Labour participation in Polish patchwork capitalism. strategy problems

Professor Juliusz Gardawski and I talk about the formation of capitalism in Poland, social dialogue, patchwork capitalism, workers and employers.

Krzysztof Wołodźko: In 2026 we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the law on informing employees and conducting consultations. How do you measure the functioning of the bill, what is left only on paper, what has been realised, and what is worth renovating?

Prof. Juliusz Gardawski: This question comes back not only in the trade union, but besides in researchers who are curious in socio-economic issues. The problem is that frequently debated aside from the constitutional context of the Act, while in the circumstances of our economical and political system, specified as capitalism, institutions relating to the influence of workers face crucial constraints.

Why?

Let's start with the diversity of capitalism. Peter Hall and David Soskice have identified 2 main types of capitalist economies: "liberal marketplace economy" and "coordinated marketplace economy".

The first kind puts emphasis on the free market, competition, limiting the influence of state institutions on the economy, controlling companies by the stock exchange, minimising the function of trade unions and developing in Anglo-Saxon countries, mainly in the US.

The second restricts the marketplace mechanisms of various social institutions, in addition to competition assumes coordination between companies, puts emphasis on banking control, more patient than the stock market, gives advanced rank to trade unions, etc. An example of this kind is German language countries, Benelux countries, partially Scandinavian countries. The kind of capitalism is influenced not only by economics, but besides by culture, attitudes, values, aspirations. I leave out the proposals for the classification of the capitalism of Russia, Ukraine and the states of the "Russian Commonwealth" (Community of Independent States – ed.), which is not a good mention strategy for us.

Poland and most of the post-communist countries of Central Europe at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s chose the way of liberal marketplace economy, with the legacy of the past and the conditions of transformation giving local liberalism a circumstantial shade.

Capitalism developed here, which among economical sociologists and economists from the Warsaw School of Economics, as well as from the University of Wrocław, that I will quote the names of Ryszard Rapacki and Adam Mrozowice, we call "patchwork capitalism". I would add that it developed even though in the 1980s there was no indication that we would enter the current path, besides due to the attitude of Polish society.

A while ago I spoke to Prof. Margaret Jacino for civilian Affairs Weekly.. She mentioned that in those years French, wider – Western intellectuals looked at Poland with hope. They hoped that we would show our way between authoritarian socialism and increasingly neoliberal Western capitalism. Why didn't this happen?

The answer requires mention to the cultural subtext of the economical and political strategy in Poland.

The starting point is the residue of the erstwhile system. Low level of recognition with authoritative state and law institutions, strong integration at the level of tiny household and social groups, a strong sense of division into “us”, that is, society and “their” that is, representation of the authoritative world, distance and low level of assurance in what is non-national, especially with respect to power, the list could be multiplied.

Stefan Nowak, 1 of our most prominent sociologists after planet War II, assessed in the late 1970s. The 20th century, that Polish society is poorly integrated and resembles a federation of household and social groups with a low level of recognition with the planet of authoritative institutions. If something was integrated, then a sense of the national community as a moral category, the essence of the state. At the same time, most Poles were powerfully attached to the thought of democracy, regardless of what was understood under it.

These cultural features of society have proved to be a hard nut for the communist party, and to a large degree they have led to a far-reaching metamorphosis of the communist project, including consent to the opposition to the organization ruling the large social movement "Solidarity" and its developed worker self-government, participation of employees in the management of enterprises.

Even during the debates in the 1980s and the circular Table's deliberations on worker self-government, it seemed that Poland was moving distant from authoritarian socialism towards democracy, including industrial democracy. In the 1980s, a sociologist Ronald F. Inglehart, the creator and head of the world's large investigation of value systems, planet Values survey and Renata Siemieńska, conducted investigation in our country. investigation has shown that our society is highly powerfully attached to self-government and political freedom, and these attitudes have not weakened.

I remember talking to Frank Hantke, who in the second half of the 1990s took the lead of the Polish typical of the German Social Democratic Foundation Friedrich Ebert. Coming here, he thought that he would learn about the experience of trade unions effectively negotiating with the government and employers as part of the social marketplace economy model, due to the fact that specified stereotype existed inactive in part of Western trade unions. In the 1990s, however, there was a fast process of erosion inherited from the authoritative socialism of the social dimension of the economy.

In the first place, I am prepared to indicate the acceptance of the “Solidarity” management for a liberal simplification in trade union functions in the marketplace economy. According to this doctrine, the function of trade unions was to defend working conditions and pay, but it is not to be a part of management, and even more so to participate in institutions of the kind of worker self-government.

