GERMANY

Contributed by Jens Schroeter (Ruhr-Universität Bochum)

The so-called "wild strikes" of 1973 at the Pierburg car parts supplier in Neuss and at the Ford plant in Cologne were a high point of migrant labour protests in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). The background to the strikes was the unequal treatment of migrants in the workplace since the recruitment of foreign workers from 1955, which is why, from the 1960s onwards, there were repeated labour protests by marginalised groups in West Germany in the form of "wild strikes", which were carried out spontaneously and without consultation with the trade unions, contrary to German strike law. The German trade unions were partly responsible for this because they paid little attention to the interests of migrant workers and offered them insufficient opportunities for co-determination at the workplace and in collective bargaining agreements.

From today's perspective, almost 50 years after the "wild strikes" of 1973 at Pierburg in Neuss and Ford in Cologne, the events in the Federal Republic of Germany can be seen as a historical turning point. They brought about decisive changes that characterise social coexistence in Germany today beyond the world of work. Nevertheless, the processes of the 1970s harbour unresolved potential for conflict, which is why the strikes continue to be remembered. That’s the reason, on the 50th anniversary of the strikes in 2023, various actors from trade unions and other institutions close to social democracy recalled the events of 1973.

The “wild strikes” were triggered by the unequal treatment of migrants in the workplace combined with the disregard of their interests by local trade unions and works councils. As the German right to strike only allows industrial action in consultation with the trade unions, the migrant actors had no other option than to express their displeasure at the unequal treatment through so-called "wild strikes". By practising this illegal form of protest, those affected always ran the risk of being prosecuted, which further increased the existing pressure on them. And so, in most cases, the actors from companies and politics reacted to the labour disputes with the practice of "if you go on strike, you will be deported".

There were also migrants who were involved in trade unions and works councils in order to represent their interests and those of their colleagues within the framework of collective bargaining - and therefore legal - possibilities. However, they were usually underrepresented in the trade unions and joining works councils was made more difficult by a special legal regulation for migrants. They were also viewed with suspicion by their German colleagues. Due to this initial situation, the so-called migrant-influenced "wild strikes" in West Germany had their own boom in various sectors of the economy towards the end of the 1960s, peaking in the automotive industry in the early 1970s.

One of the two hotspots of migrant labour disputes in 1973 was the "wild strike" at the car parts supplier Pierburg in Neuss. Between the13th and 20th August, migrants from various nations stopped working there without prior consultation with the IGM. The reason for this was their categorisation in the so-called light wage group 2, which meant that they received less pay than their male colleagues. In addition to the abolition of the wage group, the strikers demanded 1 DM more per hour.

The police forces attempted to break the strike, sometimes using violence and arrests. Instead of the desired concessions from the strikers, the measures resulted in solidarity between the German workers and their migrant colleagues, which also led to the strike being perceived as a positive event by the public. Although the strike was initiated without consultation with the union, it was also supported by the IGM representatives and the local works council right up to the end. The behaviour of the union and the works council, together with the positive public perception of the strike, can be attributed to the fact that migrant workers made up the majority of the workforce and were strongly represented on the company's works council. Another aspect for the ultimately positive outcome of the conflict was that the Pierburg company manufactured carburettors for the surrounding automotive industry. A longer strike would therefore have led to production losses and economic losses beyond the site. The strike was successful in that the low-wage groups were abolished not only for the migrant women, but for all employees, and the IGM and works council at Pierburg held the employer responsible for the conflict. The female workers at Pierburg thus became pioneers against wage discrimination.

The "wild strike" at the Cologne plant of car manufacturer Ford from 24th to 29th August 1973 differed dramatically in its course and outcome from the strike at Pierburg. The decisive factor for the work stoppage was the dismissal of 300 predominantly Turkish workers from the workforce for returning late from their holidays and the threat of dismissing a further 1,000 migrant employees. Another reason was the unequal conditions on the assembly line between migrant workers and their German colleagues. In the infamous Y-halls, the assembly lines of the 'Gastarbeiter*innen' ran faster than those of their German colleagues. The demands for continuous holiday, a pay rise, a 13th month's salary, changes to the assembly line conditions and equal rights in the works council went beyond the usual collective bargaining conditions. The continuous holiday period was therefore crucial so that the migrants could take advantage of their stay in their home country, which was often not sufficiently taken into account by the company.

