A History of Czech Trade Unions

Contributed by Jannis Bonk (Ruhr-Universität Bochum)

Czech trade unions are a central topic in Eastern European labour and social history. In Western Europe, trade unions developed into important mass organisations as early as the 19th century, while developments in the Bohemian lands took place under different political and social conditions. The form and function of trade unions were decisively shaped by the turning points of 1918 with the founding of Czechoslovakia, the Communist Party's seizure of power in 1948, and the Velvet Revolution of 1989. This has created an area of tension between repressive and conformist phases on the one hand and moments of self-empowerment and democratisation on the other. The following question can therefore be derived from this transformation process:

"How have Czech trade unions developed since 1948 from a party-controlled instrument to an independent representative of workers' interests?"

The historical context is initially considered within the time frame of the history of trade unions in the Czechia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The first main period considered is the era of the Warsaw Pact and communism (1948-1989). The second main period, which extends from the end of communism (1989/90) to the present, will then be examined.

In order to explore the above-mentioned topic, I will first clarify the historical context prior to the Warsaw Pact. The third chapter will then focus on the communist era and the ROH trade union. This will be followed by a discussion of the Velvet Revolution, after which the fifth chapter will focus on the current umbrella organisation CMKOS. Finally, this scientific part A ends with a conclusion in which the key points are summarised once again.

The beginnings of Czech Trade Unions

To understand Czech trade unions after 1948, one must look at their beginnings. These took place in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the middle of the Bohemian lands – which at that time belonged to the Habsburg Empire – the industrial revolution brought about profound changes in society. As in other young industrial regions of Europe, the transformation of agriculture and the growth of commercial capital led to the formation of a new class: wage labourers. Its members owned no means of production and separated work and home life, which gradually created a new class consciousness. The first associations promoted these shared experiences. These shared experiences formed the breeding ground for the first organisational associations. The upheavals of 1848 set in motion a far-

reaching political movement in Central Europe. Soon afterwards, the first workers' associations were formed. These often presented themselves as educational associations, as this allowed them to avoid state bans. One example: in Saxony, many workers' educational associations were able to emerge from the 1860s onwards, following a relaxation of the ban on coalitions. They organised courses and also offered cultural activities such as singing and gymnastics. Such associations played an important role in the development of political consciousness. It was a slow process that freed workers from the paternalism of liberal citizens. They began to identify their own interests and openly shape politics in their association life.

Towards the end of the 19th century, the labour movement began to enter a new phase of institutional consolidation. In most highly industrialised countries, workers' parties and trade unions emerged, benefiting from the gradual introduction of universal suffrage and developing into mass organisations. In what is now Czechia, this development was reflected in the founding of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Workers' Party in 1878. This party and its affiliated trade unions experienced state repression, similar to their German counterparts under the Socialist Law. However, the exclusion they all experienced led to greater cohesion and a culture of solidarity. However, the workforce was not a homogeneous mass. There were considerable differences in terms of qualifications, origin and gender. Above all, it was the well-qualified skilled workers, often from the trades, who were instrumental in building the trade unions. However, their strategies often differed from those of unskilled and semi-skilled workers. The former relied on collective agreements and arbitration boards to resolve conflicts, while the latter often had to resort to more direct forms of struggle to assert their interests. These internal differences shaped the landscape of the trade unions and led to sometimes contradictory currents within the movement.

In 1918, with the establishment of the First Czechoslovak Republic, the labour movement underwent a dramatic change in its framework conditions. In the new parliamentary democracy, it transformed itself from an object of state policy into a force that itself acted in a historically powerful manner. Social democracy developed into one of the strongest pillars of the young republic and played a decisive role in building a progressive welfare state. However, the newly gained political participation did not always lead to a lasting improvement in the social situation, especially against the backdrop of the global economic crisis, which hit the republic hard and caused mass unemployment.

Probably the most decisive development in the interwar period was the split in the labour movement. Following the example of the Russian Revolution, the Communist Party of

Czechoslovakia (KSČ) was founded in 1921, leading to a deep divide. This split had not only ideological but also social roots. While social democracy mainly represented skilled workers with relatively secure jobs, the Communist Party increasingly recruited unskilled workers and became the party of the unemployed during the crisis. This "erosion of solidarity among workers" significantly weakened democracy and facilitated the rise of anti-democratic forces.

