The majority of individuals are unlikely to possess much information on the European Union and the United States current negotiation, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The TTIP is labelled a ‘free trade’ agreement, involving the removal of non-tariff barriers between the US and EU, harmonising regulatory requirements and differences in legislation on goods produced and traded within these countries. If agreed, it will create the world’s largest ‘free trade’ zone in the world. Serious concerns have been raised in regards to the effects of the secretive TTIP on various industries and employees within the EU. TTIP could be seen as another ‘neoliberal project’ –pioneered by Margeret Thatcher – that will affect social, health and environmental standards (Dullien, Garcia & Janning, 2015). Neoliberalism is a political economic theory, which suggests that the market should have limited government regulation and intervention, liberating and deregulating the market. This encourages the value of competition and profit over equality, resulting in the concentration of wealth of a country into the larger corporations and increasing the inequality gap. Campaigners against TTIP view it as a re-embodiment and radicalization of Thatchers’ neoliberalism which could prove the greatest threat to organisations and workers within the EU. This essay discusses TTIP, the threat of reduced democratic practices and worker’s rights, and possible theoretical solutions to minimize irreversable repercussions to individuals and organisations. Whilst discussion is concentrated on the NHS, this 21st century threat applies to all organisations and services, including manufacturing, agriculture or raw material industries. (THESIS).
ISDS
Leaked documents about the TTIP agreement have revealed the proposed inclusion of Investment State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which will reduce democracy within individual EU countries, resulting in immeasurable effects on governments’ such as the UK’s, and individual corporations that operate within them. This mechanism is designed to protect foreign corporations investing in another country, and allows companies to sue and claim against that country if a conflict arises that will limit their profits. The ISDS firmly lies in foreign corporations’ favour, not in the governments, limiting the UK and many other EU countries’ governmental authority, strictly binding them to the TTIP rules. “ISDS works like a global legal straightjacket that makes it very, very difficult and expensive for governments to regulate corporations … It is dangerous for democracy,” claims Pia Eberhardt, of Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), a Brussels-based campaign group. As a result, the UK government may neglect domestic organisations and the rights of their workers in order to avoid conflict with multinational US corporations, simply because it would be financially unviable to fight a corporate lawsuit.
This neoliberal reduction in governments’ authority threatens organisations such as the NHS and despite assurances that, as with current EU trade agreements, public sector organisations are exempt, many feel the introduction of TTIP would lead to privatization by stealth. Currently many areas within the NHS are already privatized, (GP surgeries, diagnostic services, IT etc), and allowing free trade of public services to American Investors, and making it almost impossible to reverse back to governmental control (Ames, 2015), will result in huge detrimental effect on the organisation itself and their employees. Private companies’ priority is to maximise profit to pay their shareholders, so their aim to reduce costs will majorly impact employment; the liberalized market cutting back on staff numbers, threatening workers secure contracts with public sector staff being replaced by casual workers and more zero hour contracts, receiving lower pay and poorer working conditions (Jeffery’s et al, 2008). It would be dangerous to operate the NHS with profitability more important than the public health service that it is designed for; medical staff’s control on how the NHS is best run would diminish, reducing employees’ conditions in favour of management power, arguably to the detriment to public health.
Negative Effects on jobs
In any industry, without governmental control and the absence of regulatory bodies, there would be less job security and worker protection for the employees as US labour standards are inferior to the EU’s., TTIP would eliminate differences in legislations, bringing EU more in line with US, not the other way round, resulting in a negative effect on workers’ rights and employer deregulation within the EU. Employee surveys on the effects of TTIP’s objectives of increased liberalization and privatization, “primarily threaten established standards and lead to a significant deterioration of pay levels and working conditions”. Mario Ohoven, the President of the German Association for SME’s, commented on how the TTIP agreement will lead to a discriminatory situation against EU workers. (Dearn & Hilary, 2016).
Solutions for effects on workers
Unfortunately, there are limited solutions for employees of the NHS, the best being to campaign within a trade union against the TTIP agreement, fighting against this neoliberal approach of reduced government control, deregulation and marketization (“Trade unions and neoliberalism”, 2009). Traditionally – although not classed as a sufficient part of democracy within an organisation – trade unions have been influential within the workplace, which ensured public employers such as the NHS would adhere to any union requests or demands. Public sector workers typically form “strong trade unions that are able to establish highly centralized and comprehensive bargaining structures” (Hermann & Flecker Forschungs, 2009). Within certain industries, there has been a decline in membership to trade unions during recent times, which may lessen their efficiency in tackling any infringement to workers’ rights, given that TTIP is operating with such secrecy. Thatcher’s empowerment meant neoliberalism has depleted trade union activity, meaning this solution may have little effect on the result of the agreement. Additionally, supporting government parties such as the Labour party, who are encouraging the protection of the NHS from the TTIP agreement may raise awareness of the severity of the consequences on organisations, employees and the wider detrement to the public health of citizens if the agreement goes ahead. Other indivicual strategies for opposition would be joining campaign and pressure groups, and petitioning MP’s and parliament to bring about further public consultation..
If the NHS were not exempted from the agreement, and the privatization did not result in the full transfer of ownership rights, it could remain partly privatized, with the UK government maintaining a sufficient share of the assets. Alternatively, the government could ensure the ownership rights are sold to a “strategic partner”, such as a US investor in the same sector (Hermann & Flecker Forschungs, 2009), protecting the public service organisation for the foreseeable future. This being the situation, the UK government could reinforce a theory of organisational democracy within the NHS hierarchy, which is important in encouraging a relationship to form with the new part owners and staff members by promoting elections for leaders of the lower tiers of the NHS hierarchy, ensuring all levels have a leader to approach with ideas or concerns, improving the workplace democracy in the NHS and reducing a power gap. The same being for any other organisation, this will encourage workers’ participation in decision making (Timming, 2014), amplifying commitment to their tasks, and reducing alienation from the organisation.
Another solution to the increased privatization could be a clause included in the TTIP, stating if altered ownership structures and new forms of market regulation proves unsustainable, then the organisation should be able to return to public/government ownership, re-stabilizing the organisation.
Workplace sabotage
The reduction in democracy within the EU and workplaces, alongside the likelihood of overall worse working conditions may lead to counterattack’s from employees. Support of this idea is the Theory of Sabotage. Workplace sabotage is behaviour intended to damage or disrupt an organisation’s operations for the personal benefits to the saboteur, in a reaction to the individual’s environment. Likely motives in this situation would be powerlessness and injustice. If the TTIP was to be approved, many workers may feel powerless in their workplace as they lose their control over their employment or tasks. Examples would be an increase in workload without a proportionate rise in wages, a reduction in scheduled breaks or being denied specific resources needed to complete the task fully. In response, destructive behaviour supposedly increases ones’ sense of control or ‘evens the score.’ (Ambrose, 2002). These backlashes could disrupt organisations such as the NHS even more, as they are becoming more prominent in the 21st century. Companies affected by the TTIP are likely to have to take precautionary measures as many workers will become dissatisfied by the changes the TTIP brings, such as training managers to spot early signs of saboteur behaviour, whilst attempting to remove all reasons for an employee of an organisation to engage in saboteur behaviour in the first place.