The strike and the demands were ultimately not supported by either the works council or the local IGM. One reason for this was that 5 Turkish employees on the works council were responsible for 1200 Turkish colleagues. A large part of the works council also saw a threat in the fact that some Turkish employees were members of socialist organisations and it was feared that they could undermine the council. Solidarity between Turkish and German workers was prevented during the strike by police operations, among other things.

In addition, the strike was racially charged by tabloid reporting with headlines such as "Türkenterror bei Ford ". The BILD newspaper commented in a similar tone after a hunt for strikers by German workers and police on the factory premises towards the end of the strike with the headline: "Deutsche Arbeiter kämpfen Ford frei". Following the strike, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung spoke of " Lynchjustiz " and a " Pogromstimmung ". In the end, the so-called ringleaders were deported after the strike and the conflict went down as the most prominent example of a migrant labour dispute in post-war German history.

If you are further interested in the strikes, we recommend the interviews with Emine Orhanoğlu and Mitat Özdemir from the Documentation Centre and Museum for Migration History: https://domid.org/news/wilde-streiks-1973/ (German).

For a further overview and critical perspectives on the events, see also: https://www.swr.de/swrkultur/wissen/die-wilden-streiks-von-1973-wie-gastarbeiter-fuer-faire-behandlung-kaempften-swr2-wissen-2023-06-29-100.html (German).

The "wild strikes" at Pierburg and Ford in 1973 were the high point of migrant protests against unequal treatment and disregard. The events forced the trade unions, especially the IGM, to take action. As a result, the IGM transformed its trade union migration policy, enabling the interests and equal rights of its migrant members to be recognised. With this turning point, the IGM took on a pioneering role within the German trade unions.

50 years after the labour disputes at Pierburg and Ford, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, in cooperation with the Hans Böckler Foundation, the IGM and other institutions, organised a conference entitled: "Gelungene und misslungene Solidarisierungen. Spontane Streiks in Westdeutschland um 1973". On the occasion of the 50th anniversary, contemporary witnesses, trade unionists and other actors recalled the events of the strikes through various contributions. See: https://www.rosalux.de/dokumentation/id/51049/der-streik-hat-mir-geholfen-als-junger-mensch-kraft-aufzubauen.

One of the trade unionists was a former metalworker and head of IGM Düsseldorf/Neuss, Nihat Öztürk. In his lecture Migrantische Kämpfe und die Rolle der Gewerkschaften. Eine kritische Zwischenbilanz Öztürk initially blamed the trade unions and, in the case of the disputes at Pierburg and Ford, the IGM for the strikes because they had not taken the interests of migrants into account and had done nothing to combat unequal treatment in the workplace. However, he then reminded the audience that the eight-day walkout by migrant workers at Pierburg had led to a successful outcome not only due to this solidarity with their German colleagues, but also due to the support of the strikers by the works council and local trade union representatives. In contrast, the subsequent strike at Ford was remembered collectively as a failure, partly due to the lack of solidarity and support from the works council and local trade unions. In view of the positive assessment of the strike at Pierburg due to its course and outcome and the strike at Ford, which has gone down in history as a negative example, Öztürk argued in favour of renegotiating the strike at Ford. The willingness of the predominantly Turkish workers at Ford to strike should be viewed positively, as should that of the female workers at Pierburg, as they were fighting for human rights in general. Öztürk described the unequal treatment of migrants as a „Schande der deutschen Sozialgeschichte“. In this sense, he explained the negative effects of disregard before and after the strikes, without sparing any criticism of the actors within the IGM. In view of the recognition of migrants in the IGM as a result of the 1973 strikes, Öztürk emphasised the role of the trade union, which had become a political home for migrants through the possibility of equal participation. As a result, the IGM had also developed into a movement that took a politically oppositional stance towards right-wing tendencies in politics.