As I said, social attitudes have been influenced by our developing patchwork capitalism, which has led, among others, to a deep fragmentation of politics, the economy and society itself. But I gotta add that he besides has affirmative sides.

What is the kind of patchwork capitalism?

When an unexpected breakdown of Moscow-controlled authoritarianism occurred, society accepted the power of the Solidarity “elite of the breakthrough”, representatives of “us” towards “them”. The economical power of authoritarian socialism has lost control, private entrepreneurship, even though numerous, was a margin, the "elite of the breakthrough" became a sovereign asset, but did not want to take over this property, its intention was a large political mission to build parliamentary democracy and the marketplace economy. It faced a dramatic deep economical crisis, almost the country's bankruptcy. Enjoying public support, she made a revolution not only in relation to socialist authoritarianism but besides in relation to the model pursued by Solidarity during the negotiations of the circular Table, close to the coordinated marketplace economy.

This is where the "breakdown elite" proposed a model of a radically liberal marketplace economy, rejecting workers' influence on management.

The adoption of the liberal model was required by the consortia of abroad banks as a condition for supporting the country, but it was besides broadly in line with the economical views of "the breakthrough elite". The way to patchwork capitalism has opened.

How did this capitalism shape, and how did it affect work relations?

This is where the communicative begins, which I'll divide into stages.

In the first phase of the "elite of the breakthrough" with Leszek Balcerowicz as the creator of the economical programme, the state's intervention in the economy was limited to a minimum in a short time, deepened the deregulation already begun by the government of Mieczysław Rakowski, greatly increased freedom of management – everything not prohibited by law is allowed. The power has reduced the costs of beginning private companies to a minimum – anyone can start them. As mushrooms formed after the rain, tiny companies ruled as they could and wanted, observers began to compose about the return of nineteenth-century unregulated capitalism, while work relations in tiny and medium-sized private companies began to vary so that they took the form of a patchwork, which was possible in any way to form the interior strategy of companies. In addition to the emergence of a twisted wave of tiny and medium-sized companies in terms of labour relations, the fortunes of Polish oligarchs began to rise, mainly specializing in intermediation between the state and abroad capital.

The next phase active the social consequences of economical liberalisation and the chaotic privatisation of large companies. On the margins, I will callback the loud conviction of the Minister of manufacture Tadeusz Syryjczyk, that the best industrial policy is the deficiency of specified a policy, but he added that economical policy is needed, forgetting that without industrial policy it will be apparent. The cold breath of real liberalism sparked the revolt of the working class – the material standard of surviving of its members declined and proved powerless towards the privatization of state enterprises led above their heads. The consequence was the departure of the revolutionary "elite of breakthrough" and its replacement by the "elite of adaptation", which took on the function of defender of economical liberalism from the wrath of workers, which required a softening of marketplace mechanisms. Jacek Kuroń, who initially supported extremist liberalism and later initiated the negotiation of the "State Enterprise Pact in the course of transformation" between the government, trade unions and employers, took a distinctive position. The most crucial consequence of the negotiations was the partial socialisation of privatisation policy and the initiation of social dialogue.

Social dialog between labour, capital and government is the foundation of the social marketplace economy, 1 can go further – it is synonymous with it.

The Pact resulted in the creation of a Social and economical Affairs Commission by the Government of the Tripartite Commission. This caused the liberal model in Poland to take on certain features of the coordinated social marketplace economy model, but the social origin played a secondary role.

The 3rd stage, crucial for patchwork capitalism, involves the adoption by the elite of a programme for the improvement of capitalism in Poland through abroad direct investments, namely capitalism created “outside” or “exogenous” capitalism. The interplay of conditions, which consisted of the deficiency of a native class of maker owners, the elimination of the nomenclature, the regulation of the economy by the liberal elite, avoiding interference in the economy, the low cost of entering the strategy of fresh organizations and the presence of another features of emerging patchwork capitalism, proved to be highly beneficial to abroad capital, which had a wide wave of influence on the Polish economy.

Under these exceptionally favourable conditions for abroad capital, the model corresponding to Andreas Nölk and Adrian Vliegenthart's "dependent marketplace economy" developed. According to the transnational model, corporations (TNK) carried out long-series production of modern but not innovative goods on the basis of imported from abroad know how.

