These are times of great challenges and opportunities for public sector unionists.
For three decades, we have faced a sustained attack on public services. All around the world, policies have been pursued to transform or dismantle the institutions our societies built to attempt to guarantee universal access to some essential rights: clean water, electricity, health care, education, transportation, housing, sewage, communications.
The creation of those public institutions were one of the great gains of the 20th century and are the main reason behind historical advances in economic productivity, life expectancy, health, education, technology, poverty reduction and public well-being.
Since the 1970's, however, we have faced an organized effort to roll back those gains. The proponents of the dismantling of the public sector were motivated by a combination of ideological fundamentalism as well as vested economic interests: the desire to open those activities for private profit. They have worked consistently and deliberately, and in three decades, carried out what the IMF calls "a silent revolution."
1. The emergence and globalization of neo-liberal policies
In the 1970s, think-tanks developed the ideological framework, policies and strategies for the launch of these policies. They trained large numbers of politicians and government officials, policy makers and aspiring politicians, academicians and opinion-makers, all of whom were to occupy increasingly important positions in government, academic institutions, news media and private enterprises.
In the 1980s, the Thatcher-Reagan revolution signaled the first wave of implementation of these policies. At the end of the decade, they had succeeded in:
- implementing massive privatizations in some countries
- removing regulations that restrained their activities and protected the public good
- weakening the labour movement
- creating the beginnings of a public consensus for their views
- changing public and political discourse and
- setting up the basic institutions for the international promotion for their policies.
In the 1990s, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the changes in the policies of the Chinese government, they were able to promote their policies with fewer restraints and to exert greater pressure on developing countries with fewer concerns about geo-political implications.
The rise of the neo-conservatives in the United States and their ascendancy to power in the year 2000, the changed landscape after September 11, 2001 and the fall into compliance of some social democratic governments --who shifted from pro-labour policies to become neo-liberal converts--, further fueled the advance of attacks on the public sector.
Meanwhile, private enterprises accumulated wealth in unprecedented amounts and a frantic pace of mergers led to the creation of vast multinational entities whose wealth and power exceeded that of many countries.
2. The union response
Unionists have not been idle. While in many cases we have been overtaken by events, in some cases, we have succeeded in putting a break on these policies. In a few cases, we have been able to completely stop them.
The key to our success in stopping them, has been to not be caught by surprise, nor simply build opposition, but to offer alternatives that create solid public support and create political conditions that impede privatization.
Generally, however, we have sustained significant losses.
- Public services have deteriorated. Services have been cut or eliminated, user fees imposed, staff reduced and access and quality has diminished.
- Privatization, outsourcing, contracting out, public-private partnerships, public finance initiatives and structural reforms, have proliferated and not only become acceptable, but deeply rooted in public discourse.
- Unions have lost members and influence.
- In many countries, our members have lost ground, their salaries, benefits and working conditions have worsened.
Simply put, in most cases, we have been behind events.
Our biggest weakness is that we have not completely grasped the meaning of the phenomenon of globalization. Or at least, that we have not clearly figured out what it means for our work: what structures we need to create to act effectively in the global arena, in order to strengthen our national and local work.
We need to develop policies that are incisive, timely and have a global perspective, reflect regional conditions, have national incidence and local relevance.
It is extremely important that our policies have local relevance. In the end, our strength is at workplaces. That is where our members are, where our resources come from to build institutions for national industrial, legislative and political action, and where we have the most leverage.
But we have not sufficiently embedded our local planning within a global perspective nor articulated our local activities with international activities. The realities we face when negotiating contracts, our members capacity for delivering quality services, etc, are very much influenced by global events and policies.
3. The road ahead
The current economic crisis will present new challenges but also open great opportunities.
a) The crisis exposes the structural flaws of the private sector, its limitations and failures.
Now, more than ever, it is easier to explain why it is a mistake to put the provision of services and leave key economic activities in the hands of those who are only interested in maximizing their companies' profits and the outlandish personal compensations of their CEOs, does not work.
The scramble of banks and financial companies to be rescued by the public sector and the excesses and incompetence that has been revealed by the financial crisis, helps expose the myth of the greater efficiency of the private sector.
B) The crisis puts public services at further risk.
The advancing structural economic crisis, and the mobilization of resources by governments to address the financial crisis, also means that there will be a renewed push for cutting public services. Now, when they are more needed than before and when investing in them can be a central element in an economic recovery.
But the proponents of market policies are not interested in the public well-being nor are they deterred by the fact that their proposals are not sound. They are only interested in economic gain or blinded by ideological fundamentalism. Fighting them and turning the situation around will require active global efforts in our part.
Now, more than ever, public employees unions need to improve our communications and coordination.
4. Why this blog.
This blog is a small contribution to those efforts. It is a space for leaders, activists and staff of municipal unions affiliated to PSI to exchange information, experiences and ideas, to keep updated and interact with one another over the vast distances that physically separate us.
It is intended to be a tool for organizational efforts by PSI to build networks of public service employees unions to develop policies, strategies and concrete campaigns that help us better navigate the turbulent waters ahead.
We are starting out by using it as a tool for the participants in the International forum on “Strategies to Deal with Privatization and to Achieve
Quality Public Services.”
For details of the meeting's agenda, objectives and documents, please see the post: "International forum of municipal unions on privatization."