The Second World War and the German occupation shattered the old structures of the labour movement. In the concentration camps and in the resistance, many Social Democrats and Communists developed a desire to overcome the "disastrous division". Immediately after liberation in 1945, there were numerous spontaneous and local attempts to revive the labour movement on a new, grassroots democratic basis. However, similar to the Soviet occupation zone of Germany, where the "fuss with the Antifa" was to be ended, these efforts were systematically suppressed and dissolved by the communist leadership and the Soviet authorities.

The years between 1945 and the February coup in 1948 were marked by a creeping process of power takeover by the Communist Party. The initial desire for unity was exploited to eliminate competing factions and establish centralised control. The creation of a unified trade union, the Revolutionary Trade Union Movement (ROH), was a decisive step in this process. The merger of the various trade union movements was not the result of a democratic decision-making process, but reflected the power politics of the Communist Party and the Soviet Union. This brought an end to the rich and diverse tradition of the Czech labour movement and laid the foundation for the transformation of the trade unions into an instrument of the party, the development of which after 1948 will be examined below.

The Czech Communist Era (1948-1989): The ROH

After the Communist Party seized power in 1948, the Czechoslovak trade union landscape was fundamentally transformed. A pluralistic movement was replaced by a single trade union, the Revolutionary Trade Union Movement (Revoluční odborové hnutí, ROH). This organisation encompassed virtually all workers and was conceived from the outset as an instrument of the party. Its main task was not to represent workers' interests vis-à-vis the state or company management, but to enforce the political and economic goals of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ). The ROH thus became a central pillar of the new totalitarian order.

The functioning of the ROH can best be described by the concept of the "transmission belt," a role also played by other state trade unions in the Eastern Bloc, such as the Free German Trade Union Federation (FDGB) in the GDR. The union acted as a "motor for mobilising production increases" and served to ideologically control the workforce. Instead of representing the concerns of the workers, the ROH communicated the interests of the party to the workers and ensured that they were implemented in the factories. This structure deprived workers of their traditional means of power, such as strikes or independent negotiations, and prevented the development of a genuine counter-public sphere in the workplace. In addition to its function as an instrument of control, the ROH also took on central social and cultural tasks, which cemented its interference in people's lives. Similar to the FDGB in the GDR, the ROH was responsible for administering social security, allocating holiday places and organising cultural events. These activities created a strong dependence of workers on the trade union and thus on the state. Access to recreation, health care and leisure activities was closely linked to membership and good behaviour within the ROH structures, which further limited the possibilities for deviant behaviour or open criticism.

Under these circumstances, effective workplace democracy or co-determination existed only on paper. Although there were institutionalised forums such as production meetings, these usually served only to formally approve decisions that had already been made . The union's right to have a say was largely meaningless, as the key positions in the enterprises were filled by the party. Workers were thus deprived of the opportunity to significantly influence decisions in the enterprises.

The ROH's inability to effectively represent the interests of workers led to deep alienation and dissatisfaction among the workforce. As collective protests were suppressed, conflicts were mainly expressed on an individual level. Similar to the GDR, where discontent was expressed in the form of "complaints" or official submissions to state authorities, labour disputes in Czechoslovakia were also individualised. However, this form of passive resistance could not challenge the fundamental power structures and contributed more to general apathy than to organised opposition. The Prague Spring of 1968 offered a brief but significant phase of hope for fundamental reform of the trade unions. During this period of political upheaval, there were strong efforts within the ROH to emancipate itself from the tutelage of the party and become a genuine representative of workers' interests. New, more democratic structures emerged, and the trade unions began to formulate independent positions. This historical overview of the Prague Spring and its significance for "socialist internationalism" shows the profound upheavals that this movement triggered. However, the suppression of the reform movement by Warsaw Pact

troops in August 1968 ended all hopes for an independent trade union movement. In the subsequent period of "normalisation", the ROH was brought back into complete line with the party. Reform-minded officials were removed from their posts and the KSČ's centralised control over the trade union was rigorously restored. The totalitarian character of the political system in Czechoslovakia, in which the party leadership ultimately decided on all aspects of life, was consolidated. For the next two decades, the ROH remained in its role as an instrument of the party, with no scope for autonomous representation of workers' interests.

