Two steps forward and one step back

Jeroen Sprenger∗ 

Introduction

‘The quest for the ideal structure is like trying to square the circle’, Jan Mertens, from 1963-1973 president 0f the Dutch catholic trade union confederation, once sighed. The existing structure was never ideal, the defects made themselves felt all too often, but proposals for a new structure often threw up more drawbacks than benefits. Being a pragmatist, he usually went on to say: ‘If we cannot do what we should, we should do what we can.’

The trade union movement came into being as a reaction to developments in industry whereby matters of importance to workers, such as opportunities for advancement, income, social security and the quality of work, were coming under threat. Members not only wanted their trade unions to provide an alternative to the 'protection' that had been lost, but also to a greater or lesser extent to ensure that from their point of view their branch of industry developed along favourable lines. They therefore wanted not just to be followers but also to be proactive. In such a dialectical process it is impossible to remain unchanging oneself. Policy not only needs to be continuously adapted to the changes taking place, the structure itself also needs to be modified in response to structural changes affecting the sectors. This article describes developments within the Dutch trade union movement, with particular emphasis on the building and woodworking industry.i

Developments up to the second world war

Industrialisation spawned the development of the trade unions. As the process started some 50 to 100 years later in the Netherlands than elsewhere in western Europe, the emergence of trade unions also lagged behind, although the first ones were comparable in nature to those elsewhere. People working in a particular occupation initially grouped together into local organisations with a strong social and cultural character. Later on, as industrialisation was even more clearly accompanied by adverse consequences for the position of craftsmen and other workers, these associations increasingly assumed the traits of an interest group. The different organisations, which increasingly took on the character of a trade union, came together locally in general federations (besturenbonden) responsible for representing workers' interests overall at local level. At the same time these local organisations set up national associations of workers in the same occupation. This dual development – grouping together locally with other workers' associations and at national level with associations of workers in the same occupation – took place in the Netherlands from about 1890 onwards. There were certainly prior attempts but not ones with any lasting results.

A process of denominational segregation took place in Dutch society during the same period. The Catholic community, after two or three centuries of repression, sought to assert itself and to carve out its own place in society, so making a distinction between itself and the dominant Protestant-Christian community. The move prompted people wishing to emphasise Protestant-Christian standards and values to put forward their views, with the consequence that the so-called general organisations saw their claim to be umbrella organisations gradually lose credibility. For the trade unions this meant that Protestant-Christians and Catholics split away from the original general organisations, a process that was 'encouraged' by the growing influence of 'socialists' within the general organisations. Those that left argued that they were no longer 'at home' in them.

This segregation of Dutch society thus lead to the development between 1890 and 1910 of a trade union movement divided into three different currents.

Developments within the now three national trade union centres followed a comparable course. Within all three between 1905 and 1910 the grouping together of unions at local and national level lead to the formation of a national trade union centre in which all organisations from the same denomination came together. While the trade union centre is an expression of centralisation, as soon as such a federation has been formed a process of concentration starts. ‘Not only was there a need to bring greater unity to the national movement, so rendering its activities more manageable, there was the additional consideration that the national units so created should represent the
greatest possible concentration of power.’ii

It is important in this connection to recognise that to an increasing degree there were matters of concern on the agenda for workers at national level with still little or no input from the workers themselves. The fight for general voting rights was therefore a key area of action for the trade unions, along with efforts to influence newly-emerging social legislation. The desire or need for centralisation and concentration was therefore not only originating from within the trade unions but was also a need imposed from outside. 'Even if you do not want to concern yourself with politics, be well aware that politics will concern you', is the message successive generations of trade union leaders put across to their members, first of all to get them behind the campaign for universal suffrage and later, from 1922 onwards, to urge them to make use of their voting rights.iii