These goods mainly met request in abroad markets. The economy of the country grew, especially by counting GNP levels per head, but lacked targeted development, drifted. Corporations formed corporate governance and industrial relations in national daughters companies at their own discretion. As a result, the companies belonging to TNK resembled an archipelago of independent islands with their own organization logic. Patchwork created by tiny companies in the early 1990s was developed qualitatively in the second half of the 1990s thanks to the mozaice of organization logic in enterprises belonging to TNK. In conclusion, I must add that any economists point to a dependent marketplace economy in the form of a fundamental regulation on the expansion of national oligarchs.

How do you realize the patchwork?

Patchwork is simply a layout formed by attaching elements independent of the pre-arranged ones.

Each of the elements of the patchwork is simply a closed full with its own specificity, and their full arrangement is like a rug sewn from random pieces of material. Subsequent steps in the growth of the patchwork cannot be predicted on the basis of an analysis of the strategy found.

A company belonging to TNK, erstwhile entering the patchwork economical system, brings its own corporate governance, labour relations, operates under the dictatorship of its headquarters, pursues its objectives, usually meets abroad marketplace demand. These objectives request not be consistent with the economical policy objectives of the host country. The institution of the State, which has small influence on the economy, has limited regulatory functions, and the structure of the State besides takes on the features of the patchwork erstwhile subsequent governments introduce changes inconsistent with the existing state architecture. Patchwork enhances the capacity of volunteer policy makers who can ad hoc make changes to the state model.

What about the thought of a social marketplace economy?

While during the gathering of the Polish circular Table “Solidarity” proclaimed the request of a “social marketplace economy”, Tadeusz Mazowiecki did not usage this word in his exposé in September 1989, but declared the request for “a transition to a modern marketplace economy tried by developed countries”, which meant a liberal marketplace economy at the time. If the model of a liberal marketplace economy, introduced by the "elite of the breakthrough" were to be preserved, it would most likely stay so, but the workers' class revolt, the emergence of an "elite of adaptation" and the compromise with unions changed the situation. An institution has emerged, possibly socialising the marketplace economy, the Tripartite Committee on Social and economical Affairs. Its authoritative objectives were to conduct a dialog to reconcile the interests of workers, employers and government representing the public good. It was intended to accomplish and preserve social peace.

As stated in the regulation setting up the Tripartite Commission, the findings within the committee took effect subject to the consent of the government party. Thus, an agreement on any issue undertaken jointly by the labour (trade unions) and capital (employee organisations) requires a circumstantial countersignature by the government to gain power. I stress the phrase "potential socialisation", due to the fact that in order to have any aspects of the social marketplace economy, a work-capital-government compromise is needed. In this perspective, complex problems arise: technocratic orientation of governments and unwillingness to take account of trade unions' opinions, especially ministers in which the domain is state finances, difficulties of trade unions with the mobilisation of the working class, lobbyist orientation of employers' organisations and craft organisations, etc.

You spoke at the outset of our conversation about distrust in our society, so how was it possible in this situation to socialize liberalism?

Yet there have been attempts at specified socialization and have been any successes. The first, very important, active activities of Jack Kuronia and Andrzej Bączkowski from 1994 to 1996.

Kuroń initiated negotiations on the Company Pact, which yet led to the creation of a Tripartite Commission by the Government, in turn Bączkowski led the Commission during its first period. According to Kuronia and Bączkowski's concept, the Commission was to have both an instrumental function for economical policy, but it was besides to form a culture of trust, to bring about a sustainable socialisation of the liberal model in the framework of social dialogue, but without destroying its marketplace core.

Bączkowski undertook the mission of implementing the Kuronian concept of deliberal democracy in social dialogue. He did this through long-term negotiations in which he personally persuaded the government and the trade union sides to concessions and compromise each other, even forcing members of the government to make space for compromises, giving opportunities to social organizations. Step by step, he broke the barrier of distrust. Despite the emergence of a climate for real deliberalisation, political entanglements of major trade union centres began to impede compromises, However, Bączkowski did not resign. Unfortunately, his severe heart illness and many hours of negotiations led to premature death and his successors in the position of Commission presidents did not proceed his work. After his death, the earlier but suppressed by him developed, the politicization of trade unions' positions and the work in the area of shaping the culture of compromise for a time ended.

In 2002 and 2003, a second effort was made by the minister and then Deputy Prime Minister, Jerzy Hausner. erstwhile it was part of the government, the economy was stagnant and advanced unemployment. Its aim was to conclude an ambitious "Work and improvement Pact" in the Tripartite Commission. He started operations systematically: he prepared a theoretical concept and applicable recommendations for conducting social dialog in the spirit of Kuronia and Bączkowski, and thus not only for improving government policy, but besides for creating a sustainable climate of dialog and seeking a compromise, sustainable socialisation of economical policy, but without giving up economical policy.

