In September 2000, lorry drivers demonstrated against increases in petrol prices and paralysed the Belgian economy for several days. An agreement was reached between two of the three road haulage employers' federations and the government, but in the meantime the action had spread to other sectors. Measures were taken to respond to the action taken, but in the end, the Prime Minister had to intervene to calm things down, and call for all demands to be put on hold until 17 October 2000.
On 11 September 2000, against the background of increasing fuel prices and subsequent unrest among lorry drivers, a meeting was held between the road haulage employers' federations and the federal minister for mobility, Isabelle Durant, in an attempt to negotiate on conditions in the sector. The representative federations invited to the negotiating table were:
At the top of the list of demands for some of the employers' associations were a lower duty on fuel and the introduction of a partly tax-exempt "industrial fuel" (similar demands to those make by fuel-price protesters in some other EU countries - ES0010217F and UK0010192N) However, just as talks were due to get under way, the finance minister, Didier Renders, announced that he was not going to listen to any talk of "industrial fuel" at a time when 1,700 vehicles were demonstrating on the outskirts of Brussels. The lorry drivers were outraged and entered the city, blocking the centre of the capital.
The employers' associations held different positions: the leaders of FEBETRA and SAV called on their members to leave the city, while UPTR argued that their basic response was legitimate. Over the next few days, the action spread geographically, resulting in other roadblocks throughout the Brussels region and in Wallonia. Traffic slowly ground to a halt, while there was a rush to use the railways, and bicycles appeared all over the city. People made a link between the lorry drivers' anger and their own fear at the prospect of higher prices for crude oil products, but at the first sign of shortages, popular support began to wane. The Federation of Belgian Enterprises (Fédération des Entreprises de Belgique/Verbond van Belgische Ondernemingen, FEB/VBO) called on the government to intervene immediately so that the economy could return to normal.
After several days of stormy talks, an agreement was reached between the federal government, FEBETRA and SAV, but UPTR, the most belligerent federation, refused to sign the agreement on the grounds that the government proposals did not go far enough and had an "uneven effect on enterprises, through the introduction of extra paperwork"; moreover, the road haulage industry had not won its argument over "industrial fuel". Nevertheless, the roadblocks were lifted during the night after the agreement was signed, after being in place for five days and nights.
The agreement between the government and the two sectoral employers' associations, FEBETRA and SAV, provides for the payment of charges by road hauliers to be reduced or spread out, and for the campaign against unfair competition in the industry (eg non-compliance with rules relating to rest periods, and "social dumping") to be stepped up. The government believes that it has largely met the demands of a sector shaken by recent increases in crude oil product prices, which have in turn revealed a more profound malaise: the sector faces fierce competition, and is being stifled by heavy fixed charges (BE9906275F).
Even though the roadblocks had been lifted, the government had not yet dealt with the consequences of the fuel price rises that were affecting citizens' travelling and heating costs. In the aftermath of the agreement between the road hauliers and the government, trade union leaders insisted that government take measures to cater for ordinary people as well.
On 15 September 2000, the government decided to bring in a mechanism whereby, on production of a bill, the difference between heating fuel prices from one year to the next is reimbursed by the state, up to a maximum of BEF 5 per litre for the first 1,000 litres. This measure will benefit people in receipt of social benefits and those on a gross annual income of less than BEF 484,000 . The trade unions consider this measure to be inadequate and too narrowly targeted. They have also put back on the table the idea of linking pay to movements in fuel prices: this was abolished following the introduction of the "health index" in 1994 (which removed price increases for tobacco, alcohol, diesel and petrol from the consumer prices index for the purposes of pay indexation - BE9802228F), but workers have experienced a loss of purchasing power while fuel prices have shot up, as they are doing at the moment (BE0008323F). However, FEB/VBO emphasised the risks of reverting to an indexing mechanism that was sensitive to energy costs: there would be a danger, it said, of reproducing the mistakes of the 1970s and of the state running into debt again.
Some 5,000 engineering workers demonstrated at the same time as the road haulage federations in protest against a fall in purchasing power; simultaneously, Flemish farmers organised in the Boerenbond and the Algemeen Boerensyndicaat took part in actions to seek specific aid similar to what the lorry drivers had obtained.
Following numerous demands from a wide range of sectors, the Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, finally intervened in order to calm things down. There would be no more government measures, he said, until 17 October, the date when he promised to make an official federal statement on available budget margins and the government's priorities. He thus called for all demands to be put on hold until that date.
In the current climate marked by economic upturn, and as preparations are being made for a new intersectoral agreement to be negotiated this autumn, the trade unions and the employers appear to have been overtaken by sectors each making their own specific claims for a "larger share of the cake". It was this that triggered the demonstrations in September. Within the government itself, matters have not been very clear, with each minister having to respond to demands without accurate information as to available budgetary margins. There appeared to be a need to refocus debate, and that is what the Prime Minister achieved by blocking the situation until 17 October 2000. The federal statement due on that day was eagerly awaited by the social partners at both intersectoral and sectoral level, which hoped for hard facts on their potential room for manoeuvre. (Catherine Delbar, Institut des Sciences du Travail – UCL)