Other trade union forms of remembrance of the migrant-influenced "wild strikes" of 1973 can be found primarily in the digital space. On the IG-Metall website, a controversial approach to the strikes is only indirectly recognisable. Although negative aspects of the history of migration are also addressed there, this does not include non-tariff labour disputes such as the migrant-influenced "wild strikes" at Pierburg and Ford in 1973. The title "Wie aus Gastarbeitern Kolleg(*innen) wurden" (How guest workers became colleagues) also focuses less on the former negative role of the trade unions by disregarding migrant interests than on a closed constitution. Accordingly, the damage to the IGM's image in the 1970s is concealed by emphasising the successful inclusion of its post-migrant members. The connection between the successful career path of a post-migrant trade unionist in the automotive industry and the story of her grandfather, who made it possible, also allows similar conclusions to be drawn. A reference to the present is established, which is reinforced by the emotionality of the topic and the family connection, thus presenting the story of (labour) conflicts and the pressure to integrate, or rather assimilate, to the members of the IGM, but without addressing their ownresponsibility in the past. See: https://www.igmetall.de/politik-und-gesellschaft/gleichstellung-und-integration/migration/reise-ins-ungewisse-wie-gastarbeiter-zu-kollegen-wurden.

A more nuanced but similar approach to the topic can be found on the homepage of IGM North Rhine-Westphalia, which commemorates the "wild strike" at the automotive supplier on the 40th anniversary of the 1973 strikes in 2013 merely with an invitation to a commemorative event in the digital space. The strike can be considered a success for the IGM, as although it was not initiated by it, it was subsequently accompanied and successfully ended by it, which was not the case with the subsequent strike at Ford in Cologne and was therefore probably not mentioned. See: https://www.igmetall-nrw.de/news/2013/der-aufstand-der-frauen-fuer-eine-mark-mehr/?L=0.

The historian Simon Goeke takes a critical perspective on forms of remembrance work by the DGB and IGM in relation to the migrant strike movements of 1973. With regard to the subsequent recognition of migrant interests, he criticises the fact that trade union actors often forget the previous negative role of their institutions in the respective remembrance policy agendas. He also criticised the fact that, despite the IGM's pioneering role in the recognition of (post-)migrants after 1973, the topic of migration has only taken a comprehensive place in trade union remembrance work since 2019, which could be read as an indication that the topic still requires further negotiation processes, including between the various actors, due to its incompleteness.

The "Documentation Centre and Museum for Migration History" in Cologne 2023 (DOMID) has created a non-union form of remembrance in the digital space. Texts, images and interviews were made available on the DOMID website, with the interviews with contemporary witnesses to the two strikes in 1973 also shedding light on the negative aspects of the events. An animated video about the strikes with Turkish commentary was also produced. As part of a DOMID exhibition on 24 August 2023 in Cologne, reference was made to this in a panel discussion entitled: "Arbeits- und Anerkennungskämpfe der Migration zwischen Erinnerung und Aktualität." See: https://domid.org/news/wilde-streiks-1973/.

Also in 2023, Süddeutscher Rundfunk produced a podcast who historians, post-migrant and trade union activist Mitat Özdemir spoke critically about the events of 1973 as a contemporary witness, see: https://www.swr.de/swrkultur/wissen/die-wilden-streiks-von-1973-wie-gastarbeiter-fuer-faire-behandlung-kaempften-swr2-wissen-2023-06-29-100.html.

Contributed by Ann-Kathrin Hoffmann (Ruhr-Universität Bochum)

In 1861 continued payment of wages in case of illness was regulated for the first time in Germany, or rather in what was then the German Confederation ("Deutscher Bund"): the General German Commercial Code ("Allgemeines Deutsches Handelsgesetzbuch") provided for a right to continued payment of wages in case of incapacity to work through no fault of the employee, albeit initially only for commercial employees. From 1900 onwards, this entitlement was extended to all employees in the German Empire ("Kaiserreich") and enshrined in several laws, such as §63 of the Commercial Code ("Handelsgesetzbuch"), §133c of the Trade Regulation Act ("Gewerbeordnung") and §616 of the Civil Code ("Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch"). All these regulations could be waived in individual contracts, i.e. they could be negotiated individually both in favour of and to the detriment of employees. From 1930/31 onwards, an emergency ordinance declared these paragraphs to be generally non-waivable, but shortly afterwards this was retroactively limited to employees and restricted to absences due to illness of a maximum of six weeks. These regulations survived the Nazi era and the immediate post-war period.