The final end of the ROH came with the Velvet Revolution in November 1989. Similar to the "Betriebs-Wende" (works council revolution) in the GDR, where new, democratic representatives were formed from the grassroots, the old trade union structure in Czechoslovakia also dissolved. Strike committees and independent trade union initiatives emerged in the factories and took the lead in the revolutionary process. In March 1990, the ROH was officially dissolved and replaced by a new umbrella organisation, the Czech and Slovak Confederation of Trade Unions ( e Konfederace odborových svazů, ČSKOS). This marked the beginning of a new era in which trade unions had to take on the challenge of redefining themselves as independent and democratic actors in a changing market economy society.

Upheaval: The Velvet Revolution (1989)

In November 1989, the Velvet Revolution heralded a fundamental turning point in the history of Czechoslovakia – and thus also for the development of trade unions. The upheaval was not only a change in political power, but also heralded a comprehensive transformation of the entire social, political and economic structures. This turning point offered the previously state-controlled trade unions the opportunity to re-establish themselves as independent actors, but it also presented them with completely new challenges. The revolution laid the foundation for the transformation from a party-controlled instrument to a potentially independent representative of workers' interests, a process that would prove to be lengthy and complex.

Before 1989, there was a single trade union, the Revolutionary Trade Union Movement (ROH), which was closely linked to the structures of the Communist Party. Its main task was not to represent the interests of employees vis-à-vis employers – usually the state – but to implement party policy in the workplace. As in other socialist states, the official trade union served as an

extension of the party, thereby losing its legitimacy as an authentic representative of workers. Although there was a certain amount of exchange between the party and workers in these systems, it often served to alleviate discontent rather than promote genuine participation. The ROH was thus primarily an instrument for disciplining and controlling the workforce and distributing social benefits, which discredited it in the eyes of many workers.

The active participation of the working class and the rapid establishment of independent forms of organisation were crucial to the dynamics of the Velvet Revolution. Dissatisfied workers seized the opportunity to express their criticism of the existing conditions with remarkable openness. Strike committees spontaneously formed in the factories, breaking away from the old ROH apparatus and organising the protests. The general strike on 27 November 1989, in which a large part of the population took part, impressively demonstrated the strength of civil society and the workers and contributed significantly to the collapse of the communist regime. These strikes served not only as a means of political pressure, but also as an act of self-empowerment. They made employees realise how important and meaningful it was to be a member of a truly independent interest group. With the collapse of the old regime, the structures of the old trade unions also collapsed. The ROH was dissolved, and a new trade union landscape emerged from the revolutionary strike committees and new democratic initiatives. The re-establishment brought with it enormous organisational challenges and required a radical break with old routines. The founding of the Czechoslovak Confederation of Trade Unions (ČSKOS), the predecessor organisation of today's ČMKOS, symbolised this new beginning. The aim was to create a democratic, pluralistic organisation independent of politics that would be recognised as an equal negotiating partner by employers and the government, similar to what the German trade unions had achieved after the First World War. In the euphoric atmosphere following the revolution, the newly founded trade unions were confronted with enormous expectations. Similar to East Germans after reunification, many Czech and Slovak workers hoped that the new trade unions would protect them from the challenges of the impending economic transition and secure a better future. This expectation was understandable, but it created an obligation that was almost impossible for the young and inexperienced organisations to fulfil. The trade unions were faced with the challenge of sticking to unrealistic goals such as ensuring full employment in a fundamentally changing economy. This inevitably led to disappointment.

The new trade unions had to find their feet in a completely changed environment, characterised by the introduction of the market and what was called 'flexible capitalism'. Privatisation, the restructuring of state-owned enterprises and rising unemployment were phenomena for which neither trade union leaders nor members were prepared. Suddenly, workers were confronted

with problems such as declining purchasing power and the constant fear of job loss, even though the trade unions tried to moderate social decline. The traditional instruments of trade union work had to be adapted to a reality in which industrial peace often counted for less than reducing production costs.

Developing a new identity and gaining legitimacy were among the greatest challenges facing the new trade unions. It was necessary for them not only to distance themselves from the troubled history of the ROH, but also to prove their relevance in a changing world of work. In doing so, they ran the risk of continuing to focus on their traditional clientele – industrial workers in large companies – and losing touch with social developments in the labour market. The increasing relevance of the service sector and new, unusual forms of employment presented the trade unions with the challenge of modernising their approach and political strategy in order to avoid becoming mere representatives of the interests of shrinking economic sectors.