Organisations that want to influence national policy or day-to-day developments in their sectors need continuity. Pursuing action to obtain improvements or new regulations is one thing; enforcing compliance with agreements made and consolidating positions acquired is something else. A spontaneous campaign on a particular issue is relatively easy to organise. Good results can also be achieved in this way. But if you want to ensure that achievements are maintained over the long term and that you can get your viewpoint implemented without always having to hold a knife to people's throats, regular dialogue with the government and employers is important. And for this purpose a sturdy organisational framework that is not going to blow down at the first breath of wind is necessary. Knowledge of this fact gradually prompted related occupational organisations to merge where they were too small to meet this requirement. Accordingly, in 1912 the Central Federation of Building Workers was created within the general national centre from a merger between the bricklayers’ and stonemasons’ unions. Eight years later this organisation once again found that it lacked sufficient clout and joined the carpenters’ union to form the General Dutch Building Workers’ Federation. Unions within the Catholic national centre that represented carpenters, painters and limestone and stone workers had already merged in 1917.

These mergers did not alter the organisational principles: occupation remained the decisive factor in the choice of trade union. However, the less specific the category that a trade union represented the greater the chance that its sphere of operations would overlap with another’s. Should local community road workers and gas fitters fall within the province of unions representing civil servants at local level? Are milkmen 'transport workers' or agricultural workers/dairy product processors? Do knitters belong to the textile workers’ union or to the garment workers’ union? And what about cocoa processors; should they be members of the bakers’ union or the factory workers’ union? These are questions that can cause a great deal of conflict between unions at a time when each one wants as many members as possible and officers of national centres spent much time resolving such problems.

Unsurprisingly no final solution was found. The blurring of boundaries has been produced by developments not only in industry but also in workers’ career paths. New industries are born in which new working methods are applied that place new requirements on the workers. Take, for example, the emergence of artificial silk factories. Do we have here a textile that can be made from artificial silk or a chemical process with artificial silk as its end product? Do the workers therefore belong to the textile workers union or the factory workers union? And if we look at the individual career of a worker, if a worker in a dairy produce factory has the opportunity to become a milk supplier for the same employer, is he then required to transfer to the transport workers’ union?

The regular occurrence of demarcation disputes in a trade union movement organised along occupational lines was not the only motivation behind the quest for a new structure. As the trade union movement in general carved out a place for itself in society, views evolved about a new economic order as an alternative to capitalism. Work to come up with alternatives took place in all sections of Dutch society after the first world war, although for a long time proposals differed. The confessional organisations emphasised the autonomy of employers and of workers settling matters amongst themselves with as much freedom as possible and independent of government. The general organisations, of social democratic hue, wanted a significant role for the State, such that within the boundaries and guidelines laid down by the State employers and workers should be able to conduct a dialogue on industrial affairs.

In spite of these differences the industrial structure that emerged from the alternatives was similar. Individual industries were subdivided into branches of industry and, so the thinking went, these sectors were to be headed by an all-industry, umbrella, socio-economic council. The work on developing proposals was set in motion around 1918, stalled during the second half of the 1920s, but was then taken up again in the 1930s as a consequence of the far-reaching economic crisis. The question was no longer confined to paper. In 1933 the Branch Council Act, which can be regarded as a modest formulation of the body of ideas dating from the early 1920s, was adopted. The outcome was nowhere near what the trade unions, both confessional and social democratic, had in mind. The Act made provision only for employers and workers to set up joint councils at sectoral level for organised dialogue on a wide range of socio-economic subjects. By 1940, 21 such councils had been set up and none of them can be described as a success. John Windmuller and Cees de Galan, in their standard work Industrial relations in the Netherlands, concluded: ‘With hindsight their significance was that they – and the Act which made them possible – created a precedent and a basis for renewed efforts to achieve an effective public law industrial organisation after the war.’iv

The Branch Council Act once again brought home the imperfect structure of the trade unions. By setting up a branch council in a sector of industry, unions and employers’ organisations can hold a dialogue on industrial relations, vocational training, employment, the establishment of funds and the implementation of social legislation. But which unions should take part in the dialogue? There are relatively few problems with the manual workers’ unions; their sphere of activity is confined in most cases to a small number of sectors. For non-manual workers the situation is fundamentally different, as their sphere of operation encompasses almost all sectors. The trade unions urged that non-manual workers also be assigned a place on the branch councils, but the minister of social affairs and the employers were not in favour.