The trade union struggle for equality between workers and employees

In the 1950s, equality between workers and employees in terms of continued payment of wages was on the political agenda once again. With its 1955 action programme, the German Trade Union Confederation ("Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, DGB") as an umbrella organisation turned its attention back to social and collective bargaining policy and demanded, among other things, equal rights for all in case of illness. However, a draft law by the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) in 1955, which took up this proposal and provided for the transfer of continued pay to workers, failed the following year.

During the same year, another attempt followed: the Industrial Union of Metalworkers ("IG Metall") made continued payment of wages in case of illness for workers a demand in its collective bargaining round in Schleswig-Holstein, the northernmost and rather industrially and structurally weak federal state. With a level of trade union membership of 72%, more than 34,000 employees in the metal industry in 38 companies in the state went on strike between October 1956 and February 1957 – for 114 days. The employers in Schleswig-Holstein and the General Association of Metal Industry Employers wanted to prevent a precedent by any means necessary, and state politicians also intervened, describing picketers – among othert hings – as ‘terrorists’. The workers and their families were subjected to considerable pressure and, in some cases, physical violence, such as the termination of their company housing and the police deployment at strike rallies. They fought for their demands not only against a front consisting of politicians and company management, but also, in part, against their own trade union: there were four ballot votes in total, and on several occasions the members rejected the offers, sometimes by 97%, sometimes by 76%, and once even against the recommendation of the IG Metall leadership. In the final vote, the result of the arbitration was then accepted by just under 40%. At the end of the 16-week strike, which had been led primarily by the shipyards in the state capital Kiel, continued payment of wages in case of illness was achieved – albeit only under certain conditions.

From strike success to a game point of social policy

Employers were right to fear that they were setting a precedent: in 1969, continued payment of wages in case of illness was enshrined in law for all employees, and the collective agreement for metalworkers in Schleswig-Holstein became a nationwide law. In 1994, this continued pay law was standardised for all employees. However, this major trade union success did not remain unchallenged for long. Just two years later, the Christian Democrat and Liberal coalition government reduced the entitlement from 100% to 80%, although this was reversed in 1999 by the following Social Democrat and Green coalition. This was not the last attack on the law – nor was it its last defence. The most recent attempt to undermine it came in 2024 from the head of an insurance company, who complained about high sick leave and the high follow-up costs and, among other things, brought up the idea of a waiting day for continued pay. This demand was rejected just as clearly by the Social Democratic Federal Minister of Labour as it was by the trade unions – with the reference that continued payment of wages in case of illness is one of the central achievements of the German labour and trade union movement, alongside the eight-hour day.

Trade union memory as a source of power?

The three-part docudrama The Brave 56 – Germany‘s Longest Strike ("Die Mutigen 56 – Deutschlands längster Streik"), released on 1 May 2024, showed how deeply the 1956/57 strike is anchored in the memory and historiography of German trade unions and beyond. In addition to re-enacted scenes, the docudrama also featured interviews with contemporary witnesses. In their memories, which as former strikers, relatives or trade union officials have had a decisive influence on the communicative memory of this industrial dispute, there is still a high degree of identification with the (successful) industrial dispute and a clear stance against strike-breakers. They are aware of their historical role – not only in terms of the decisive and far-reaching collective bargaining agreement as a central trade union achievement, but also in view of the scale of their strike. This self-image coincides with the collective memory of this strike, because from IG Metall to the DGB to Schleswig-Holstein state politics, whether left-liberal or conservative reporting: everyone seems to agree on the label ‘Germany's longest strike’. And this despite the fact that there have actually been much longer strikes both at company and industry level. So how did this narrative gain traction?