In summary, it can be said that the Velvet Revolution necessarily destroyed the old, illegitimate trade union system and created space for the emergence of independent employee representatives. However, it also catapulted the trade unions into a period of serious uncertainty and permanent crisis. The transition from a state control body to an autonomous actor in the new capitalist system was not an easy step, but marked the beginning of a lengthy learning process. The revolution created the formal conditions for democratic representation of interests, but Czech trade unions faced challenges in recruiting members, enforcing demands and adapting to a globalised economy that continue to shape their development to this day.

CMKOS – Czech Trade Unions after Communism

Founding of CMKOS

When the communist regime in Czechoslovakia collapsed in 1989, it also marked the end of the era of the Revoluční odborové hnutí (ROH), which acted as an extension of the Communist Party and prevented any autonomous representation of workers' interests. The Velvet Revolution left a power vacuum, but also offered the opportunity to establish a new, democratic trade union landscape. In March 1990, during this phase of social upheaval, the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (Českomoravská konfederace odborových svazů, ČMKOS) was founded. As in other periods of historical upheaval, this new foundation was associated with enormous hopes, as people sought refuge and guidance in new or reformed

organisations following the collapse of the old order . The ČMKOS faced the enormous challenge of emancipating itself from the discredited past of the ROH and regaining the trust of workers in a rapidly changing economic and political environment. Attitudes towards the newly founded trade unions also reflected the initial euphoria of the revolution. Many workers joined the newly formed or reformed associations under the umbrella of the ČMKOS, as they promised them protection during the uncertain transition period and a strong voice in the new democratic state. Often, the appeal of a trade union depends crucially on how great its perceived political power and assertiveness are. In the early years after 1990, ČMKOS seemed to possess such potential power, as it was involved in building new democratic institutions as a central player in civil society. The conviction that trade unions would be strong in the future motivated many to organise and join the new movement.

Structurally, the ČMKOS made a radical break with the centralised model of the ROH. It was replaced by an umbrella organisation that united autonomous individual trade unions from various sectors. This federal structure was based on democratic principles that have a long tradition in the European trade union movement. The fundamental nature of such organisations, consisting of "the personal membership of citizens in an individual trade union, the membership of the trade union in a federation, the democratic principle of delegation from local to regional to central level", became the foundation of the ČMKOS. This organisational change was crucial to ensuring internal democracy and respecting the autonomy of the member associations, which was a prerequisite for their legitimacy in the new system. In the new system, the ČMKOS primarily assumed the role of social partner. Within the framework of so-called tripartism, a format for negotiations between the government, employers' associations and trade unions, it became the central representative of workers' interests. A key feature of post-communist consolidation in Czechia was this form of social dialogue, which became institutionalised. The trade unions took on essential functions for the stability of the political system by pooling the needs of employees, communicating them to politicians and contributing to social peace through collective bargaining. Their role as a respected negotiating partner was a major success and a clear indication of their successful establishment in the new system.

However, the initial wave of membership was soon followed by a period of disillusionment. The trade unions faced enormous challenges as a result of the economic transformation, which was accompanied by privatisation, restructuring and rising unemployment. It was not possible to secure all jobs or cushion the social hardship for everyone. Similar to trade unions in other times that were confronted with unrealistic goals whose failure was almost predetermined in view of economic developments, the ČMKOS was also unable to always meet the sometimes

exaggerated expectations of its new members. The gap between expectation and reality, together with the shift from quasi-compulsory to voluntary membership, led to a significant decline in membership over the years. Another structural problem was the difficulty of representing the full spectrum of the changing workforce. Similar to their Western European counterparts, Czech trade unions tended to focus on their traditional base in the public sector and industry. They found it difficult to organise new and growing groups such as highly skilled employees, service sector workers or atypical workers on a larger scale. The limitation of trade unions' reach is a historically known phenomenon associated with this concentration on a specific part of the workforce. Due to this representation gap, ČMKOS was faced with the long-term task of aligning its message and political measures with the changing world of work. Establishing itself in the new political system was also a continuous struggle. In an environment characterised by neoliberal reforms and a certain scepticism towards collective organisations, trade unions had to repeatedly defend their legitimacy and influence. They ran the risk of being instrumentalised as "political pawns" and were confronted with the general deficits of post-communist civil society, such as "clientelistic relationships and corruption". Despite these adversities, ČMKOS managed to maintain its position as an indispensable player in social dialogue and to exercise an important corrective function vis-à-vis purely market-driven policies.