I remember the motto of the concept that "the action of public administration based solely on a hierarchical administrative and legal relation is both unauthorised and ineffective in a democratic state."

At the beginning of his work on the pact, he had to break the reluctance of Solidarity to negociate with the left-wing government, then managed to debate with trade unions and employers' organisations on economical reforms for months. A number of mainly sectoral successes have been achieved, but an ambitious pact has not been agreed. Hausner has practically proved that the conduct of social dialog requires the government to presume absolute work for the commitments made. erstwhile there was severe tension with the president of “Solidarity”, he said that he had reservations about Hausner, that he underbalanced the interests of the trade union and employers, but never failed to trust, “he did not lie.” In the social dialog environment, he is remembered to this day.

So the possible smaller or greater success in the socialization of the marketplace economy in Poland depends on the determination of the government side, or even more, on the determination of the individual, in this case the typical of the government side?

However, there was an exceptional case in Polish social dialogue, the signing of the alleged anti-crisis package by all trade unions and employers' organisations in spring 2009.

The starting point was a global crisis affecting both the public interest and the interests of workers and employers. In the Polish economical circles, in autumn 2008 there was a widespread belief that a deep crisis was approaching our country. It was feared that, as with the 1930s crisis, the crisis in Poland would appear with any hold in relation to Western European countries, but it would be deeper than there and it would last longer. A wave of bankruptcy of financial institutions and companies from the core economical sectors and the accompanying wave of unemployment was expected.

At the end of 2008, a government stabilisation plan was established. Representatives of all organisations on the labour side and on the capital side of the Tripartite Commission considered that the government task was conservative and inadequate, given the expected degree and depth of the crisis and its consequences for both the planet of work and for entrepreneurs. In this situation, they took intensive work and reached a compromise for the interests of employers and trade unions. I will leave behind the destiny of this agreement, due to the fact that erstwhile Poland was bypassed by the crisis, there was a breach of the compromise by employers, but besides by the government. However, it was crucial to bring together both sides of the dialog in the face of the crisis.

Poland besides had its own, strong pro-social and pro-working traditions and ambitions at the beginning of the transformation.

Polish society, despite a low level of assurance in abroad people, i.e. social capital of the "bridge" kind and power, i.e. capital of the "subordination" type, has in practice proven willing to make ties and trust within their own groups, not only tiny ones. In any situations, this kind of familiarity can extend to the full nation. specified nationality was the basis of democratic self-government, appearing and developing in Poland respective times after planet War II.

It was first, the movement of the institutions of the labour councils, which formed spontaneously, took over the management of factories for a certain period (also undertaken their reconstruction) after they left German occupiers from 1944 to 1945. Secondly, the labour council movement in manufacture in 1956. They were a form of participation of crews in management as well as dialog with mill directors. This movement lasted 2 years and was limited first and then liquidated by Władysław Gomulka. For the 3rd time, it was an institution of labour councils, promoted effectively within the framework of the emerging “Solidarity” in the 1980s by visionary politician Jack Kuronia, the author of the program ‘Regional Republic’.

"Solidarity" was an all-embracing social movement that can be interpreted in terms of concepts Nowaka as an expression of the integration of Polish society at the level of the morally understood Nation, opposing the power of the "communas". I would add that the strikes organised by "Solidarity" between 1980 and 1981 seldom afraid local, plant, as a rule, social issues (the strike of the Bielsko-Bial region in 1981 due to the power of respective private villas).

"Solidarity" undertook the Kuronian thought of the self-government of the company crews from 1980 to 1981 and breaking the opposition of the then power led to the adoption of the applicable laws in September 1981. They were among the most crucial achievements of "Solidarity", as they converted the authoritarian model of the socialist state into a market-self-government model under conditions of limited authoritarianism. The axiological axis of the model was to "institute work", give voice to the working class and make a level of dialog at the level of independent enterprises. The model referred to the Yugoslav government as well as the achievements in the participation of the "new working class" in the countries of continental Europe and Scandinavia. Here I would like to emphasise the function in the promotion of applicable French experiences by Leszek Gilejka and Yugoslavs by Maria Jarosz.

How did social dialog proceed?