It‘s power seems to be based on three main pillars:

1) The scale: a 114-day strike involving over 34,000 employees is impressive, especially given the repression, which attracted even international attention and led to widespread trade union solidarity actions, for example at Christmas.

2) The consequences: The fact that this collective bargaining dispute resulted in a successful negotiation and that the continued payment of wages in case of illness was later even enshrined in law for all employees is a trade union achievement that is unparalleled in terms of its significance and scope, except for a few other successes such as the eight-hour working day or the right to holiday leave.

3) The actors involved: the shipyards affected by the strike, as the interface between the steel industry and shipping, are not only of outstanding economic interest but also of national interest, which means that events there are sure to attract not only corporate attention but also attention from policymakers (in terms of regulation and safety). More over, the opposing side is also of considerable size: with around 1.6 million members at the time and 2.2 million today, IG Metall is still the largest single trade union in the world.

Memories and narratives of successful labour disputes can thus be an important social resource for trade unions, which are also facing far-reaching processes of change regarding the transformation of work and membership. These memories of existing achievements are neither an end in themselves nor a sure-fire success when it comes to highlighting trade unions as the strongest lever for enforcing the collective interests of wage earners and recruiting members. However, as a sediment of experiences that are passed on as attitudes and actions, they can prepare the ground for new struggles and successes.

References

• Adam, Hans Christian; Schmitz, Kurt Thomas: 100 Jahre Metall im Bild. Fotodokumente zu Arbeit und Zeit, herausgegeben von der IG Metall. Köln 1991.
• ARD: Die Mutigen 56 – Deutschlands längster Streik. Online unter: https://www.ardmediathek.de/serie/die-mutigen-56-deutschlands-laengster-streik/staffel-1/Y3JpZDovL25kci5kZS80OTk3/1.
• Dittrich, Irene; Kalk, Wilfried: „Wir wollen nicht länger Menschen zweiter Klasse sein!" Der Metallarbeiterstreik in Schleswig-Holstein 1956/ 57. In: Demokratische Geschichte 2, S. 351–394.
• Hahn, Katharina; Schmitzt, Kurt Thomas: 100 Jahre Industriegewerkschaft 1891 bis 1991 vom Deutschen Metallarbeiter-Verband zur Industriegewerkschaft Metall; ein Bericht in Wort und Bild, herausgegeben von der IG Metall. Köln 1991.
• IG Metall Küste: Filmtipp: Die Mutigen 56 - Deutschlands längster Streik. Online unter: https://kueste.igmetall.de/aktuelles/die-mutigen-56.
• IG Metall: Die IG Metall vom Kaiserreich bis heute. Unsere Geschichte. Online unter: https://www.igmetall.de/ueber-uns/geschichte/die-geschichte-der-ig-metall.
• IG Metall: Nach 114 Tagen Streik: Anspruch auf Lohn bei Krankheit. Online unter: https://www.igmetall.de/politik-und-gesellschaft/sozialpolitik/vor-60-jahren-endlich-anspruch-auf-lohn-bei-krankheit.
• Industriegewerkschaft Metall: Einigungsvorschlag vom 9. Februar 1957. Online unter: https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/ta_tvg60_1957_metallindustrie_schleswig_holstein_lohnfortzahlung.pdf.
• Kiel. Sailing. City: Kieler Erinnerungstag. 24. Oktober 1956. Der längste Streik in der Bundesrepublik begann am 24.Oktober mit dem Streik der Metallarbeiter in Schleswig-Holstein. Online unter: https://www.kiel.de/de/bildung_wissenschaft/stadtarchiv/erinnerungstage.php?id=63#:~:text=Das%20Ergebnis%20des%20Arbeitskampfes&text=Nach%20einer%20Krankheitsdauer%20von%20mehr,sieben%20auf%20vier%20Tage%20verkürzt.
• Lebendiges Museum online: Zeitung „Streik-Nachricht“ Nr. 1. Online unter: https://www.hdg.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/druckgut-streiknachrichten-nr-1.html.
• Lehmann, Sebastian, unter Mitarbeit von Schwabe, Astrid: Der Metallerstreik 1956/57 in Karikaturen. In: Demokratische Geschichte 19, S. 171–190.