It seems that neoliberalism has passed its peak. The market does not create more jobs, pollutes healthcare, is bad for housing, and does nothing about climate problems, to name but a few things.
The international trade union movement, including the Dutch one, has suffered seriously from the capitalist ideology of market thinking. Free market operation was the motto. Nothing was spared; even the most public matters had to believe in it. The foundation of society - labour, money and land - was handed over to the market. Liberals still swear by economic growth, market operation and entrepreneurial freedom today. It is to be hoped that these are spasms. How did this neoliberalism affect the trade union movement and what way out towards new trade union perspectives is there?

My fledgling trade union activities date from the eighties. The visit of the English miners who were fighting a fierce conflict with Tina (There Is No Alternative) Thatcher has marked me forever. Together with her American colleague Reagan, she put into practice the foundation of neoliberalism: the suppression of the trade union movement.
Trade union suppression is disrupting or preventing trade union activities or preventing workers from organizing in a trade union. Employers can stand in the way of trade unions by, for example: intimidation, exclusion from work and not complying with agreements on working conditions and employment conditions. The government can also practice trade union suppression, by, for example, adapting legislation and restricting or even excluding the right to strike. In England and America that was common practice and 'union busting' became an international concept. (1)



Broad trade union movement

A responsible starting point for the FNV to restore its perspective is to start from the idea of a broad trade union movement. Jan Verhagen has worked out this concept. (2).
It appears that there are many, sometimes contradictory, definitions of 'the broad trade union movement'. Jan uses this one: The broad trade union movement is a trade union movement that structurally and actively engages with a wide range of social issues that fall outside the direct sphere of labour and income. Thus with issues such as housing, consumer affairs, nuclear energy, environment, armament, war and peace.

This description stands in sharp contrast to the 'narrow' trade union movement which is limited to working conditions and employment conditions. You can also put 'content' and 'relations' behind 'labour', then the 'quality of labour' is complete. The trade union movement has not engaged with the content and relations of labour. Just in the debate about the marketization of labour, characteristic of neoliberalism, these two aspects remain out of consideration.
Jan Verhagen's description shows how much neoliberalism has handed over to the market, including labour, and thus aims at a narrow trade union movement. It is important that the trade union movement engages with all the aspects that Jan mentions.

Wagner Commission

A recent book by Merijn Oudenampsen specifically addresses neoliberalism in the Netherlands. (3) No Nonense was the motto of the first Lubbers cabinet (1982-1986), the high days of neoliberalism that did not pass the Netherlands by.
Both Reagan and Thatcher set up powerful commissions under the leadership of top managers to develop policy in the field of privatisation, government shrinkage and economic competitiveness. The idea behind this was that business leaders possessed superior expertise to realise efficiency and economic success. In the Netherlands that was the Wagner Commission.

Oudenampsen: The representation from the trade union movement was controversial. Piet Vos, a more market-oriented economist from Industriebond FNV, was willing to participate in his own name. Within the broader trade union movement, this was not received positively; Vos was accused of endorsing employers' positions in the Wagner Commission. The controversy over the trade union representation continued to play a role in the follow-up reports of 1982 and 1983; trade union members felt that the unions' positions were insufficiently reflected in the commission's report. This conflict took place against the background of a growing rift between trade unions in the private and public sectors. As a result of massive job losses, Industriebond FNV significantly shifted towards the employers' position. The time when Industriebond FNV promoted socialism in its brochures was definitively behind us. Drastic cuts in the public sector and extensive liberalization of the labor market were no longer taboo for Industriebond FNV, as Piet Vos declared to the press. Trade unions from the public sector and FNV leader Wim Kok took a completely different stance. By involving the more market-oriented wing of the trade union movement in the process, the Wagner Commission succeeded in driving a wedge into the once so powerful trade union movement.

Divided FNV

It is still assumed that the Wassenaar agreement was the starting point for the embrace of the Dutch trade union movement by neoliberalism. Oudenampsen rightly states that this is not the case. It was the Wagner Commission that initiated the formation of a neoliberal policy with the aforementioned characteristics such as: privatization, shrinking of government, and economic competitiveness. It goes without saying that the trade union movement can also play a prominent role in such a process, albeit as a brake on developments!

The trade union movement was, however, divided; the dividing line lay between different unions, the current sectors of FNV. On one hand, Industriebond, which was strong in companies where there was yet no threat of a neoliberal course. On the other hand, healthcare and civil servants where the privatization process had been initiated. However, the majority of the trade union movement went under, including chairman Wim Kok.
This division has seriously affected the trade union movement and carried over to our time, more than forty years later.

