
their organisational processes across
European borders.
The EWC at General Motors was first
signed as a voluntary, Article 13 agree-
ment on 16th September, 1996. It was
amended in 1999 and then renewed
in 2000. This agreement is valid until
at least 2006. The GM European Em-
ployee Forum (EEF) has had to cope
with massive restructuring, re-organi-
sation and rationalisation processes
during the past nine years. This pro-
cess is still continuing. After cutting
about 21,000 European jobs between
1998 and 2001, between 2003 and
2005 yet another 13,000 jobs have
been lost (EMF-Focus 2005 and GME
website 2005). GME presently has
about 60,000 European employees.
Therefore, the EEF has been fighting a
very difficult, defensive battle within a
harsh economic environment.
Klaus Franz is both the chairman of
the German company works council
and has been the chairman of the EEF
since its inception. During a discus-
sion with him at the University of Ap-
plied Sciences Mainz, in May 2005,
he admitted that at first it had been
difficult to understand how to use the
EEF to the advantage of the European
workforce. A negative experience had
taken place in 1998 when the German
and Belgian works councillors had ne-
gotiated national agreements, which
were then used by management as
competitive benchmarks to cut costs
in the UK and Spain (Hancké 2000).
This experience made the EEF realise
that in future they had to develop a
new, European strategy. Therefore,
when GME announced its decision to
close its Vauxhall operations in Luton,
in the UK, the EEF worked together
with the EMF to organise a European
‘Day of Action’ to put pressure on the
company to find alternative solutions
to the closure of the Luton plant. On
January 25th 2001, the EMF reported
that over 40,000 European employees
had responded to this call at plants in
Germany, Belgium, the UK, Portugal
and Spain (Broughton 2001). Klaus
Franz announced that the work-
ers at General Motors would fight
against the closures of any GM plants
throughout Europe.
The year 2001 continued to be turbu-
lent, with the introduction of ‘Olym-
pia’, a massive restructuring plan. On
August 15th management announced
its intention to cut costs by €2 billion,
and lay off ‘several thousand’ employ-
ees. This led to great uncertainty, espe-
cially in Antwerp, but also in Zaragoza
and Bochum (Vandewattyne 2001).
The EEF immediately called an extra-
ordinary meeting, which took place on
August 20th. This meeting led to the
Olympia Framework Agreement which
established the principles that the
Olympia plan was to be implemented
without any site closures, without any
compulsory redundancies and that all
measures had to be negotiated with
the national trade unions.
During 2000 and 2001 the EEF signed
four European framework agreements
with management, concerning the al-
liance with Fiat in July 2000, on Luton
in March 2001, on principles of social
responsibility in October 2001 and
on the ‘Olympia’ restructuring pro-
gramme in October 2001.
The next major challenge for the EEF
began in July 2004. Rumours had
been circulating that another massive
restructuring programme was be-
ing planned for Europe (EMF-Focus
2005). On 2nd September manage-
ment announced their intention to
close one production plant in Europe.
The EEF and the EMF immediately re-
sponded to this in several ways. Firstly
the national trade unions and the EMF
organised a “European trade union
coordination group”, to agree to ba-
sic demands, which were then sent to
GME on 16th September. They then
organised a meeting in Copenhagen
on 1st October, signing the “Copen-
hagen declaration”, rejecting man-
agements attempts to play national
workforces off against each other,
and demanding that they should com-
ply with the European social model.
On 12th October, management an-
nounced its intention to cut the Euro-
pean workforce by 20% and on 14th
October the coordination group met
again and decided to organise another
Day of Action on 19th October. In their
press release, the EMF reported that
this was supported by over 50,000 em-
ployees in Belgium, Germany, the UK,
Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Hungary,
Austria, France and Poland. The pre-
cise form the actions took depended
on different national traditions, legal
possibilities and customs. They includ-
ed protest demonstrations, information
meetings and plant-level personnel
meetings. The European Parliament
also discussed the GM case on 19th
October, (EMF-Focus 2005).
In the German press, rumours were
rife that either Rüsselsheim or Bo-
chum in Germany or Trollhätten in
Sweden were the most likely locations
to take the main brunt of the planned
job losses. In order to increase local
awareness of the effects such cuts
would have for each other’s commu-
nities, Klaus Franz even organised ex-
change visits of delegations of citizens
with their local mayors from Trollhät-
ten to Rüsselsheim and vice versa (In-
terview with Klaus Franz, 19.05.05).
The coordination group met for a
third time on 24th October, rejecting a
draft European framework agreement
which management had presented. It
demanded that management return
to the negotiation table. The impasse
continued until 26th November when
a letter was sent from the EEF and the
EMF coordinator to management re-
questing a new proposal, keeping to
the spirit of the Olympia agreement.
On 7th December the trade union co-
ordination group met in Rüsselsheim,
whilst the EEF negotiated with manage-
ment on a new framework agreement,
which was then signed (EMF-Focus
2005). Whilst not being able to prevent
25
leHre Und stUdiUm
UpdAte • Heft 3 • ws o6/07