It can be said that since its foundation in 1990, the ČMKOS has undergone a remarkable development from a beacon of hope for the revolution to an established but also challenged institution. It has made the transition from an all-encompassing compulsory organisation to a voluntary umbrella organisation and has established itself as the central voice of workers in the Czech Republic. Despite significant membership losses and an often difficult political environment, it has consolidated its role in the system and developed into a performance-oriented service provider for its members. It thus remains a crucial pillar of Czech civil society, whose continued adaptability to new socio-economic realities will be crucial to its future relevance.

Current challenges facing the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of the Czech Republic

Even after establishing itself as an independent actor in Czech civil society, the ČMKOS trade union confederation faces a series of profound challenges that test its relevance and capacity to act in the 21st century. The era of stable industrial relations and a clear separation between

labour and capital has given way to a more complex economic order. ‘Flexible capitalism’ has eroded old certainties and confronted trade unions with challenges such as globalisation, financial market orientation and ruthless business management, for which they were often ill-prepared. These new conditions make it necessary to fundamentally realign strategies that were developed in a period of industrial growth and nation-state political power.

One of the biggest structural challenges is the erosion of the traditional membership base. Historically, trade unions were most strongly established in large heavy and manufacturing companies. However, economic change led to job losses in these strongholds, either through the relocation of production abroad or through technological rationalisation. While trade unions continued to focus their attention on their main clientele in shrinking economic sectors, they were unable to gain a foothold in the growing service sector. As a result, they increasingly limited themselves to representing interests that no longer represented the entirety of dependent employees. The increase in atypical employment relationships and the fragmentation of workplaces are exacerbating this problem. Temporary work, part-time employment, fixed-term contracts and innovative forms such as crowdworking are replacing traditional standard employment relationships. These "fissured workplaces" mean that employees work in the same place under completely different conditions and for different employers. This not only poses a problem of representation for trade unions, as their areas of responsibility become unclear, but also leads to an erosion of solidarity within the workforce. Trade unions and works councils often focus on protecting the core workforce, leaving marginalised workers feeling left behind. Digitalisation is another elusive challenge. As its impact on the world of work is complex and often contradictory, it is difficult for trade unions to take a clear position. The scientific debate also lacks certainty: is digitalisation responsible for serious job losses or for new career opportunities? Does it mean more self-determination for employees or an increase in control over them? Works councils often lack the expertise and decision-making powers to actively shape technological change. In practice, they are often informed about change projects at a late stage and are hardly involved in their development, which reduces their role to merely reacting to decisions that have already been made. Parallel to the economic upheavals, socio-cultural processes of change have also weakened the position of trade unions. The process described by sociologists as "individualisation" has dissolved the traditional collective milieus from which trade unions long drew their strength. The social pressure to join a union from family, friends and colleagues has disappeared. At the same time, post-materialistic values have spread, shifting the focus from purely economic interests to issues such as environmental protection and quality of life. Trade unions have long been perceived as representatives of purely

materialistic interests and have thus missed the boat when it comes to new social movements and younger, educated sections of the population.

In addition to these external influences, trade unions also have to contend with serious internal organisational shortcomings. Many potential members, especially young people, perceive trade union structures as rigid, bureaucratic and undemocratic. Slow decision-making processes, an authoritarian approach to trade union work and leadership that is perceived as elitist deter those who want spontaneous, project-based engagement. The tone of trade unions also often comes across as ideologically charged and dogmatic, which makes it unappealing to academics, creative professionals and IT professionals and gives the impression that it is "language from the 1920s or 1990s".

These factors lead to a serious problem of representation and perception. The public and many employees have the impression that trade unions primarily represent the interests of a specific group: male, skilled industrial workers. Groups such as women, migrants and low-skilled workers, on the other hand, often feel excluded or discriminated against. This undermines the universal claim to representation and promotes the so-called free rider problem: many employees benefit from the advantages gained through collective agreements without being members themselves, as they see no direct benefit in membership that does not appear to represent their specific interests.

Despite this multi-layered crisis, the changing conditions of the modern world of work also open up new opportunities. The increase in psychological stress due to constant availability, pressure to perform and general uncertainty as a result of unclear future prospects are creating a new, urgent need for protection, guidance and solidarity. The key question for the future of the ČMKOS will be whether it succeeds in modernising its internal structures, broadening its agenda and developing new, flexible forms of communication and participation. Only in this way can it present itself as a relevant force for a new generation of workers seeking protection and community in an increasingly uncertain world of work.