Strengthening social dialogue, i.e. the social marketplace economy by the activities of the government side, trade union leaders and employers' organisations, has besides happened beyond the 3 mentioned examples. I could mention the names of those involved, but the dialog mechanics has failed more often. This has been due to a number of reasons, usually due to government policy-making in a unified way on key issues for the planet of work, without taking into account the opinion of the social side, especially trade unions, which evidently meant rejecting the social marketplace economy model. In 2013, trade unions suspended their participation in all social dialog institutions, including manufacture teams, after the then ruling coalition [PO-PSL] refused to accept systemic socio-economic solutions proposed by trade unions, in peculiar regarding retirement age and fixed-term contracts. The authority was willing to accept insignificant compromises with workers' organisations, even on bridge pensions, but did not intend to violate neoliberal status quo in another matters.

At that time, a large union conference was held, during which “Solidarity” with the support of the National Trade Union Agreement presented a model of a social, coordinated marketplace economy in the area of labour. In this model, the work planet represented by the trade unions would have an important, not only consulting impact on labour lawmaking. The initiative, as could be expected, was not met with any reaction from either government or employers' organisations. This task was not affected by the suspension by all trade unions of participation in the dialogue, lasting 2 years. This suspension besides did not affect the position of the planet of work, which does not mean that individual trade unions lost the influence they had before the suspension of their activities in the Tripartite Commission.

In 2015, we returned, not to the Tripartite Commission, but to the Social dialog Council. However, I did not think that this fresh organization form of social dialog would have a vital effect on the effectiveness of dialogue, on the culture of dialog or on the level of trust between organisations participating in dialog and, most importantly, on the political will of the government to conduct social dialog with representation of labour and capital.

The specificity of native capitalism strengthens social distrust towards workers' organisations too?

If we remember the patchwork nature of native capitalism, it's hard to answer utilizing large quantifiers. It is different in the public/state enterprises sector with a comparatively advanced union, otherwise in the patchwork and highly diverse abroad business sector, otherwise in large Polish and Polish-foreign enterprises. I would add that in the sector of Polish tiny and medium-sized enterprises you will not experience unions. In the sector controlled by TNK there are certain dependencies on the country of origin of the capital, due to the fact that it is not actual that TNK have no homeland.

German corporations operating in Poland are observed by German trade unions, especially DGB, fearing whether these corporations do not treat their companies in Poland as polygons to find ways to weaken trade unions besides in Germany.

This is where the union frequently takes a good position in Polish daughter companies belonging to German capital. I would add that I omit the weakening position of trade unions in Germany itself. any distinctive differences can be found between companies belonging to French, American or Scandinavian capital. However, these dependencies were not strong. abroad corporations frequently prosecute a variety of policies to tame and weaken trade unions, although mostly trying to limit them. Patchwork logic is based on the fact that TNK office specify employment relations policy for their subsidiaries.

However, erstwhile you look at the social assessment of the Polish union movement, the situation is not satisfactory.

Mainly due to the fact that any problems encountered by the planet of work require an integrated and active consequence of the full trade union movement, while trade unions are divided politically and cannot afford integrated action. organization representatives of the planet of work are very hard to scope a real agreement on the burning problems that are mostly affecting young people entering the labour market.

Your statements propose that in Poland it would be essential to change the strategy decently in order to give a different course to labour matters. But we know that neoliberalism is getting stronger alternatively than weaker. That makes us ask where deep systemic solutions would go in this situation.

In our country there has been a change in the strategy of qualitative leap in relation to the social side's findings in the circular Table negotiations. The fresh quality, symbolized by the eleven laws of Leszek Balcerowicz, was rooted, while the corresponding fresh quality of the socio-economic order brought out certain themes, so far secondary, from the culture of society, while he shifted into the area of shadows that previously dominated.

Left-wing orientation, comparatively strong in the planet of work in the past, has now given way to right-wing orientation, support for the thought of a social marketplace economy has been dominated by the support of a liberal marketplace economy.

This retreat besides concerns egalitarian and pro-state orientation, pushed to the background. In addition, the change was reinforced by shifts in the demographic structure, as well as in the social and professional structure.

The industrial working class is disappearing, especially its large industrial segment. It was this class that triggered the events of August 1980 that supported the circular Table Agreements, but was not ready to stand for maintaining social round-the-clock arrangements, allowed the elimination of worker self-government, and after 1990 began to undergo fast erosion with a change in industrial structure and the improvement of average and tiny companies.