A third incentive to review the structure of the Dutch trade union movement arose from the development of the social security system. The first provisions for sickness, unemployment and old age benefit were shaped by the trade unions. These provisions were regarded as an instrument for giving the unions some degree of continuity. If membership of the trade union is also associated with the payment of benefits, so the thinking went, people are likely to think twice before cancelling their membership. Originally management of these funds was purely a trade union matter, but this did not stand in the way of the further development of ideas about State welfare provision for people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to participate in the work process and hence cannot earn an income. Consequently, in 1917 at the urging of the trade unions and sympathetic politicians the government accepted responsibility for providing for the unemployed and ever since then the State has augmented trade union benefits.

No general provisions for sickness benefit were adopted before the second world war, although views on the role of the State and the social partners did move closer. In social democratic circles there was acceptance that the sectors must be assigned a role in the implementation of a social security system, but in that case the structure of the trade union movement must correspond.

In 1919 a committee was set up within the Protestant-Christian trade union centre with a remit to consider the demarcation disputes between the different occupational trade unions. It is not surprising that the debate started in this particular national centre, for the need to safeguard continuity is first and foremost going to affect the smallest national centre with the smallest trade unions. It is even less surprising that it was the factory and transport workers’ union that grasped the nettle, as it was the one most affected by demarcation disputes. The proposal put forward by the committee in 1921 for a trade union movement structured along sectoral lines went too far in the eyes of the national centre:

The general assembly, while agreeing with the principal idea formulated in the report whereby the industry must form the primary basis for the organisational form of trade unions, takes the view that the consideration of this question in its various aspects has not yet produced a comprehensive insight into the details, such that a decision, also having regard to the changing industrial relations context, cannot be deemed binding in all respects. v

As a compromise, a demarcation disputes committee was set up to resolve such matters case by case. It was, however, still too early to tackle the underlying issues.

The Catholic trade unions are next in terms of size. In 1938 the question of structure was submitted to a committee, which a year later proposed a sectoral organisation and product rather than working method was to serve as the basis for determining the sector. The committee also had a solution for the 'multi-sector companies' that had emerged since the first world war. For example, over the course of time Philips no longer confined itself to manufacturing light bulbs and thus workers at the Philips paper plant should be organised in the factory workers’ union along with those working in its light bulb factories. However, the furniture makers at Vroom & Dreesmann, a retail chain, continued to come within the operational sphere of the furniture makers’ union and workers in private print shops continued to belong to the print unions. These outcomes can be viewed as a compromise revealing the balance of power within the Catholic national centre, where the shop and office staff unions were not as strong as those for furniture makers and printers.

The committee also proposed that those workers who frequently changed their employment sector should be organised in the union active in the industry where they were most often employed. This would, for example, cover excavation workers who were sometimes employed on land development projects and sometimes on civil engineering works. It was proposed that in the case of non-manual workers an organisational structure along occupational lines should be maintained. However, their unions needed to be subdivided into industry groups that would require them to cooperate in solidarity with the corresponding manual workers’ unions. The report was discussed in March 1940 but not accepted. It was decided to discuss the matter with the other national centres, but by May 1940 nothing had come of this.vi

The debate on the desired structure was also conducted within the largest national centre representing the social-democratic trade unions, but as these were somewhat larger the need for a new structure was perceived as less important. While concentration occurred within the confessional national centres, in some cases this process lagged behind in the largest national centre. Carpenters, bricklayers, painters, plasterers, road makers and dredgers within the Catholic and Christian national centre soon united to form a 'building workers’ federation'. The concentration process in the social-democratic national centre did not extend, however, beyond the carpenters, bricklayers and stone workers, and separate unions continued to exist for painters, plasterers and road makers until the German occupation. Attempts to marshal forces misfired time after time. Although merger was eventually forced upon them by the occupying forces, the dredgers’ union was not absorbed into the 'building workers’ federation' until the 1950s.vii

