurozone debt crisis.
The first reforms were introduced in Parliament in the week before Christmas, and the most important were pension reforms. Although the pension age remains at 65, the general goal of the reforms is that everybody will work for at least two years longer than before. The measures raise the minimum age for the country's popular early retirement option from 60 to 62 and make it harder to stop working earlier.
Unions had already been demonstrating before the government took office, warning against harsh measures and arguing for a balanced austerity program.
The swift introduction of pension reforms sparked a direct reaction from unions, who criticised the lack of social dialogue and negotiation on the issue, usually the precursor to any major change in national welfare provision. The public sector led the protest by organising a strike on 22 December, the day the reforms were voted on in Parliament.
Although there were differences in opinion about the success of the hastily organised strike, public transport was shut down. Many workers opted to start their Christmas holiday early.
The three main union confederations then collaborated to announce a general strike on January 30 if no changes to the reforms were made. Although negotiations did begin over the Christmas period, no agreement had been reached by the end of January and unions went ahead with the planned general strike.
A joint statement by Union leaders said the strike was ‘patently required to convince the government and employers to take fully into account the social reality for workers and those on benefits’. It was the first general strike in Belgium since 2005 and the first since 1993 launched jointly by the country's three main unions.
The 24-hour general strike had the expected impact, shutting down the public sector and public transport. Activity in ports was hampered and all flights at Belgium's low-cost airport Charleroi were cancelled. Strike activity was high in large industrial enterprises, but very low in the service sector. The strike took place as EU leaders were meeting for a crisis summit in Brussels, and they had to arrive at a military airfield.
The strike prompted a lively debate in the media that asked whether there was public support for the action, and was it necessary when talks were underway. The fact that unions were being heavily criticised on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter also drew a lot of attention. Some parts of the media interpreted the strong difference in opinions as a clash between generations.
Defending the strike, unions said they fear that the Di Rupo government’s rationalisation plans will hit hardest at Belgium’s most vulnerable people, the young, the old and the poor. They also criticised the lack of progress in the talks they had been having with the government and employers.
The unions argued that instead of austerity, Belgium needs a plan for jobs that will:
Although the pension reforms triggered much of the protest, the unions were also aware of the proposed next round of budget savings, where they fear a revision of the wage indexation system.
They were also raising awareness of developments at the EU level. As part of the strike action union leaders gathered at Schumann square in the EU quarter of Brussels to symbolically issue the first Eurobond.
Employers criticised the action, with employers’ organisations like VBO-FEB, Unizo and Voka threatening to take striking employees to court if they failed to behave properly.
However, VBO-FEB issued a press statement after the strike, acknowledging that the action had been civilly organised and expressed its confidence that the continuing social dialogue would quickly come up with new solutions.
Tripartite talks resumed after the strike and seem to have resulted in a series of measures that will accompany the transition to the new pension system. This conflict seems to be contained for now.
However, the winter period witnessed growing polarisation in the country over socio-economic reforms. It is still to be seen how this polarisation will interfere with the challenges ahead: a new round of budget cuts in the spring and a new intersectoral wage agreement in the autumn.
Website of the trade unions on the strike action:
http://www.abvv.be/web/guest/regeringsmaatregelen
Van Gyes Guy, HIVA-KULeuven