With the disappearance of large factories, a class of workers concentrated in them, giving strength to trade unions, the planet of work does not disappear, the "blue collars" competitions do not disappear, and their participation in the professional structure does not importantly decrease, and in addition, the share of precursors, this "subclass" of today's labour market, increases. The phenomenon of exploitation of work is besides persisting, but paradoxically, it is increasing among young workers, as well as precariaries supporting liberal economical principles. At the same time, these youth reject 1 aspect of the marketplace economy: liberalism in the labour marketplace and anticipate sustainable employment under permanent contract conditions.

You mentioned a 2013 refreshing ferment. Public opinion may remember the large protest of workers' organisations in Warsaw organized in September that year: OPZZ, Forum of Trade Unions (FZZ) and NSZZ Solidarity. Years later, I feel that this was easier to include as a political, anti-government speech than a pro-working manifestation with a clear pro-social message.

It was an crucial demonstration. At the time, workers had a chance to say that, despite political divisions, all organizations made the same demands on behalf of the planet of work. Although the number of manifestations was not very high, it was large adequate to give employees a chance to count. Unfortunately, the forthcoming parliamentary elections have led to a political evidence of success.

What economical importance is labour participation in a democratic system, at least formally referring to the rule of social marketplace economy?

There is extended literature on the economical importance of worker participation, especially through the applicable institutions. Referring to your question, the impact of participation on management is mostly not analysed in relation to the kind of system, although specified a political-ideological position is sometimes taken into account. I will present the results of studies that have shown the affirmative impact of worker participation through trade unions. I will appeal to the classical investigation of the American Harvard School.

Firstly, participation reduces the negative effect of authoritarian management. Secondly, the sense of subjectivity is expanding in workers, thirdly, the flow of information and coordination between management and employees is improving, and fourthly, there is simply a mechanics through which the critical voices of employees scope the board and let them to avoid inappropriate decisions.

In the second case, it is pointed out that the board of directors may, and without intermediation, consult employees, but, in fact, workers without union shields, if they behave rationally, will not hazard making any kind of accusation against superiors. This creates a shadow area: employees are willing to complain about selected aspects of the working environment, but will not inform about the pathologies of management, especially those which are blamed by their direct managers.

How is this presented in Polish realities?

We are 1 of the economies that correspond to patchwork capitalism and the kind of dependent marketplace economy that I took any time to start our conversation.

The structure of specified an economy is not only multidimensional, but besides most of these dimensions have mosaic structures. It is different in companies closer to the coordinated marketplace economy, i.e. in niches of public/state ownership, although it is already more hard to generalise the experience of state-owned companies and even more hard to set a common denominator for TNK's daughter companies, in which various forms of non-Union representation of employees' interests are introduced, to make different channels of information flow, to usage services in a variety of ways human resource management (HRM). In a tiny or medium-sized private company, however, the owner will tell you that his participation is continuous, that anyone can come to him and tell him what is at his heart and he himself is the best typical of the employees' interests.

What about the value of social worker participation?

Polish integrated society has a deficit of ties at the level of civilian society institutions. Industrial democracy – dialogue, deliberalisation, participation in the workplace – is an excellent policy of forming civic attitudes. Current investigation in the public/state ownership sector shows that, despite the existence of various forms of collecting worker opinions and even giving votes to employees, labour relations are more authoritative than democratic. The authoritarian climate in a work where you spend a large part of your life, even if you don't identify with this work, casts a shadow on your attitudes, may be active in shaping an authoritative personality.

In the fresh “postford factory”, which is Amazon – due to the fact that this “factory” does not operate in industry, like a mill during the period of Ford industrialism, but as a supply centre – young workers established trade unions and demanded their voice. It is hard to foretell how this quest organised in the "heart" of the post-ford economy will end. As far as I know, Amazon, gathering with workers' revolts in its subsidiaries worldwide, is reluctant to accept worker participation. There may be force for the state to start tempering the neoliberal model and undertake a mission to increase the social ratio in the liberal marketplace economy.

I see a serious problem – political forces, which enjoy the assurance of young people and are heading for power, request supposedly abandoned free marketplace rules. The only exception is the organization Together, but there is no indication that it will give a speech to Polish politics in the next decade.

This is unmistakable, but I will draw attention to the results of the survey of 2023, which I have already mentioned. Youth frequently criticises the system, no substance what it would mean, criticizes the institution of the state, wants marketplace mechanisms and competition, taxation cuts, but at the same time expects free wellness services and employment on unchangeable conditions.

In a conversation for Cezary Mizhevsky civilian Week He told me, “The approach to trade unions is very serviceable – people do not want to co-create them, although in crisis situations they go to them with the right frequently claims.” How do you measure the attitude of Poles and Poles towards workers' organisations – how much does it change in subsequent years entering the market?