From a national socialist point of view, industrial relations were highly centralised with no subdivisions along industry lines. Thus the German occupiers not only forced the trade unions to group together within sectors defined by them, but also imposed a greater degree of centralisation on the whole movement. The joint unions were no longer under the control of the national centre but rather of a centralised executive body. Even within the social-democratic national centre, where such views were shared when it came to State powers, this was not to be the case. Eventually, with effect from 1st May 1942 the occupying forces decided to merge the trade union movement into the Dutch Labour Front (Nederlands Arbeidsfront (NAF)), following the example of the German Labour Front, which by 1933 had already absorbed the German social democratic and Christian trade unions. NAF enjoyed very little popular support. From June 1941 the confessional organisations within NAF exhorted those union that had not already been run down to do so once they were placed under German control, and the running-down process then moved into full swing. Once the war ended cooperation after 1st May 1942 was a criterion for needing to account for oneself in front of the purification committee.

The fact that most trade union leaders went underground did not mean that dialogue between them ended; they knew how to find each other and continued discussions about the desired structure once the country had been liberated. The leaders of the national centres met secretly with the employers’ representatives and laid the foundations for the post-war structure of labour relations that, as the 'polder model', was to cause a international furore. In order to maximise trade union power within this model, ideas on an appropriate organisational form for the movement were hammered out in greater detail among the trade union leaders. At the same time the communist movement was developing the idea of a unified trade union movement in which, at the very least, there would no longer be the three denominational currents.

After the second world war

In the wake of the liberation in May 1945 energetic efforts were made to rebuild the trade union movement. At the same time as the 'old' national centres and unions were being re-established, a Council of National Trade Union Centres was set up within which the trade unions were to shape their cooperation. One of its first decisions was to establish a 'Committee for considering the question of the sectoral organisation of workers', which within a few months submitted its findings.viii The findings were not, however, unanimous. Union representatives organising public servants, factory workers and woodworkers had unspecified 'differences of opinion on important points'. Given the unions concerned, it is clear that the 'important points' were the consequences for their organisations. In spite of objections from within the Committee, during the course of 1946 all the unions accepted the recommendations – but that did not mean yet that they were implemented. The introduction of a sectoral organisation meant doing away with the old unions, creating new ones and reallocating the members. This sweeping reorganisation caused pain throughout the movement, although many officials saw it as a 'moral duty to help implement a decision taken by the trade union movement.’ix The most difficult part was implementation within the Catholic national centre. The unions representing technicians, foremen and supervisors, and commercial, office and shop staff opposed the change both privately and publicly. They withdrew from internal consultations and let few opportunities slip to express in public their rejection of sectoral organisation. Finally in 1951, bypassing the national federation, they placed the matter before the Dutch bishops. It then took until the early 1960s(!) for the bishops to give their judgement.

The outcome of the controversy was the founding of a new union for public servants and managerial and executive personnel in medium-ranking and supervisory positions. Representatives of this union quickly started sitting around the negotiating table with the different sectoral industry unions. In this way, 25 even 30 years after its publication the Catholic national centre’s report proposing a sectoral organisation was actually put into practice. The industry groups within the non-manual workers federation were to cooperate on a basis of solidarity with the manual workers unions, now transformed into sectoral unions. This cooperation was to last for less than 10 years. When in 1976 the Catholic and social-democratic national centres started to build up a new joint structure at confederal level, this sent a signal to the union of public servants, supervisory and executive personnel to leave the Catholic centre and it was later to form the core of a new national centre. As the Protestant-Christian national centre did not want to join with the other national centres at confederal level, let alone participate in the final merger that took place on 1st January 1982, the Dutch trade union movement retained three different currents.x

