interview
Transport Minister Wissing’s criticism of the GDL is clear: it gives the impression that reasons for striking are being sought instead of solutions, he said ARD interview. However, he rules out any crackdown on the railways or the right to strike.
ARD: Many people are really upset about new strikes. Are they that too?
Volker Wissing: Yes, I think this collective bargaining conflict is increasingly taking on features that are no longer comprehensible. Citizens suffer from this situation. And the way in which “wave strikes” are now being announced leaves a strange feeling.
Anyone who makes use of the right to strike must also take responsibility and that means negotiating constructively. This gives the impression that reasons for striking are being sought rather than solutions to the collective bargaining dispute. And I understand that people are upset about this.
“I expect people not to behave destructively”
ARD: You’ve already mentioned these “wave strikes” – i.e. strikes without notice – that also means that the railway’s emergency plans are being undermined and therefore any ability to plan both in freight transport and in passenger transport is lost. How do you rate that?
Wissing: I find it incomprehensible why Mr. Weselsky misunderstood the conciliation paper. Because the conciliation paper is not formulated in an ambiguous manner. And I have to demand that negotiations here take place professionally and responsibly.
And of course I have no understanding when Mr. Weselsky says that he is working to ensure that the train is not a reliable means of transport. This cannot be meant seriously and that is why a solution must now be found seriously and professionally on the basis of the arbitrator’s suggestion. And without there being any further strikes. I expect that you don’t behave destructively, but rather in a solution-oriented, responsible manner.
ARD: It was just mentioned that this collective bargaining conflict is putting a lot of strain on people, but especially on the economy. What damage do you see coming to the economy, for example? Can this be quantified in any way?
Wissing: These strikes have a massive impact on our country, on individual mobility and of course on our economy. And now, in a time of economic weakness, we must ensure that everyone stands together and everyone makes a constructive contribution to getting our country back on track for growth. Individuals cannot take a destructive path.
Exactly what kind of economic damage will occur will be analyzed. But it is clear that a reliable railway is a prerequisite for us to achieve growth and for the economy in our country to develop well. And it is also clear that these “wave strikes” are virtually completely unpredictable for people and have massive effects on the economy. And that’s why I can only appeal to negotiate and quickly work out a solution. Everyone is responsible, including Mr. Weselsky.
“We cannot begin to resolve collective bargaining disputes politically”
ARD: They appeal to responsibility. The federal government is the sole owner of the railway. Many expect you to do more than just appeal now. That they have an influence. Will you do that?
Wissing: We have a system in which it is not politicians who resolve collective bargaining conflicts, but rather the collective bargaining parties. And I can only ask for your understanding that this must be adhered to. We cannot begin to resolve collective bargaining disputes politically or from the government side. One thing is clear: the railway is owned by the federal government. But it is also clear that it is a company on the market. And as such, the railway must negotiate as a collective bargaining party, and not the federal government.
These things must not be mixed. This would have a massive impact on future collective bargaining disputes, which is why it is definitely not possible to exert direct influence here. But it is also clear that freedom from collective bargaining does not mean that one can behave destructively and irresponsibly. Everyone is responsible for ensuring that a conflict is resolved. We need an answer to the tariff question, but at the same time we also need mobility for people and freight transport. Everyone has to feel responsible here. And I urgently demand this responsibility.
ARD: What does that mean specifically, responsibility? For example, can’t you force the two partners to go to mediation? The moderation apparently didn’t help. People are simply asking themselves: What can you do to resolve this conflict?
Wissing: Negotiate, talk to each other. Look: the conciliation paper is not formulated in a misleading way. Nevertheless, in public you have to admit that you have misunderstood it. I can’t understand what could be misleading there. And of course this conciliation paper is a basis for finding a solution. But you have to speak up and you can’t insist on maximum demands. Insisting on maximum demands and maximum positions is not a contribution to finding a compromise.
“The train is not state-owned enterprise”
ARD: But you could say to the railway board: “35 hours, that’s the union’s main demand, do it!” – and the conflict would be resolved.
Wissing: The railway is not a state-owned company, but rather a company on the market and it is the railway board that has to be responsible for personnel issues and also the collective bargaining results. The Federal Transport Minister is not a party to the collective bargaining agreement here. You can’t mix these things. And it is also clear that the federal government cannot interfere in ongoing collective bargaining disputes.
ARD: Would you say a strike law would help? Maybe not for this conflict now, but for future ones? This demand is also in the room.
Wissing: Again: the right to strike is regulated in our constitution. And if a vested right is used, it is impossible for the federal government to intervene or indirectly intervene in the discussion about changes to the law. Our mission is to protect constitutional rights – and I stick to that.
But it is also clear that rights and freedoms must always be accompanied by responsibility. To say unilaterally: “I’ll strike whenever I want, but I won’t sit down at the negotiating table or engage constructively with an arbitration proposal,” that goes too far.
“Do not weaken public transport’s attractiveness”
ARD: Now the railway is a core component of the transport transition. People are turning away, turning more and more to cars and are deterred from switching. One could also say that whatever positive impact the Germany ticket may have had is now being torn down again by these strikes. The damage is great for the railway and also for the transport transition. How do you see that?
Wissing: The Deutschlandticket has meant that we have significantly more people on public transport. The Germany ticket was a game changer. It is therefore important that this collective bargaining conflict comes to a quick end, given that strikes and uncertainties in mobility with public transport are weakening its attractiveness. We can’t use that at a time when we all have to make an effort to ensure climate-neutral mobility and affordable mobility for everyone. This is also part of the responsibility that the two collective bargaining parties must assume.
And it can’t be right for a collective bargaining party to say: “My demands must be met 100 percent. I’m not making any compromises.” And if you look at this conciliation paper, then you notice a significant difference to Mr. Weselsky’s presentation and that is why it is now up to him to take a step and ensure that the population is spared from these strikes.
“I will not get involved in this collective bargaining dispute”
ARD: Are you in contact with the railway management? Do you exchange ideas?
Wissing: Again: I will not actively intervene in this collective bargaining dispute. That is not the task of the federal government. We are no simpler in collective bargaining disputes. We have clear rules here that we have done very well with in the past.
Collective bargaining autonomy always works very well in Germany when the negotiators of the respective collective bargaining parties are aware of their overall social responsibility in addition to their legitimate interests. And I appeal to this responsibility. One cannot expect that I would now become directly involved in this collective bargaining dispute, because that would be of great harm to future collective bargaining disputes.
We cannot deal with each other in such a way that the collective bargaining parties present their collective bargaining issues to the federal government. In the end, that wouldn’t help anyone. We have to go back to a principle of dealing responsibly with society as a whole when it comes to what is important – good collective bargaining autonomy.
The interview was conducted by Jan Zimmermann, ARD Capital Studio