Extreme right-wing extremists in companies | IG Metall: "We have rested on our laurels"

The rise of the extreme right continues to gain momentum and is also making itself felt in workplaces. Why is this?

On the one hand, there are the well-researched figures of at least eight percent of the population with a completely right-wing extremist worldview. With a party like the AfD, these people have been given a political opportunity. On the other hand, they are scoring points in companies where uncertainty regarding the transformation is particularly high, such as in the area of ​​e-mobility . There, they are channeling dissatisfaction with an anti-emancipatory, caring policy. It's clear that the extreme right-wing "Zentrum" organization is strong where we are weak.

What do you mean?

Weakness isn't just reflected in IG Metall's low approval ratings. It's a question of the quality of our work. For a long time, the "Zentrum" association, which is closely aligned with the AfD, has developed a narrative: that we work too closely with employers, that we belong to the elite and don't represent workers' interests, that our works councils aren't approachable and visit the factory floor too rarely. There's a huge discrepancy between what we've actually fought for and what's understandable for employees. Against this backdrop, we're discussing how we can improve public relations to bring people on board.

So it’s all just a question of the right communication?

No, but a lot depends on communication. In the past, in large companies, we often said, "Okay, you get your employment contract, you become a member, and everything's fine." But we have to make it clear what the union stands for and how company policy is linked to social policy. This empowers people to speak up and participate in debates within their departments, speaking out against anti-Semitism, racism, or discrimination. This repoliticization—I don't mean that in the sense of party politics—means: recognize yourself in your structure. What is your working-class background? Where does the AfD come from? Where does "center" stand? For them, it's not about top and bottom, but about inside and outside. And what have we fought for? If you notice that there is an attitude of entitlement that hasn't been lived out in substance for a long time, that's an important starting point. It is highly political to make people aware of their situation and to show what can have a situation-changing effect.

Have the unions missed this development?

I wouldn't say that. But for a long time, we rested on our laurels and assumed that we could continue to operate in this way. In doing so, we ignored, especially with a view to future generations, the fact that the operational and societal levels are inseparable and that in the workplace, we not only have to live with the effects of sociopolitical debates, but also confront them. It's not enough to be able to explain why the canteen committee made this or that decision. It's also about demonstrating that we depend on democracy and that the AfD is a threat to it.

What does this mean for your approaches?

After a long discussion process, we decided to focus less on the AfD. We're asking what our own issues are that concern people, and how we can move forward with them so that they know they have a strong hand on their side with us. We have an emancipatory claim: "You can change things with us." Because the more self-efficacy people experience in the workplace, the lower the risk of "Zentrum" being successful. We also need to discuss the democratic basis of these experiences. That is, how to create inclusive solidarity that doesn't just include certain groups.

At the IG Metall protest day in March, the importance of industrial work for the nation was evoked with a sense of patriotism. Isn't that a problem?

The demand to preserve the industrial location is necessary, also because our members demand it of us. The difficulty is that we need to discuss this in a differentiated manner: We are involved with all these companies in an international context through supply chains, laws, and other issues. This means that pure location nationalism will not help us, because it also leads us in the wrong direction in the socio-political debate. We need to strike a balance between telling people: We are committed to preserving your jobs, but we also want to develop them further to ensure prosperity. This requires a high degree of sensitivity from us.

Leftists are citing class struggle as a nationalist response to the crisis. Aren't they imitating previously failed attempts?

Unions have a purpose if the people who are organized in them are aware of the fact that we live in a class society. I mean that regardless of all debates about definitions. They are dependent on the employers they work for. This contradiction determines their situation in the company and their living conditions. I think more movement is possible here. But to do so, we must move away from the image of a welfare organization with death benefits, accident insurance, and so on. We must focus on what we have fought for. In the 19th century, working days were up to 16 hours long, and today we have to defend the eight-hour day. Personally, I would like to see different framework conditions, but at the moment I don't see much prospect of that. People need to realize how much is at stake. When I look at what's happening around the world or at the USA, something we fought for is collapsing at a rapid pace. In this respect, looking back and preserving the present is, in principle, also part of the development of a utopia.