‘The Blue-Black Booklet', as the report by the 'Committee for considering the question of the sectoral organisation of workers' is popularly known, has had a major influence on the structure of the trade union movement right up to the present day. But it was by no means the last word on the subject. As unions within particular sectors again became too small to be effective a great many mergers took place along the lines set out in the booklet. One of the founding organisations of the Dutch trade union movement, the powerful diamond workers’ union, merged during the mid-1950s with the metalworking union and at the beginning of the 1970s the metalworking union joined forces with the factory workers’ and textile workers’ unions to form the Industrial Trade Union Federation (Industriebond). The building industry unions merged with the furniture and woodworking unions, and those representing the dockworkers, the transport sector and the railways merged to form the Transport Trade Union Federation (Vervoersbond). Even when, from 1976, closer cooperation was sought across the boundaries of the national trade union centres and the segregation of Dutch society was beginning to wane in importance, the Blue-Black Booklet constituted an important blueprint. Certainly votes were taken on a different course of action, but the rejection that André Kloos, the popular president of the social democratic national centre, received from his unions in the late 1960s sapped the will of many a trade union leader to launch an in-depth discussion about structure.xi

Kloos proposed that the national centre be remoulded into a single undivided organisation. The national centre would not have as many member organisations as there were unions, but all members would be direct members. Within this single organisation the interests of the members would be represented by industry groups corresponding approximately to the old industry unions. The main difference was that members would not pay dues to the union, which would have to hand over a portion to the national centre, but would instead pay their dues directly to the national centre. The executive of the centre would then make a budget available to the industry groups. Besides the practical need to deal with contributions with a greater sense of thrift, Kloos believed that rapid social changes supported the case for his proposal:

Society is in a state of flux: some branches of industry are expanding, others shrinking, while yet others are doomed to go to the wall. We must expect people to switch from one sector to another, from one occupation to another, to a greater degree in future. We have to ask ourselves whether, against this background, the current – statically- conceived as based on the existing sectors – organisational form can be maintained.

In the late 1960s, some 20 years after the end of the second world war, Kloos could take his pick of examples. The Dutch diamond industry, in which Jews had been dominant, was greatly weakened after the war. The diamond industry union had therefore merged with the metalworking industry union. The Dutch government decided at the time to close down the mines with immediate effect and there was no further place for the mineworkers’ union. Textile factories were still operating at full steam, but under the management of the future Nobel Prize winner Jan Tinbergen discussions began on relocating production to the developing world. As for the shipbuilding industry, fierce competition with Japan was in the offing, with all its attendant consequences for jobs. On the other hand, large companies were becoming increasingly heterogeneous in nature. The throwing open of the European market forced companies to upsize and provided the impetus for numerous mergers within industry, not only within the boundaries of the traditional branches.

This growing dynamism on the industrial front did not leave workers’ career paths untouched. Increasingly workers changed occupations and sectors more frequently, sometimes forced to do so by their company closing down or where the old occupation disappeared, and sometimes encouraged by the new opportunities created by this same dynamic trend. The same post-war trend also included increasing distances between home and work. Many residential areas were built around centres of industry, although after the second world war such expansion was often at variance with views on living in a healthy environment. New residential areas came to be located further away from the workplace, while accessible forms of (public) transport kept journey times and travel expenses within acceptable limits. However, this development had a disastrous impact on local trade union work as the degree of homogeneousness lessened. In response to this, work in the plants began to develop. The place of residence was no longer decisive in the subdivision of the unions, but rather the branch of industry or large enterprise. This seems a logical consequence of the sectoral structure of the trade union movement, but no real improvement has been achieved. The rapid succession of changes in a worker’s career path makes any continuity of trade union work within a company or the creation of a clear counterbalancing power or the uninterrupted pursuit of works-council work extremely difficult.

