[Pilot 2 homepage] [Discussion] [Study Circles] [Help]
[Prepatory meeting] [Session1] [Session 2] [Session 3] [Session 4] [Session 5] [Session 6]

The impact of the EWC directive is certain to be considerable. More than 1,200 companies operating in Europe, employing approximately 15 million workers are affected by it. Household names like Ford, Siemens, BP, Philips, Marks and Spencer, Renault, ICI, Benetton, Barclays Bank and Sony are all covered.

Many much smaller companies, employing over 1000 people in Europe are also affected. The impact will reach into what was traditionally the public sector. Privatisation and growing multinational links mean that areas like cleaning, or public utilities such as water or telecommunication companies, are also covered.

The setting up of so many European-level bodies is certain also to have an impact on the trade union movement. If there are 25 members on each EWC, this means that there will be 30 thousand workers representatives, mostly lay members rather than full-time officials, meeting colleagues from elsewhere in Europe at least once a year. Workers will begin to compare their terms and conditions across borders as well as looking at the strengths and weaknesses of national systems of bargaining and worker representation.

Some trade unionists are concerned that EWCs may be used to bypass existing bargaining arrangements and undermine trade unions. However, as John Monks from the TUC in Britain said: the issue will be "not whether there should be European Works Councils or not" but the difference between those "European Works Councils which are exploited to their full potential by trade unions, and those which become tame bodies who agenda and functioning is determined by the employer".

The Directive on EWCs can also be seen as the first concrete result of a lengthy struggle by trade unionists to try to limit in some way the freedom of multinationals to act entirely as they wish. It is the only piece of legislation so far which requires companies to provide information and consultation rights at a multinational level.

EWC Successes:

One obvious potential benefit from an EWC is a better flow of information particularly at times of crisis, such as when production is shifted from one country to another. As Willy Buschak of the European Trade Union Confederation has stated:

"European Works Councils cannot be looked upon as a magic tool to prevent relocation. But they can well become a magic tool to guarantee that relocations are managed in such a way that workers are not played off against each other, that workers and their representatives have an insight into the reasoning of management, have a possibility to come in with their viewpoints and that, to this extent, decision-making is democratised".

Bushak referred specifically to the problems that emerged in February 1993 when the US company Hoover closed its plant in Dijon France and transferred production to Cambusland in Scotland. A European Works Council would perhaps not have been able to avoid the transfer of production within Hoover - it might not have even wished to do so. But a EWC would have avoided misunderstanding and distrust among the workers of the company.

It is certainly the case that many trade unionists experience of EWC meetings has been broadly positive. In the view of Peter Booth, the TGWU officer responsible for Coats Viyella (clothing and textile multinational), "the works council reps are receiving far more detailed information on the company than ever before".

As well as getting information from the company an EWC also provides for an exchange of information between employee representatives. And, as a study for the Dutch union confederation FNV found, this can be of great benefit:

"In cases where an effective information and co-ordination system has been established between employees representatives, there have been enormous improvements in comparison to the old situation; a much clearer and fuller image has been obtained of the situation in which the company is operating, and strategy being followed. It is possible to cross-check misleading or partial information from management, and alternatives can be developed. This is considered extremely positive, by those directly involved".

A worker from Britain stated that EWCs had provided "an insight into what the company's factories abroad were like, the differences and similarities". Contacts between workers after the meeting had included exchanges of information on pay and conditions and on production plans.