Undermining the ‘Polder Model’: Workers’ Militancy and Trade-Union Leadership in Four Dutch Wildcat Strikes, 1963–1970

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Ad Knotter
{"title":"Undermining the ‘Polder Model’: Workers’ Militancy and Trade-Union Leadership in Four Dutch Wildcat Strikes, 1963–1970","authors":"Ad Knotter","doi":"10.3828/hsir.2023.44.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"All over Europe, workers’ insubordination in the 1960s and 1970s became manifest in a growing number of wildcat strikes. In the Netherlands, under the guise of the so-called consensual ‘polder model’, trade unions were part of a repressive system of industrial relations. From 1963, rank-and-file opposition in ‘unofficial’ strikes forced the ‘official’ unions to abandon their support of restrictive wage policies. After a huge wildcat strike in the port of Rotterdam in 1970, the union leadership changed its policy and began to initiate strikes. In this article, rank-and-file mobilization and the union leaderships’ reaction are analysed in four wildcat strikes between 1963 and 1970. It concludes that in these strikes the union leadership and rank-and-file members, while opposed to each other, were also mutually dependent. The union leadership was forced to adapt to pressure from below, and strikers had to rely on the bargaining ability of union officials to reach an agreement with the employers. Both parties had to accept an involuntary symbiosis. In this way, the attachment of the trade-union leadership to the top-down consensus in the ‘polder model’ was undermined.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3828/hsir.2023.44.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

All over Europe, workers’ insubordination in the 1960s and 1970s became manifest in a growing number of wildcat strikes. In the Netherlands, under the guise of the so-called consensual ‘polder model’, trade unions were part of a repressive system of industrial relations. From 1963, rank-and-file opposition in ‘unofficial’ strikes forced the ‘official’ unions to abandon their support of restrictive wage policies. After a huge wildcat strike in the port of Rotterdam in 1970, the union leadership changed its policy and began to initiate strikes. In this article, rank-and-file mobilization and the union leaderships’ reaction are analysed in four wildcat strikes between 1963 and 1970. It concludes that in these strikes the union leadership and rank-and-file members, while opposed to each other, were also mutually dependent. The union leadership was forced to adapt to pressure from below, and strikers had to rely on the bargaining ability of union officials to reach an agreement with the employers. Both parties had to accept an involuntary symbiosis. In this way, the attachment of the trade-union leadership to the top-down consensus in the ‘polder model’ was undermined.
破坏 "围垦地模式":1963-1970年荷兰四次 "野猫 "罢工中的工人战斗力和工会领导力
在整个欧洲,1960 和 1970 年代工人的不服从表现为越来越多的野猫式罢工。在荷兰,工会打着所谓协商一致的 "围垦地模式 "的幌子,成为压制性劳资关系制度的一部分。从 1963 年起,"非官方 "罢工中的普通员工反对派迫使 "官方 "工会放弃对限制性工资政策的支持。1970 年鹿特丹港发生大规模野猫式罢工后,工会领导层改变了政策,开始发起罢工。本文分析了 1963 年至 1970 年间四次 "野猫式 "罢工中的基层动员和工会领导层的反应。文章的结论是,在这些罢工中,工会领导层和普通会员虽然相互对立,但也相互依存。工会领导层被迫适应来自下层的压力,而罢工者则不得不依靠工会官员的谈判能力与雇主达成协议。双方不得不接受一种非自愿的共生关系。这样,工会领导层对 "围垦模式 "中自上而下的共识的依附性就被削弱了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Historical Studies in Industrial Relations
Historical Studies in Industrial Relations Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信