Global Framework Agreements - International Centre for Trade ...

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSPSI and the historicaldevelopment of GlobalFramework AgreementsIt could be seenas a contradictionto defend servicesin public handsand at the sametime to concludeagreements withthose who wereprivatising themJÜRGEN BUXBAUM isPSI Coordinator PublicAdministration andMultinational EnterprisesPrivate interests in the public sectorIn recent decades, multinational enterpriseshave become increasingly influential in privateindustries, with public services seeminglyimmune to the direct influence of profit making.However, public service workers and theirunions have had to learn new lessons taught bythe teachers of New Liberalism, lessons thatbecame the global ideology after the dissolutionof the Soviet Union. The message that wentaround the world told people: Private does betterthan public.It is not a surprise that many citizens of formersocialist countries, who were for a long timealready aware of the differences in wealth andeconomic efficiency between their own countriesand the capitalist world, welcomed a system thatpromised to provide better services and a betterlife. Why should what seemed to be advantageousin the private industry not work in publicservices? Here and there, the message also fell onopen ears in Western countries, where publiclyowned companies and services were sometimesbeing used in the interest of political parties, orfrustrated people with their bureaucratic proceduresor the unsatisfying quality of the servicesdelivered. However, the most influential role forpromoting neoliberal policies was probablyplayed by the media. In the Western world, thevast majority of these welcomed and supportedthe neoliberal agenda and its core message: cutpublic spending and privatise public services!Nonetheless, public resistance against neoliberalpolicies would probably have been stronger, ifconservative parties and governments in Europealone had supported the policies. The anti-publicservice agenda, however, was certainly notrestricted to conservative parties. One cannotdeny that socialists and social democrats in theUK, in Germany, in Spain and elsewhere wereparticularly active and effective in selling publicproperty and cutting into public spending andweakening the social fabric. While resistance wasnot easy under these conditions, all over theworld public sector unions opposed privatisationand marketisation. This meant first of all organisingcampaigns to mobilise public opinion againstprivatisation and outsourcing; industrial actionremained exceptional.The working conditions of public sector unionsin poor countries were, of course, much worsethan those of their colleagues in the EuropeanUnion, the US, Japan or other countries belongingto the G8. In all countries depending on internationalcredits, the policies of the IMF, theWorld Bank or the World Trade Organisationcould easily be imposed. Everywhere in thesecountries, the privatisation of public services andreductions in public expenditure were very highon the agenda. Authoritarian regimes made publicor union resistance very difficult. PSI affiliatesreported examples of Western governmentsencouraging the privatisation of water abroad,whilst in their own countries, the public ownershipof water services was guaranteed by law.The union strategy to foil privatisation was mirroredby discussions and decisions at the 2002PSI World Congress in Ottawa, Canada. The privatisationof public services was a key issue duringthis Congress. A resolution was passed tolaunch a global campaign on quality public services,identifying privatisation as a threat andaiming at keeping public services in publichands. It was agreed that the process of privatisationshould, at least, be slowed down and thatthe water sector should remain in public hands.The 2002 Congress documents illustrated that,at that time, PSI affiliated public services unionsdid not expect their global union federation tonegotiate directly on their behalf with multinationalenterprises, with the aim of concludingglobal agreements on employment standards,worker and trade union rights, etc. This may havebeen related to the optimistic view that foilingprivatisation and mobilising the public opinionwould be successful in the end. Different culturesand histories of trade union action may also haveplayed a role; where a confrontational traditionof industrial relations was predominant, negotiatingand signing agreements may not have beenseen as top priority. By signing such agreements,there might have also been the fear that privateersmay use the factual ‘recognition’ by publicservice unions in their aggressive policy on socalledpublic-public-partnership, concession contractsand other forms of direct and indirect privatisationof services. It could be seen as a contradictionto defend services in public hands andat the same time to conclude agreements withthose who were privatising them.Public service unions often stood alone in theirdefence of public services in public hands. Inmany countries, active support of trade unionsorganising workers in industrial sectors - beyondverbal or written declarations of solidarity -remained exceptional. Sometimes political andmedia campaigns, targeting real or alleged ‘privileges’of civil servants in particular and publicsector workers in general, had a strong impact.Sometimes workers employed in the privateindustry did not understand why their colleaguesin the public sector resisted working in their partof the economy. And the ideological hegemonyof neoliberalism certainly prevented major publicdiscussions about the importance of public healthand social services, water and energy supplies,municipal services and quality public administra-INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 14 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011