34 cents or There is no chance for the survival of the EU without the Germxit

In the beginning of June of 2016 a major executive of the German Federal Association of the Employers’ Associations (BDA)

(__comparable to the Confederation of the British Industry CBI__)

rejected an attempt by the unions, which basically meant a raise of the so-called German minimum wages. This major executive of that very association whose blueprints frequently serve

(__and it is self-speaking that this is in very own interest__)

the German commanding staff as template for the laws and regulations to be passed and implemented

(__thus this rejection is following the neoliberal doctrine__)

is said to, on that occasion, also have given

_t h e _

reason for rejecting this “attempt”

(__within the scope of the “institutionalised co-operation between the representations of employers and unions”__)

by the unions

(__an “attempt” that actually was a sham__)

because the so-called minimum-wage commission had to comply with “law and order”.

Apart from the fact that it can always be questioned who determines what is to be law and what is to be order, reasonable doubt be expressed at this very place whether there are just a few so-called black sheep with the employers or whether in these circles that are represented by the BDA there are far more employers that do not pay the minimum wages implemented in Germany in 2015 and besides it is full of exemptions

— by the way these minimum wages go back to a proposal by the German Association of the unions

(__an association that is in line with the market__)

and whose representatives are well aware that there are enterprises who pressurise their low-wage-earners in a way, that, when being recruited, they do not even dare to ask for the minimum wages that

_m i g h t _

be declared as such on the according slips for the Inland Revenue Office or the controlling customs office.

The silence of the unions is being justifies with the low-wage-earners begging them not to ask for the implementation of the minimum wages as they then would lose their misery jobs. Well, that probably can’t be denied, but you will have to reflect on the question whether the so-called “social partnership

(__just mentioned above as: “institutionalised co-operation between the representations of employers and union” meaning an agreement between the representatives of the unions and the employers to cooperate, always at the expense of the employees, including the peculiarity that the employees agreed to not having their wages raised to finance the creation of new jobs — the results of which will be explained in the following__)

didn’t only make those excesses possible, for it can’t be denied either that the representatives of the employees in the unions ensconced themselves in the “social partnership” — with the one or the other developing a kind of “understanding” for the other side, always at the expense of the own clientele. So that the assumption, that the ruling class of the unions be on the wrong side, is well-founded: after all, the results of the pay negotiations in general prove how disadvantageous the labour agreements are for the employees — even with negotiations between strong unions and the employers’ side.

*  *  *

It is a mistake if you take the labour agreements blared by the writing staff of the media concerns, at face value, for instance when it says: “4% more!”. For the reader could get the impression that this increase refers to one year, actually this refers to two years which equals a pay raise of 2 % per annum. That, of course, is far below what would be necessary to reduce the trade imbalances within the European Economic and Monetary Union (__EMU__) and to free the German economy of its heavy export excess list — which again only became possible through the false construct of the EMU, respectively the fact that the German politics does not abide by the rules that they themselves laid:

Sticking to the inflation target of about 2 %, that should neither be exceeded nor fallen below — and that can be achieved by adhering to the Golden Rule of Wages in all member states of the EMU.

(__However, this target is not to be achieved on average but in every single member state, oriented towards the very specific development of the productivity

_b a s e d   o n   e x p e r i e n c e_

in every single of these states.__)

The overall economic wages development in a member state has especially strong impacts on the state and the chances for survival of a monetary union if this state is

a) as far as the economy is concerned the strongest state

b) the labour agreements (__in such a state__) remain below the Golden Rule of Wages for a long time

and

c) this member state has a huge low pay sector which ensures that the general average level of the wages decreases

, as well as

d) there is an additional means of gagging (__in Germany this is called HARTZ IV, standing for a very rigid welfare system__) that even frightens employees beyond the so-called precarious employment situations, to ask for appropriate

(__annual__)

wage increases.

Thus it is too narrowly considered if the German side keeps pointing out that the others lived beyond their means whereas it should say:

neither live beyond your means nor below them, thus to reach the inflation target (__year after year__) given by the European Central Bank as exact as possible.

[__This shortened text is part of the next publication as volume 6 of our edition !_think out-of-the-box_! — coming soon as an e-book.__]

© Joachim Endemann (translated by Kirsten Grunau)

2 Gedanken zu „34 cents or There is no chance for the survival of the EU without the Germxit

Kommentare sind geschlossen.