Agreement between Bahn and GDL: Others pay the price


comment

As of: March 26, 2024 7:26 p.m

GDL boss Weselsky can pat himself on the back. After six strikes, he pushed through his demands. So it was worth it for him. But that’s not the right signal. Because others bear the high costs.

“A success almost across the board,” is how Claus Weselsky calls the agreement with the railways in his own, immodest way. And he is absolutely right. 35-hour week with full wage compensation, 420 euros more money per month, an inflation subsidy of almost 3,000 euros.

All of this is pretty close to what the GDL boss demanded four months ago. The fact that the 35-hour week is now coming a year later and that train drivers can work longer at their own request is little more than a consolation for Deutsche Bahn. The group has largely caved in, even if it is now selling it as an innovative solution.

At the expense of rail customers and the economy

The GDL achieved – or rather forced – this result with six strikes at the expense of millions of rail customers and an estimated cost of several hundred million euros for the economy. The fact that the railway posted a loss of 2.4 billion euros last year seems irrelevant. Ultimately, rail customers pay for the ailing company through rising ticket prices and taxpayers with ever-increasing subsidies.

Other unions are likely to jump on the bandwagon

What now remains of the painfully long collective bargaining dispute? The lesson that it pays to strike until it squeaks, loud in tone, uncompromising in substance. The strike also shows that the 35-hour week can be enforced with full wage compensation. Other unions are likely to jump on the bandwagon. .

At a time when the German economy is weakening, some are emigrating and suffering from a shortage of skilled workers, this is certainly not the right signal for Germany as a location. At least Claus Weselsky gave himself a nice farewell present shortly before his retirement. Others pay the price for this.

Editorial note

Comments generally reflect the opinion of the respective author and not that of the editorial team.

source site