International networking of trade unions

In the course of the transition to a market economy and subsequent accession to the EU, Czech trade unions had to redefine their role and strategy. The internationalisation of the economy and the presence of multinational companies in the country increased, meaning that representing interests at national level alone was no longer sufficient. Cross-border business activities became increasingly important, forcing trade unions to network internationally in order to influence decision-making processes at senior management level in companies. The ČMKOS joined the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in order to participate in European discussions and represent the interests of Czech workers at the supranational level.

In the process, European legislation created new frameworks and instruments for trade union activities. An important example is the European Company (SE) Directive, which stipulates the involvement of employees in corporate structures. It expressly provides for the right of employees to "send elected representatives to the administrative and/or supervisory board of a European company". Such regulations created new opportunities for co-determination for Czech trade unions, but required a thorough understanding of the various systems of corporate governance in Europe, be it the dualistic model with a management board and supervisory board or the monistic model with a single administrative body. However, integration into international trade union structures was not a smooth process. It confronted Czech actors with a variety of trade union traditions and philosophies that had developed historically in Europe. It quickly became clear that simply transferring national models to the European level would not be effective. Rather, European cooperation requires the development of common European

solutions that take into account the different national circumstances . This challenge affected not only the ČMKOS, but all trade unions in the post-communist countries, which had to adapt to the new conditions.

This adaptation to the international level was all the more important as the Czech economy itself underwent fundamental change. The transformation from a centrally planned to a liberal market economy was unprecedented. At the same time, Czechia became an attractive destination for foreign investment, which further changed the economic structure and increased the demand for labour. This change gradually transformed Czechia from a country of emigration to a country of immigration, which further shaped the social and economic landscape. For trade union leaders, this meant grappling with issues such as labour migration and international labour markets. A person whose influence is shaped by contemporary challenges stands at the helm of an organisation that is driving this change. Leading a modern Czech trade union requires a fundamental rethink compared to the period before 1989. It was also necessary for employee representatives to "rethink and relearn", as managers did in the post-transition period. Today, a trade union president must not only understand the needs of members, but also comprehend the complex processes of the market economy, corporate governance and international politics.

The corporate landscape facing union leaders is the result of a fundamental change in ownership structure. The transformation of most state-owned enterprises into joint-stock companies after 1990 led to investment funds and foreign investors becoming significant players. These new owners often brought with them a different corporate culture and different expectations. A trade union leader must be able to negotiate with various players – from domestic managers to representatives of international funds to foreign corporate management. These negotiations take place in an environment that has long been shaped by old ways of thinking. Even after the fall of communism, decision-making practices in many companies remained "inflexible and rigid" at first, a legacy of the past. At the same time, however, decentralised forms of organisation developed in many companies, giving managers at lower levels more authority. A modern trade union president must therefore have the ability to operate at different levels and deal with both centralised and decentralised structures.

Today's Czech trade union leaders, such as Josef Středula, are therefore strategic players who have learned from the experiences of the transformation. A pragmatic approach, negotiating skills and a deep understanding of economic realities are required, while always keeping the core interests of employees in mind. The training and further education that was considered

indispensable for managers in the post-transition period is also crucial for trade union leaders. In order to effectively represent Czech workers in a globalised world, the ability to integrate national concerns into the European context and promote international solidarity has become an essential skill – not merely an additional qualification.

Conclusion

In summary, it can be said that the history of Czech trade unions reflects the political and social upheavals in the country. From the first union in the 19th century to the split into social democratic and communist movements and the enforced conformity of the communist era, there has been a constant shift between autonomy and instrumentalisation. Since 1948, trade unions have been significantly restricted in their function as party-controlled instruments, until the Velvet Revolution of 1989 enabled a fundamental new beginning. In 1990, the ČMKOS was founded, marking the start of a new phase of democratic and independent trade union work. Today, Czech trade unions are actively committed to fair working conditions, social justice and international cooperation. Despite challenges such as membership losses and adjustments to a globalised and increasingly flexible world of work, they remain an important part of civil society. Their ability to adapt to changing economic and social conditions will determine whether they remain a strong voice for workers' interests in the future. This makes it clear that the history of Czech trade unions is not just a national phenomenon, but is embedded in larger European and international developments and at the same time offers a striking example of the country's post-communist democratisation.