Solidarity - Commentary 572, September 6, 2026

Sjarrel Massop

In the brochure published by the FNV’s research department, titled *Position and Strategy of the Labor Movement* (2018), David Hollanders and Merijn Oudenampsen called for a critical assessment of the situation into which the labor movement had been driven by neoliberalism.

Hendrik Noten of the new FNV executive board, and I, Sjarrel Massop, a member of the FNV’s Senior Citizens Sector Council, felt that the discussion was so important and interesting that we came together to launch the debate on the future of the FNV.
First and foremost, we believe it is important for the entire labor movement to participate in the discussion about its position and prospects. Our debate is a first step. For a radical change—one that could be of fundamental importance to the labor movement—it is crucial to involve the members. They are the union.

Market Forces

Eight years ago, David Hollanders launched the debate on the financialization of the (Dutch) economy. Neoliberalism has completely turned the relationship between capital and labor on its head. Labor is becoming increasingly marginalized in society.

In his study, Merijn Oudenampsen demonstrates that the consequences for the government and the labor movement are disastrous, because they pose an obstacle to market forces.
The government’s role has changed. Market forces mean that the government’s traditional role—its public mission—had to disappear.
Merijn’s second conclusion was that labor—and especially the organization of labor, which falls under the trade union movement—must be dismantled, according to neoliberals.
Merijn’s conclusion eight years ago was that the trade unions had to take the lead in bringing about change, based on a redefinition of the trade union movement’s role. This could give rise to a new perspective; it is still too early for a new strategy.
We—Hendrik and Sjarrel—sat down together for an exploratory discussion to kick off a broad debate on the labor movement’s position and the resulting new perspective.

Position

Sjarrel

Merijn Oudenampsen discusses the erosion of the government’s public role. By this, he means that the government has lost its grip on its public role through outsourcing to the market, excessive privatization, and the abandonment of its public duties. How can we restore that public role—with or without the government—and how can we involve people in shaping their own societies?

Hendrik

The “hollow state” cannot be viewed in isolation from the market-driven mindset that has completely taken over the world since the 1980s. The government was supposedly incapable of doing much of anything and was better off outsourcing everything. Decades later, we are all paying the price: so much knowledge and expertise has disappeared from the public sector that our dependence on “consultants” is alarming.
To answer the first part of the question: we will only be able to “replenish” that state when we demonstrate that public values consist of so much more than just a simple calculation on an Excel spreadsheet. Things like safety, quality education, accessible public transportation (especially in less densely populated areas), or the warmth of caring for one another can’t always be captured in a price tag. But we know they matter, don’t we? We can—no—we must stand up for these things. Especially as a labor union.

That does not mean, however, that the reverse is also true: that public values can only be protected through the government. We, too, can shape our society by getting involved with institutions. Take social security, for example: shouldn’t we, as a union, simply take back control of employee insurance programs? That doesn’t require the government. In any case, the government seems to attach little importance to the value of these insurance programs. Perhaps you have other suggestions as well?

Sjarrel

Your comment—“That doesn’t require the government!”—resonates with me. Letting go of that is very, very difficult. Many of us were raised in the welfare state. In real-world socialism, the state was also dominant. That makes it very difficult for many people to think of solutions outside the government. The problem is that the market has taken over that role. Making a profit has become more important than people’s lives and well-being.
In the senior care sector, we’ve been working on a project to combat poverty and address economic insecurity. The national government has outsourced this to local governments without providing sufficient resources. Those local governments give the impression of being more concerned with monitoring the misuse of the limited available resources than with actually providing social assistance. This applies to the entire list of tasks you mentioned. Many people in precarious situations struggle with uncertainty that turns into shame and exclusion.
The traditional sphere of influence for labor unions has been employment terms and, to a lesser extent, working conditions. Labor relations—and especially the nature of the work itself—have faded entirely into the background. In the Netherlands, more people work without a collective bargaining agreement than with a good package of employment conditions. The labor movement’s role should be broadened; society is an interplay of interests that, for many people, are not standard either.

Perspective

Hendrik

Anyone looking at old photos of our movement will rarely see a negotiating table. Instead, they show marching bands, hiking clubs, a broadcaster that reached the whole family, libraries, and summer camps by the sea. The union was not just a tool for securing higher wages, but a place where people found and shaped themselves and one another. Those who joined gained access to a whole new world.
Times change—that’s no secret. That world has largely disappeared. What remains is strong and important: a union that stands up for its members, from collective bargaining agreements to legal assistance. Together, we make a big difference. Yet a nagging feeling remains: aren’t we increasingly becoming a service provider rather than an association full of community life? Service provision breeds customers, not members. Meanwhile, people’s cultural lives are being organized elsewhere: by platforms that turn loneliness into a business model.
Perhaps nostalgia is the wrong guide here; the brass band isn’t coming back. Perhaps no one is waiting for a union-affiliated broadcaster anymore. But the question remains: what does a contemporary version look like? Where should the labor movement be present in people’s lives today, outside of work? What is the outlook?

Sjarrel

We’ve arrived at the question of a new perspective. That’s not surprising, given the questions we’re asking ourselves.
My experience with the labor movement began with the British Miners’ Strike in 1984–85. Its defining characteristic was the mutual solidarity among people in the struggle. Since then, my perspective has always remained one of struggle. Over time, however, this has largely faded into the background in practice. A sense of community must return; it is a specific form of solidarity. At the heart of this sense of community lies interconnectedness. That longing for togetherness—for a different way of living together—is particularly strong in England; Guy Standing speaks of the “plunder of the commons,” the plundering of communities. Can the union contribute to the restoration of communities—through grassroots union organizing? Through mobilizing union work?
There is another important aspect: linking other economic, political, ecological, and social struggles. Every group is playing on its own field—Environmental Defense, the peace movement, the housing union—all these forces could be brought together.
How do you view uniting these struggles under the leadership of the union, Hendrik?

Hendrik

Struggle, as both a form and an instrument of solidarity, appeals to me. In struggle, we see that something is at stake—that we have something to lose as well as something to gain. The great challenge remains to direct that struggle toward the right causes. Capitalism thrives in part on its ability to drive a wedge between us—its ability to magnify our minor differences, causing us to lose sight of our profound interconnectedness.

In other words, solidarity means hard work. This also applies to the broader “social movement.” The many organizations you mention are ultimately all pulling in the same direction. The labor movement has an important role to play in this because we always strive to bring different interests together. At the same time, that organization also has a responsibility: to understand that we advocate for our members’ interests and that they, too, must try to see things from our perspective. That often goes well, but there’s always room for improvement.
The honest truth is that there’s no magic formula for this. Every day, we must be aware of the forces trying to divide us. Because they are strong.

Conclusion

Sjarrel

The labor movement’s position has weakened, and there is a wide gap between members and their own unions—a gap that must be bridged.
The labor movement still has enough momentum to begin working on this. Time is running out, because the situation is becoming truly precarious for many people.
My personal perspective remains one of struggle, in which union democracy is of the utmost importance. We’ve got our work cut out for us!

Hendrik

There is reason for hope. A great deal of hope, in fact. The longing for togetherness you write about transcends the issues of the day. It is deeply rooted in who we are as human beings. But then the labor movement will have to be able to tell those stories of connection once again. We need to show and make people feel that we have much more in common than those in power would have us believe. That’s what we need to work on. But I think the many people who are now taking action to defend social security are proving that we can do it: stand up for a greater narrative of solidarity.