Add to that another problem – the closure of union elites in their work facilities in their bubbles, poorly accessible to another employees.

Trade unions are considered alternatively affirmative by employees, not to be ‘yellow’, i.e. those who usage company management alternatively than represent worker interests, but the problem is noticeable. Rather, the attitude of workers towards trade unions could be described as: “They would aid if they could. But rather, they cannot help.”

For years, union workers have been paying low contributions in the form of possible insurance, young workers seldom join the union, as they know that if the union defends its members, then those with a long union of experience, not young. However, I stress that these comments concern public/state firms, due to the fact that in TNK's daughters the situation is as diverse as the patchwork structure is. However, the situation of recently established trade union organisations, especially by young workers, as known from the public message of unions in Amazon, is different.

For decades the labour marketplace has changed powerfully in Poland: from two-digit to late increasing but not exceeding 6 percent, unemployment. In half a joke, half a serious – over the course of any years they motivated the work of the “fruit Thursdays”, the second growling of the boss: “I have 10 in your place.” Labour participation for both was unknown. Their employers, on the another hand, threatened to think that it would be the employees who co-decided on the companies.

American scientist Maslow developed a hierarchy of needs, based on it placed basic needs, at the top of the request for self-fulfillment and autonomy. The request for autonomy, which we can associate with participation in management, was placed very high. He then assumed that it was only after satisfying the needs of the lower order that the pursuit of further higher needs was born. So it is only erstwhile you are accepted and respected in the group that there is simply a request for autonomy and participation.

Maslow's concept has been criticised many times, but it has been recognised by the investigation community. In a statistically average Polish company the majority of employees expect, in addition to satisfactory payments, confirmation of their values by the environment and giving them respect. Participation in management means duty, responsibility, taking time. At first, employees with a large degree of authority were selected for worker self-government. However, it turned out that their influence was very limited, besides small allowed to meet the needs of autonomy, so the motivation to run for employment councils disappeared in groups of employees with authority.

Employers may not have been afraid to give the level to employees alone, but to lose control of them, the independency of union activists or labour councils.

It should be taken into account that the owners of tiny companies are presently subject to the top social deprivation.

What is it?

First of all, they are subject to a powerful taxation pressure, and it could be heard from them that whatever happens, they must "in their teeth" each period bring taxation dues. Secondly, they believe that the large TNK is able to circumvent taxes and that the state is “letting go”. Businesses then compensate trade unions who are criticized for being able to get taxation breaks for large professional groups and then "I pay for their pensions". Fourthly, minimum wage increases, wages increase for certain professional groups, making it hard to keep employment. At the same time, there are inactive difficulties in getting good workers. The fact is, it's adequate to go to any smaller town to see markets where all 3rd business is closed.

One-person economical activity is increasingly popular in Poland. We frequently hear that this is in harmony with the spirit of modern capitalism. What about social issues? Does self-employment kill the spirit of worker participation?

Self-employment as a consequence of "pussing" workers to reduce the cost of moving businesses is now a smaller problem due to the labour marketplace of the employee. At the time of the labour market, employers had a tough condition: either you take your costs off me, you pay your own contributions, or you won't work for me. These were besides times of extortion on employees of employers who were able to hold pay, pay in instalments, etc. On the another hand, it is presently happening in tiny businesses in local labour markets that workers do not want to accept permanent commitments, which is offered in peculiar to workers who are essential to companies.

Returning to self-employment, which evidently does not disappear, the situation of simple service providers, even single-person cleaners, and another IT professionals, who, for various reasons, can respond to the business-to-business (B2B) system. We undoubtedly request regulations that defend people pushed into self-employment. The situation on the labour marketplace is changing, the time of the entrepreneur's marketplace will come and specified regulations would be a informing to entrepreneurs, raising the costs of hiring a single-man company. Until now, this has not been the case, and this has already taken the form of a plague in any industries, including mass communication.

One can get the impression, looking at professional relations, that we are actually dealing with war on all of us – at least with a sense of distrust, alienity, deficiency of a community of simple interests.

The word “war” may be excessive, whereas the liberal marketplace economy in patchwork conditions increases uncertainty and distrust. This moves distant from the coordinated marketplace economy model, causes atomization. Private economical clusters, not only from Japan or Korea, but besides from Germany, Italy, Spain, are almost not created in our country.