The continuing story of the structural question

There are two reasons why the question of organisational structure continues to call for the attention of the Dutch trade union movement. On the one hand the structure must be such that power can be used as effectively as possible so that from time to time good results can be achieved. On the other hand the structure (and clearly also the culture) must have sufficient appeal for workers that they are prompted to join in large numbers. In relation to these basic premises, the structure in place to date exhibits some defects. The current structure is indisputably better geared to the tasks that the trade union movement has to fulfil. At national level it is a negotiating partner on behalf of the workers that cannot be ignored by employers or the State, even though the total unionisation rate is barely 25%. It therefore has a clearly discernible impact on social legislation and on the creation of forums within which dialogue on terms and conditions of employment in each sector can be given shape.

In many branches of industry it also cannot be ignored. This is certainly the case where the unionisation rate is above the national average, such as in the public sector and the construction industry. Its influence on conditions of employment, provisions concerning specific sectors, vocational training, and working conditions is undeniably significant. The fear that the positions of power acquired are being diminished is preventing a proper approach to tackling the structural shortcomings.

Anyone who subjects the Dutch trade union movement to close scrutiny will find that it is still strong in the sectors where it first started its upward march 150 years ago, provided, that is, that these sectors still exist. The sectors such as docks, certain industrial sectors and the building and woodworking industry are those in which manual work still predominates. The trade union foothold is still weak among non-manual workers and those employed in the new sectors. Ten to 15 years ago the largest national centre, FNV, created following the merger of the Catholic and social democratic federations, found that its membership still reflected the labour market of the 1950s. Since then there have been intensive efforts to change this situation, but the results are far from impressive.

The building industry illustrates the fact that it is difficult for the trade union movement to escape its own shadow. Organisation along industry lines should result in office staff in contractor companies also joining the building industry union. For a fairly lengthy period building workers viewed their office colleagues as extensions of their employers; they did not belong to their union. Until well into the 1980s this sentiment was apparent when it came to recruiting members from among works foremen and technical and administrative personnel. Conversely, office staff and white-collar workers were asking themselves, when considering trade union membership, whether they would really feel at home in this sector union. Those who had achieved promotion from carpenter to works foreman often stayed on with the union, as did those who for ideological reasons were to a greater or lesser extent inspired to side with the union. But a genuine breakthrough to reach the group of works foremen and technical and administrative personnel simply failed to take place, in the same way as the macho culture of the building union stood in the way of women entering the industry. The labour market for building workers is constantly becoming smaller, productivity is rising and order books are declining, but there has been little success in offsetting these trends through recruiting office personnel in building firms. And even the objective of achieving a higher unionisation rate in the related woodworking sector has not been achieved. The powerful building industry union remains powerful, but only for an ever-shrinking part of the industrial relations scene.

In 1997 four FNV unions – the Industrial Workers’ Federation, the Service Workers’ Federation, the Transport Workers’ Federation and the Foodworkers’ Federation (Industriebond, Dienstenbond, Vervoersbond and Voedingsbond) – took the decision to merge there and then. They wanted to marshal their forces and sought to transfer the strong position carved out in what were now shrinking sectors to the growth sectors where a trade union presence was still very weak. In this way they endeavoured to escape the crippling debate about the future of the trade unions. The idea was a good one, but the way in which it was put into practice was poorly thought through. Merger problems not only took up a great deal of the attention of union executives, but also called for substantial financial resources. Only during the course of 2003 was it possible to draw a line under years of continuous losses. Initially the building workers’ union was disappointed, and actually extremely angry, that it was not invited to participate in the merger. Given the way that the merger has proceeded it will probably have got over its disappointment by now.

A consequence of the laborious progress of the merger process is certainly that the idea of a joint headquarters for the FNV, which was to have been realised during 2004 or 2005, has been put on ice. The expectation that the joint headquarters could provide a springboard for more far-reaching cooperation between the FNV unions has vanished as a result, in the same way as earlier moves to promote cooperation in the provision of services to members has been nipped in the bud in recent years. The phrase 'two steps forward, one step back' comes to mind all too clearly when reflecting on the question of trade union structure.

