Air traffic controllers' action raises question of limitation of key groups' right to strike

Download article in original language : FI9902194FFI.DOC

The members of the independent Finnish Air Traffic Controllers' Association went on strike on 1 February 1999. They are demanding a wage increase of about 30% over three years, and threatening to look for work elsewhere in Europe where pay levels are higher. The dispute brought to the fore the employers' demand that the right to strike of key groups should be restricted. This demand faces stiff opposition from the labour movement on the grounds that it would violate workers' fundamental rights.

The number of strikes in Finland has been decreasing steadily throughout the 1990s. In the late 1990s, the annual total (illegal strikes included) has dropped to under 100, whereas in the 1980s there were over 1,000 strikes a year. There have not been any major strikes in industry for several years. Instead, the health and social sector and financial services have taken the lead in the strike statistics. The telecommunications sector has also experienced increased stoppages.

One reason for the general decrease may be the current trend of signing long-term national incomes policy agreements (FI9801145F), which contain an obligation to preserve labour market peace. Furthermore, the severe economic depression of the early 1990s dampened the desire to take industrial action - with workers afraid that striking would endanger their jobs. While previously strikes were largely due to wage disputes, in the 1990s they have been used to protest against redundancies.

Although the Finnish labour market system has created a high degree of stability, some small key groups of employees can still cause severe damage by paralysing vital societal functions. The "key group" category consists of employees whose strike action has an impact extending beyond the disputing parties - endangering economic or other national interests, putting the availability of all-important products or services at risk, or otherwise threatening a major public interest.

The vulnerability of society to disruption has increased, and disputes involving key groups may be the most common ones in the future. The demands of these groups can be exceptionally high, using other key groups as a point of comparison.

The employers' organisations have proposed the prohibition of strikes that cause severe inconvenience to the public. In the Finnish system, national conciliators are appointed in order to assist the disputing parties. There is no compulsory conciliation, and no other third party can accept a conciliation proposal on behalf of the litigants. Direct government intervention occurs, in practice, only in cases where there are exceptional events or where especially significant public interests are threatened.

Air traffic controllers take their turn

The key group presently in question are the air traffic controllers, who went on strike on 1 February 1999. This strike, which was still paralysing the major part of Finland's air traffic in mid-February, concerns money. The controllers are demanding a wage increase completely out of proportion with the 1.6% general increase provided for by the current incomes policy agreement. The Finnish Air Traffic Controllers' Association (Lennonjohtajien Yhdistys), which is not affiliated to any trade union confederation, is asking for an increase of about 30% during the next three years. The starting salary for Helsinki controllers is about FIM 18,000 per month, and the average monthly salary for the group is FIM 25,000. The Association has several times refused the compromise solutions proposed by the national conciliator, Juhani Salonius. The Employers' Association for Transport and Special Services (Liikenne- ja Erityisalojen Työnantajaliitto, LTY) - an affiliate of the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (Teollisuuden ja Työnantajain Keskusliitto, TT) - would have approved the conciliator's first proposal for a settlement, even though the suggested increase was considerably higher than the incomes policy agreement level. The proposal would have increased the salaries by 11%-12%. This offer was not enough for the Air Traffic Controllers' Association and so the strike began. The controllers argue that for 10 years their salary level has lagged behind that of their counterparts in other countries.

According to the Association, if there is no satisfactory solution a fifth of the air traffic controllers could move abroad to obtain higher salaries, especially when Finnish air traffic control joins the European umbrella organisation, Eurocontrol (it is the last EU country to do so). According to the Association chair, Sakari Jämsä, there is already a shortage of dozens of controllers in Eurocontrol, and in its member countries the shortage will run into thousands in the next millennium.

LTY considers the strike and the wage demands altogether excessive. The share of air transport in Finland's total export value is over 10%. In the field of high technology, the share is much higher. LTY is concerned about air freight, which plays a major role in connection with electronics and data communications, for example. According to TT, this strike shows once again how a small key group can behave irresponsibly by complicating the normal functioning of society in a demand for unrealistically high wages. LTY considers that the present legislation has great deficiencies. It has also drawn attention to the social partners' joint statement (FI9705115N) that the birth of EU Economic and Monetary Union and the euro means that wage solutions must be measured against a common inflation goal. The changed circumstances require new thinking, also by the key groups. In the words of a TT press release, "excessive wage demands cannot be accepted - not even in the case where the key group can, through strike action, endanger the normal functioning of the whole society ."

About 20% of foreign flights and 80% of domestic flights have been cancelled due to the strike.

Labour movement and government in difficult position

Hardly any means exist of intervening to stop the controllers' strike. The social partners could influence the dispute by establishing a negotiating body, for instance, which would intervene by way of negotiation. As for the government, it has two alternatives for intervention in the strike:

1. before the strike, legislation had already been drafted which could assign more of the air control staff to positions of authority - ie making them representatives of the employer. This would lead to a situation whereby those so assigned would lose their right to strike. This would not necessarily cause any of the strikers to resume work - instead, the use of the legislation could make the dispute worse. This kind of administrative reform can hardly be justified while the dispute is going on. Furthermore, it is open to juridical interpretation as to whether this alternative could be used or not;

2. the strike could be ended by an act of Parliament. The government could pass an act which would forbid the dispute and at the same time lay down the terms on which the work should be continued.

The use of either of these alternatives is unlikely because both the left-wing political parties - the Social Democratic Party and the Left-Wing Alliance- are in the present government. Such intervention would affect these parties' relations with the trade unions - which could be very risky now, with the elections approaching in spring 1999. The biggest union organisation, the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (Suomen Ammattiliittojen Keskusjärjestö, SAK) has declared that it will not support the demands of the Air Traffic Controllers' Association. On the other hand, SAK does not accept any kind of legislative action to limit the right to strike either in general or in this particular situation, and is hoping that a settlement can be reached through negotiations. All matters considered, this seems to be the only way out. Ultimately, if the strike drags on, it will be a battle of nerves as the stakes increase from day to day.

Commentary

Pressure exerted by key groups is no new phenomenon in the Finnish labour market. The key groups have used quite drastic methods since the 1970s, and governments have been powerless in the face of those demands. Because the right to strike is considered as a basic right of workers, it has not been possible to interfere with it without strong reaction from the labour movement.

A new aspect in the current dispute is that now, with EU labour markets open to Finns, one privileged group of workers is making a European comparison and threatening to move abroad for better wages if its demands are not accepted. This can be interpreted as a Finnish example of the pressure for harmonisation of wages in Europe, which may be a painful process for many small countries.

The dispute is also giving rise to moral consideration as to what is just. The depression of the early 1990s left deep scars on Finnish society by removing part of the population from employment and, at the same time, teaching caution to those who managed to keep their jobs. Now, when the economic upswing has continued for a few years, many successful companies have created separate wage systems and privileged share options for management staff (FI9804158F) These options, worth millions of Finnish marks, have aroused strong reactions amongst the public and are a sign of crumbling solidarity. The perceived greed of privileged groups is considered to be increasing along with the economic upswing. Now it seems that some wage earners, too, see themselves as irreplaceable. During the last few years, companies have emphasised economic liberalism. Prohibiting certain groups from pursuing better pay does not fit well into this picture. (Juha Hietanen, Ministry of Labour)