I had the chance to observe this phenomenon of inability to connect respective times: entrepreneurs knew that they would increase their individual successes by working together, joining the cluster, but they had no assurance in each other. They met, planned for joint action, but erstwhile the thought of decision came to pass, they spread out.

Usually attention is paid to the political dimension of transformation, but what about native business in those days, its attitude and social capital? Didn't these environments fail?

The early 1990s, the time of the rising unemployment crisis, is besides the time of the detonation of micro-entrepreneurship. In the second half of the 1980s there were barriers to setting up private businesses. Barriers disappeared in 1988 due to the Prime Minister of the last government of authoritarian socialism Mieczysław Rakowski and Minister of manufacture Mieczysław Wilczek. The years 1989-1994 were rated by private entrepreneurs as golden years of Polish business. The legal strategy of the marketplace economy was just being created, which dispelled abroad capital, the "elita of the breakthrough" made a deep deregulation of economical rules, there was no economical police. Borders became open, many import-export companies were registered. Private industrial enterprises, which benefited from the collapses of state-owned enterprises, whose production assets were bought out at low prices, were besides started. However, the another side of these golden years was the turbulent improvement of economical crime.

We besides had two-digit unemployment, which long provided loyalty to workers and workers. For a long time, it seemed like they could be dressed like a clemency.

The image has 2 sides, unemployment of low-skilled workers and skilled workers. For the second group, the advanced unemployment rate was short. Entrepreneurs who led modern production, and there were quite a few them, rapidly collided with the deficiency of professionals, who either went abroad, or started trading or setting up micro-enterprises, erstwhile their existing workplaces began to lay off workers or went bankrupt. During meetings of private entrepreneurs, I frequently encountered this view, and this was during a period of two-digit unemployment. There have been reports of deficiency of professionals, failure of vocational education and low motivation to work with young people.

What is the relation between trade unions and worker advice? Why is it worth it if unions don't look at advice as a competition?

Today's solutions make unions feel possibly threatened by worker councils, utilized by employers to play with unions.

In practice, however, worker councils only function well in union enterprises. Over 300 councils of employees, which be in Poland, are councils that frequently operate where the unions work and there is friendly cooperation between the institutions. Of course, that's not always the case.

What should the board take care of to better motivate workers to increase the competitiveness of the labour market?

On the 1 hand, this is 1 of the key problems examined in the work management explanation and practically addressed by HRM services, and I am not competent adequate in this area. My observations in the sector of smaller companies show that employers do not realize the importance of moral motivation of employees, individual appreciation of their contributions and fair praise of their work. Employers, on the another hand, are willing to see only material motivation and a low level of loyalty in workers. As 1 of the private employers told me, he feared moral motivation due to the fact that he thought that it would trigger the employee's request for a raise.

Are the August Accords – not so much a letter as the spirit of these provisions – inactive a surviving social, economic, metapolitical experience, or alternatively a relic of the past, enclosed in a ritual, yearly celebration?

The August Accords were the culmination of the period of authoritarian socialism. Karol Modzelewski erstwhile said that August was, among another things, the presentation of a bill to real socialism for expectations which he raised and which he did not meet. Expectations of equality, justice, empowerment of work. The agreements were besides an expression of the pro-market attitudes of the Polish working class, which grew to a large degree from individual peasant farms, to any degree acquainted with marketplace relations and conveying generations the cult of a good host. Workers utilized in authoritarian socialism with the indifference of work, with mess and waste, with the "fuch economics", but at the same time were these symptoms of economical pathology tired.

A long time ago I wrote an article with my colleague entitled “What a large mute will say”, a working class that did not have a relay channel to detect and present its values and expectations. The August demands and negotiations gave a consequence – personifying: the then large industrial working class in Gdańsk Shipyard. Lenin gave, and partially accepted, the advice and outlined her own vision, close to a social model or coordinated marketplace economy with a strong egalitarian and national-religious lynx. The spirit, due to the fact that it is not the letter of agreements, goes into the memory of society on a second plan, but the egalitarian-ethatic model with a marketplace accent is inactive close to all 5th adult Pole.

Artificial Intelligence is among the major challenges in the modern labour market. Do you think we have technological unemployment? How can fresh technologies affect / affect relationships between employees and employers and workers themselves?

You have raised the problem highly current in the alleged social discourse. I listened to respective debates that pointed out the existing labour marketplace perturbations of any professional groups. However, it seems that our patchwork economy, inactive dependent on abroad capital, will shine light reflected and the impact of the AI revolution will come on our labour marketplace late. But I wouldn't dare to justice what light it would be.

Thank you for talking..