Information on Denmark

 

Compulsion of labor unions by law in Denmark

 

In No. 2 15th volume May 1995 of the newspaper from the People's Movement for Free Labor unions you could read a very interesting article titled: The compulsion of the labor unions is due to that Folketinget[1] was misguided by Svend Auken (mine: our former Minister of Labor Force, and the present Minister of Environment and of Energy). The author of the mentioned article is an ingeneer with an academic degree Erik Boeck. He was fired from his job in the Patent-directorat, because he refused to be member of a labor union that in his opinion worked on a socialistic foundation.

In Denmark a law about liberty of labor union membership passed (Law No. 285 of June 9th 1982). Yes, you might believe it was true, but it is not. The law deals with precisely the opposite[2].

There has never been any need to make a law about freedom of membership of a union. This freedom has already been given by our Constitution. For that reason the honored members of Folketinget ought to be aware of this; but they were not, they seldom or never are.

 

When you read article 2 subsection 2 in this new law about freedom, you will see that the law was proposed only to secure the compulsion by law. Then you could maintain that this law is against the Constitution, but this does not interest many of the members of the parliament. They mostly look upon the Constitution as a clog for their own possibility to hector the people.

 

In article 1 is written: "An employer must not fire an employee, because he is a member of an union or a member of any particular union".

In article 2 subsection 1 is written: "An employer must not fire an employee, because he is not member of an union or member of any particular union".

The bright one will see that article 1 is just superfluous at once.

But you see, there is article 2 subsection 2: Subsection 1 is not to be used, if the employee at the appoint-ment was told that the employer required membership of an union or a particular union to work in the business.

Subsection 3 article 2: Subsection 1 is not to be used, when the employee, who is member of an union after the appointment is told that the membership is a condition of allowing him to work in the business.

 

You see, so he can not leave that union, he has joined before the appointment, if it is told to him before his appointment that this will not be accepted.

 

The purpose of the law was clearly, Boeck maintains, to stop the public pressure that put against the compulsion of the labor unions. August 13th 1981 a judgment was delivered in a case from England at the European Court Of Human Rights.

 

In this judgment is maintained that appointments conditioned by membership of a particular union is against the article 11 of the Human Rights.

 

So something certainly had to be done, Svend Auken meant, and the social democrats with him. Then the law, because otherwise the way  was prepared for freedom for labor union-membership.

It was especially the financial support to the party  that worried the social democrats. If the citizens had freedom here, it would mean the greatest event since The Cancellation Of The Adscription[3], Erik Boeck writes. This matter was urgent. So Svend Auken had to mislead Folketinget. He maintained that the agreement about freedom of labor union-membership (following the case of the European C.H.R.) had been made after the three workers had been appointed.

Therefore the Danish law had to take this false interpretation into account. So the exceptions in the article 2, subsection 2 and 3 in the Danish law. This argumentation was accepted by the professional politicians in Folketinget.

 

It has to be told that this false argumentation, as Boeck characterizes it, was stated before Svend Auken's "the scandal of security money" officially has become known publicly, and before he lied on TV about what the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affaires had told him. Otherwise the public perhaps would have been more awaken.

 

The foundation of the exception-decisions in this law are false, Boeck maintains, because 2 out of the 3 workers certainly not was appointed after the moment, where the 'exclusive-agreements' had been made.

The former Danish Minister of Labor Force, also from the Social Democratic Party, Jytte Andersen could not give an answer to Boeck's questions to her.

If the truth about Denmark's compulsion of labor union-membership, and with this the political compulsion had been known here and in the outside world, this unworthy situation in Denmark could not have been maintained, the People's Movement for Free Labor unions wrote September 1996. The compulsion of labor unions and the political compulsion is maintained in Denmark.

                  

Another very grotesque situation broad to life by insane legislation in the Danish parliament is "The Negative List".

When the public pressure against the labor unions for their money-presents to the Social Democratic Party

was the heavy burden again, so they had to make laws again. The result was that all members, who did not want to let some of their subscription be transferred to the Party, could send their name and address to the unions. The subscription remained the same.

This was very smart, now they had the names and the addresses of the most stupid of those, who did not want to contribute to the so-called 'socialistic-democratic family'. After this they only had to follow some courses of “quality-management”[4], an union-representative told me. His name is not mentioned here for good reasons. It does not figure on 'The Negative List' either.

In China the people fight for free unions. In Denmark they do not.

 

Their hope seems small for Danish citizens. November 1995 Jytte Andersen created new legislation to counteract ethnic discrimination on the Danish labor market[5]. According to the traditional practice the starting point was one of many provident conventions of the international community:

International convention is dealing with abolition of racediscrimination[6].

 

Jytte Andersen read in section 1, article 1, subsection 2 of this convention and she found the following application of the convention:

When The Minister of Labor Force informed Folketinget (our parliament) this had become:

This convention is not used on the discrimination, exclusion, limitations or preferences that a participating state referring to this convention is doing between its own citizens and foreigners.[7]

 

A lot of individuals concluded on this foundation that the Minister of Labor Force by her free changing the wording of the convention by her discretion, as shown here, in reality was trying to make discrimination lawful to benefit of foreigners, and she intented to point these initiatives against Danish ci-tizens. The last mentioned is called racism in the mentioned convention. But unfortunately we are convinced that racism – decided by new ethics - have to be unbalanced. Danish legislation later told us we were right.  “Positive special treatement” is the expression of invocation.

 

If a Danish minister discriminate against Danish citizens in order to benefit foreigners, she has broken Denmark's Constitution, and it is called treason in the Danish Penal Code.  

I did what was possible to get through to the members of Folketinget.

There were sound-recordings of telephone talk between the minister and organizations on the labor market, where she had gone much longer with her orders and her recommendations.

 

The bill passed Folketinget. You have the majority, even if you as Minister of Labor Force obvious was a little embarrassed - not ashamed. Something had leaked. Just be cool, now the foundation of treason is in order. There can be build on this against the Danish people with a few changes of the articles on a lazy afternoon just before the summer holiday.

The just reported about the area of the Department of Labor Force is nearly an everyday occurrence. As we are very few, who make an effort for the democracy, we are going to loose it.

 

A test of the treason:

The counsel of the City-Part Noerrebro Copenhagen introduces 'positiv special measure' - in Danish it is discrimination - of the immigrants in this part of the city, when municipal jobs are occupied. The social democratic person sitting in the counsel of the City-Part Henry Thingvad tells the newspaper BT August 29th 1996 (less than a year after the passing of the bill of discrination): "If the choice is between a Dane and an immigrant for a job - and they have the same qualifications - the immigrant must have the job".