In conclusion

The structure of the Dutch trade union movement still implicitly assumes that workers will in principle spend their entire working life in a single sector. Plant-based work has narrowed this thinking further to the notion that they will in principle spend their entire career in a single plant or company. In practice that has never been the case. In any event, the reality is moving ever further away from this concept. The concept of lifetime employment must make way for lifetime employability. It is on this basis that the trade unions must seek to cater for workers and their interests be represented, for it is a fact that increasingly workers will only be working in a particular plant or company for a certain time: depending on the occupation carried out, they are likely to switch from plant to plant and, equally, from sector to sector. Within the European trade union movement ever-closer cooperation has developed. As the European market allows a Portuguese construction worker to find employment in Berlin and French building firms to take on contracts in the Netherlands, initiatives have been formulated in the EFBWW to represent the interests of union members across national borders. However, construction workers are not only able to go to another country to work: carpenters may be included in maintenance teams for hospitals, while painters can work as stage designers in a film company. Or again, they may completely turn their backs on an occupation and find another one. Over the past decade, the Dutch police and public transport services have benefited considerably from this trend. Fewer and fewer people are opting to work in a construction trade directly after completing secondary education. Entry into the industry via the sideways route has become the main route. This concept is associated with the trend whereby an ever-dwindling number of people are choosing to make their occupation permanent, let alone choosing to stay in a particular sector. This makes it necessary continuously to review the structure to ensure that the interests of mobile workers can be properly represented.

The present structure has strengthened the perception of workers that they belong to a particular plant or branch of industry. This detracts from an awareness that, regardless of their occupation or industry, they share many common interests. The role of the separate unions is therefore greater as a result of this trend and that of the national centre less important. However, the interests of the mobile worker are not only served by a strong trade union presence in their own industry and own country but also across sectoral and national boundaries. As to what structure is needed, the aim must be to cater better for the new, mobile, international worker.

_______________________

∗ Jeroen Sprenger worked from 1976-93 for the Bouw- en Houtbond FNV, inter alia as Head of Internal and External Relations. From 1993-99 he was chief spokesman for the national centre FNV. He is currently Director of Information at the Finance Ministry.

i In writing this article the author has made use of the article ‘Een onooglijk boekje met ingrijpende gevolgen (An unsightly booklet with sweeping consequences) in H.Klooster, J. Sprenger and V. Vrooland (1986) Het Blauwzwarte Boekje, van beroepsorganisatie naar bedrijfsorganisatie (The Blue-Black Booklet, from occupational organisation to sectoral organisation), Barendrecht.

ii See E. Hueting, Fr. de Jong Edz and R. Ney (1983) Naar groter eenheid (Towards greater unity), Amsterdam.

iii In the Netherlands general voting rights for men were introduced in 1918. From 1922 women also had the vote.

iv J.P. Windmuller and C. de Galan (1970) Arbeidsverhoudingen in Nederland (Industrial relations in the Netherlands), Utrecht/Antwerp.

v H. Amelink (1950) Met ontplooide banieren (With unfurled banners), Utrecht.

vi Report by the Catholic Workers’ Federation 1939-1947, Utrecht 1948.

vii A. Leusink (1950) Op hechte fundamenten, Geschiedenis van de Algemene Nederlandse Bouwarbeidersbond (On firm foundations, History of the General Dutch Building Workers’ Federation), Amsterdam.

viii Report by the Committee for considering the question of the sectoral organisation of workers’ trade unions, Utrecht 1946.

ix K. Dijkstra (1979) CNV – Beweging in beweging (CND – Movement on the move), Utrecht.

x Report by the Catholic Workers’ Federation 1948-1954, Utrecht 1955.

xi See E. Hueting, Fr. de Jong Edz and R. Ney (1983) Naar groter eenheid (Towards greater unity), Amsterdam.

Dit artikel is opgenomen in CLR-News nr 3, jaargang 2003, Which unions survive?