How do you assess the advance by the BDA and DGB?
Henke: The advance brings BDA and DGB into conflict with the Basic right of freedom of association according to Article 9, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law. We, on the other hand, have the law and the constitution on our side for our position. The 4th Senate of the Federal Labor Court has expressly pointed this out. We anticipate change in previous case law. BDA and DGB do not want that and want the world of the old tariff cartels back. We know how to defend ourselves.
How do you want to defend yourself?
Henke: Anyone who forces an employee to accept collective agreement that does not come from his own union creates form of paternalism. In doing so, he is not defending any collective bargaining autonomy, he is destroying it. A law that destroys the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association will not last. In addition: We have proven that we can do it better than others. Our collective bargaining agreements are precisely tailored and help ensure that working conditions in hospitals are improved. Without us the shortage of doctors would be much worse and security of supply would be acutely jeopardized. Incidentally, it is not at all clear who will prevail in the long term as the union with the largest number of members in the clinic. In many hospitals we are already ahead by nose.
The BDA / DGB initiative is said to have met with "very positive response" from the Federal Chancellor. . .
Henke: So far there has been no such bill, and we have not become aware of any corresponding intentions by the Chancellor. Even during the train driver strikes at the railroad, there were corresponding demands, for example from the then SPD chairman Kurt Beck. But I don't think anyone will find good reason to legally force the Marburger Bund under Verdi's command if we don't want to. That would mean that the doctors would be deprived of the right to join union independently. Freedom of association would then be practically worthless.