Board members of the Greater Copenhagen Painters’ Union are raising the red flag and sharply criticising the leadership of their own national union.

Their intervention comes ahead of the Danish Painters’ Union congress opening on Wednesday, 21 October. Its agenda includes proposals to abolish the independent strike fund and give the national executive greater control over local branches’ finances and membership expulsions.

The critics fear that power will become concentrated in the leadership and headquarters staff, far from members on construction sites. They warn that the union could lose touch with a trade under pressure from underpaid migrant labour, physically punishing work and members leaving for “yellow” unions.

Solidaritet spoke to three congress delegates about the challenges facing the Painters’ Union and the role and future of the labour movement.

Giving up the strike weapon

Building painters Lasse Bertelsen and Anders Engberg Christiansen, both board members of the Greater Copenhagen Painters’ Union, have joined Gerd Moss Christensen in speaking out against what they see as the national union’s disastrous course.

“We’ve never had so few members and so many paid staff. Yet our collective bargaining results are poor. And now they want to limit our ability to strike,” says Anders Engberg Christiansen.

He shakes his head while the others around the table nod.

“Low wages, physically punishing work, fewer members. And the union’s answer? Less influence for members. Isn’t this precisely when we should strengthen the strike fund?” asks Lasse Bertelsen.

The strike fund is a central issue at the congress, which runs from 21 to 24 October. The leadership proposes abolishing it as a separate fund so that its money can be used for day-to-day operations. Under the proposal, the union would instead set aside enough money to pay strike support for three weeks at the level of unemployment benefits.

The three painters fear that this change would leave the union less prepared for a prolonged dispute or a lockout.

“What distinguishes us from the yellow unions is that we can strike and negotiate collective agreements. That is our weapon, our defence, our very reason for existing,” says Gerd Moss Christensen.

A union with half its former membership

Lasse Bertelsen fuelled the debate in early October with a blog post on Arbejderen, sharply criticising proposed changes to the union’s rules and statutes.

The main criticism is that the changes would concentrate power in the national leadership and weaken the democratic influence of members and local branches.

The Painters’ Union has lost more than half its members since 2010 and now has around 4,000, excluding apprentices and pensioners.

Bertelsen links this decline to pressure on the trade following the EU’s eastward expansion, as well as low pay and working conditions that wear people down physically.

The painters propose a different course: more member democracy, stronger workplace organising, more union staff visiting construction sites, more active use of strikes and the strike fund, and limits on elected leaders’ salaries and terms of office.

The dispute concerns 113 proposed amendments to the union’s statutes.

Critics say the proposed changes would give the national executive greater control over branch finances, limit branches’ independence and make it harder to challenge other candidates in contested elections at congress. They would also change the rules on expelling members, increase the day-to-day leadership’s influence on the national executive, restrict young members’ in-person meetings and make intervention in local branches easier.

Shadows from North Jutland

Another central issue is the closure of the union’s North Jutland branch in February 2026.

The decision to close the entire branch and transfer its members to other branches was taken centrally, without discussion at a local general meeting.

The dispute between the former branch chair and the national executive over financial decisions and the interpretation of the statutes is still being dealt with through legal channels. It continues to fuel mistrust between members and the national leadership.

Critics fear the proposed rule changes would allow similar interventions without breaching the union’s own statutes.

“Then they can do it again — close a branch they disagree with politically,” Bertelsen tells Solidaritet.

They fear it will become harder to recruit and retain members if local branches lose control over their own funds and activities.

“There’s no point attending the general meeting if the national union decides everything,” says Gerd Moss Christensen.

A trade under pressure

Research by the National Research Centre for the Working Environment places painters among Denmark’s most physically demanding occupations.

An analysis by the Economic Council of the Labour Movement also shows that, although the painters’ union recruits young people successfully during their training, it struggles to retain them.

Only around 30 per cent of painters in Denmark belong to the union.

Temporary employment is common in the industry. Migrant workers leave Denmark and the union; others change trade or retire early because of the physical toll. All of this reduces membership.

For the three painters interviewed by Solidaritet, these problems are inseparable.

The task is to organise colleagues across nationalities more effectively and secure common pay and working conditions.

“The problem is not our foreign colleagues. It is that the labour movement loses strength when a growing share of the workforce remains outside the organised community,” says Anders Engberg Christiansen.

He calls for more construction-site visits and resources to organise colleagues, solve practical problems and strengthen workplace communities. “The union should be out on the sites, not hiding in a big building,” says Bertelsen, referring pointedly to the new headquarters in Copenhagen’s Sluseholmen, shared with unions including Blik og Rør and the Danish Union of Journalists.

Visible and ready to fight

The three painters will speak as congress delegates to seek support for their proposals.

They stress that the decisive question for them is whether the Painters’ Union can regain its importance for people working in the trade, rather than who wins an internal power struggle.

Their warning extends beyond the painting trade.

It concerns whether the labour movement should continue to be a tool that members themselves can use to fight for better conditions – or develop into a service apparatus where decisions are made far away from workplaces.

“If unions respond to falling membership by centralising power and limiting members’ influence, they risk making the crisis they are trying to solve worse. That could set a dangerous trend across the rest of the labour movement, where many unions are also struggling with declining membership,” Gerd Moss Christensen tells Solidaritet.

Their answer to declining membership is a union that is more visible, more willing to fight and closer to the people doing the work every day.

For them, the strike fund should be more than savings left untouched or diverted to other purposes. It enables members to stand firm when negotiations break down and employers refuse to give ground.

They therefore want the strike weapon to be used more actively. “Not necessarily to shut down the whole country, but to put pressure on employers and bring them to the negotiating table. The only thing they understand is when the money stops coming in. Without the strike weapon, we are powerless,” says Lasse Bertelsen.

Expert: Fewer members, greater centralisation

The debate in the Painters’ Union reflects three broader trends in the Danish labour movement.

Laust Høgedahl, an associate professor at Aalborg University’s Centre for Labour Market Research (CARMA), identifies three trends: declining membership, greater centralisation and new models of strike funding.

He stresses that his assessment concerns general trends in the labour movement, rather than the painters’ internal dispute specifically.

“Falling membership puts pressure on unions to adapt. That can mean closing local branches and merging with larger unions. Smaller unions are particularly vulnerable when fewer members have to fund their operations,” Høgedahl tells Solidaritet.

Parts of the labour movement are also experimenting with new ways to finance industrial action.

A traditional strike fund supports members during a dispute. Teachers and nurses, among others, have tried alternatives that provide support as loans. Members were frustrated when they had to repay the money afterwards.

Major industrial disputes have been rare in the private sector in recent years. One reason is the bargaining model, which links settlements covering different collective agreements and pools the ballot results: a major dispute can be triggered only if the package is rejected in the overall vote.

“When industrial disputes are rare, it can be tempting to use strike funds for other purposes, such as investment or day-to-day operations,” says Høgedahl.

He nevertheless shares the painters’ concern: “If the strike fund is depleted or tied up in investments and running costs, unions can blunt their most important weapon. If employers see the threat of a strike as empty, that can also weaken the labour movement at the negotiating table.”

Solidaritet asked the Painters’ Union to respond to the criticism, but it declined to take part in the article.