Learning across borders: A European way?

One of the main obstacles impeding the construction of an effective labour movement in Europe is the widespread belief in the myth of a specifically ‘European way’ of responding to capitalist globalization which generates the most effective strategy for delivering economic growth and prosperity whilst achieving social justice. The idea of a European way underpins the Lisbon Strategy adopted by the European Union (EU) in 2000. This strategy has been presented as a progressive response to the multiple challenges of the new global era, which is aimed at achieving a successful transition to a knowledge society. This transition involves the deepening of new forms of democratic governance that engage social and political actors in a dialogue that promotes learning and innovation to achieve a modernized ‘European social model’ (ESM) conducive to balancing competitiveness with social justice (Rodrigues 2002, 2003). This suggests that the European way of a ‘regulated capitalism’ is distinctly

progressive not only in its social content but also in its democratic form. This distinguishes the main trajectory for the development of Europe from the undesirable social and political outcomes of the ‘neoliberal project’ (Hooghe and Marks 2001). Its discourse of a social market form of capitalism, promising to produce a competitive yet social Europe, is seemingly favourable for achieving the main goals of European trade unionism. The stated aims of the Lisbon Strategy are about achieving a high level of high-quality employment and social protection alongside a prominent role for trade unions regarded as social partners in policymaking. However, the Lisbon Strategy has failed to deliver on its targets and high levels of unemployment and poverty remain while liberalization of the economy and the labour market proceeds apace to produce an ‘Unsocial Europe’ (Gray 2004). According to leading figures in the European Trade Union Confederation

(ETUC), the Lisbon Strategy remains the correct route to regulating the new global capitalism and its agenda will lead to ‘the adaptation and not the destruction of the European social model’ (Mendez 2005). The main obstacles to economic and social progress are the business and political supporters of the neoliberal project who have failed to rise to the challenge of ‘striking the right balance’ between ‘dynamic Europe’ and ‘social Europe’ (Monks 2007).

Even though little progress has been made through social dialogue on the central economic and social issues, ‘dialogue’ between the social partners remains the ‘European way’ (Monks 2005): a lesson learnt from the historical experience of the successful partnerships which underpinned the reconstruction of post-war European societies (Monks 2006). Social partnership is an ideology which became prevalent amongst the

higher echelons of European trade unionism as an explanation for the sustained gains of the post-war class compromise. Indeed, the idea of ‘responsible’ trade unionists, who were confident of their social role and sought participation, came to be contrasted with the ‘irresponsible’ who sought to mobilize their power base in the factories and streets (Jacobs 1973). While the ideology of social partnership was generated within, and was underpinned by, the conditions of post-war prosperity the search for a social pact at the European level through social dialogue has remained dominant in the face of the rising tide of unemployment and social insecurity produced by the neoliberal model (Wahl 2002). This is in spite of the ‘minimal substance’ (Hyman 2001: 174) of employment and social protection produced through the social dialogue, which has had ‘minimal relevance for the real world of work and employment’ (ibid.: 175). The dominance of the ‘powerless social dialogue’ (Wahl 2002: 49) within European trade unionism has been sustained by a misrepresentation of the EU as a mechanism for taming globalization whereas in reality it has operated as the means for institutionalizing the neoliberal model in Europe. Rejecting the illusion of the ‘European way’ suggests a fundamental change

in the strategy and identity of European labour away from social dialogue between social partners and towards the mobilization of a social movement which can successfully resist neoliberal restructuring and advance a radically different societal project. This shift in strategy and identity would be the products of a very different type of learning and innovation to that emanating from the mechanisms of governance through which the Lisbon Strategy has been operationalized. It would require an ‘internal social dialogue’ (Hyman 2005: 29) within European labour in order to develop the necessary solidarity and organizational capability to resist the neoliberal agenda. In contrast to the current process of convergence around the discourse of competitiveness through modernization, a meaningful internal social dialogue would have as its goal the convergence of resistance and alternatives to the neoliberal project. This chapter provides an example of an attempt to develop a process of dialogue amongst those unions and associations resisting the modernization agenda in the field of employment and social policies where the new mechanisms of EU governance have been the most developed. This occurred through the European Marches Network against Unemployment, Job Insecurity and Exclusions (EM Network), which organized mobilizations and assemblies that enabled learning across borders to advance the development of embryonic forms of a new identity for European labour.