Broad, combative trade union movement

Neoliberalism focuses on the supply side of the economy. With the reasoning: give capital the space to make profits, grow, and invest, then employment will improve. However, this dismantles the welfare state: not looking at how people get into trouble and face a serious threat to their livelihood in large numbers. The recent report by ASML boss Pieter Wennink has similar starting points as the Wagner Commission: strategic investment and economic growth. (4) The Jetten cabinet largely adopted the report. It is right that FNV chairman Hans Spekman does not join the spectacle that will be a repetition of the No Nonsense approach of Lubbers, among others, prime minister in the period 1982-1994.

It is right to urge Merijn Oudenampsen to take the lead to prevent recurrence. That is not easy; more than forty years of internal division in the trade union movement and current internal tensions have put the trade union movement at a disadvantage. How to give this a turn? At minimum, a broad trade union movement is needed.

The establishment of the polder

Did the trade union movement strengthen the neoliberal transformation? Saskia Boumans asked herself this and wrote a paper about it. (5) Her conclusion is not unambiguous; one would hope for such a closed question to have a simple yes or no answer. Her answer: Although the role of the labor movement in building the post-war welfare state has been well researched and usually undisputed, its role in the deconstruction that took place since the 1980s in most industrialized countries is less clear. Scientists (see her report) state that trade unions were willing to put their interests at risk to defend their traditional full-time male members in production and the public sector at the expense of other employees.
The power tools tradition, on the other hand, states that trade unions continued to beat the same drum for decades but became less successful due to changes in the balance of power between capital and labor.

The role of the trade union movement in the decline of industrialization is unclear. On the one hand, it continued to advocate for the interests of workers in production and with the government, especially in terms of income. On the other hand, the broad trade union movement remained absent from the development of its policy, particularly regarding the relationship between capital and labor.
The trade union movement has strived to counter marketization on the labor market. It worked together with social democracy for this purpose. The sympathy that existed served the establishment of 'the polder' (cooperation with entrepreneurs and government) and market thinking. Saskia sees what the neoliberal revolution brought about, and the trade union movement paid a heavy price for it, which can be read from the declining degree of organization. This was the reason to set many sails to turn the rudder around. That is not going well yet, despite the social democracy cautiously coming into a (broad) movement. Should we give a cautious encouragement? Oil on the fire so to speak, and that by Hilary Cottam.

Radical Help

Help comes from an unexpected corner, namely when reading the book by Hilary Cottam. The following passage was a pleasant surprise:
The trade union movement emerged in the nineteenth century to protect workers against the arbitrariness of ruthless entrepreneurs, to preserve jobs and provide training. Trade unions played an important role in the plea for a welfare state and decent working conditions. Today, trade unions - like the models of the welfare state - are unfortunately rigid and defensive. They are more inclined towards protest than towards innovation. Of course, many within the trade union movement are aware of this, and a younger generation is engaged in groundbreaking work to reshape the structures and activities of the unions again
My point is that we must develop various organizations, just as during the Industrial Revolution – including trade unions and institutions for further education. We must connect these with each other, as well as the different economic domains. New relationships would form the basis for creating good, new work, sharing our interests and coming to cooperation. Whether for paid work or personal passions. To bring us into contact with others – whether they are working, studying, or sitting in a local café.

Broadly it cannot go yet, but it is an inspiring beginning. Not back to the old welfare state, but together with people looking at what the situation is after more than forty years of neoliberalism. Consistently cooperating with others who suffer from lack of education, health and/or housing. Lack of social security, energy, and appropriate work in a deteriorating environment. In short, people who have an abundance of job insecurity. To bring about change together with the trade union movement in this regard. Organization and democracy thus come into being 'naturally'.


1. Boot, H. (1989), Let's drive out the trade union movement? Solidarity. Book Union Busting
2. Verhagen, J., (2022), The 'broad trade union movement': a historical look back by trade unions, VHV, Broad Trade Union Movement
3. Oudenampsen, M. (2026), No Nonsense, a history of the Dutch Neoliberal Turn, London, Verso.
4. Wennink, P. The route to future prosperity, 2025. Report
5 Boumans, S, Have trade unions strengthened the neoliberal transformation?, the Dutch case, Journal of Labor Relations Volume 65, April 2023. Sage
6. Cottam, H, Radical Help, How we can remake the relationships between us and revolutionise the welfare state, Rotterdam, May 2021. Management Book.
Hilary's essay: The Radical Path