On Saturday, the Independent Luxembourg Trade Union Confederation (OGBL) and the Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (LCGB) held a joint demonstration against the government’s proposed pension reform. In light of this mobilisation, political scientist Adrien Thomas from the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER) offered insights into the evolution of Luxembourg’s trade union movement and the challenges that lie ahead for the country’s social model.
Read also – Government open to dialogue and compromise on pensions: PM Frieden
The roots of Luxembourg’s modern trade unionism go back to the aftermath of the First World War, between 1916 and 1921, which was a period of social upheaval and calls for reform. Thomas explained that it was a time marked by food shortages and demands for democratisation, noting that Luxembourg had no universal suffrage until 1919.
Within this context, two mass-based unions emerged: the Luxembourg Metalworkers’ Union in the capital, aligned with socialist ideals, and the Luxembourg Miners’ and Steelworkers’ Union in the south, which took a more politically neutral stance.
In 1920, both merged to form the Miners’ and Steelworkers’ Union, which leaned decisively left. But the merger was short-lived.
Just a year later, in 1921, a group of workers rooted in the Catholic social tradition split off to establish the LCGB – a move that was closely supported by the Catholic Church. The remaining part of the union eventually evolved into what is now known as the OGBL.
That same year marked a pivotal episode with the general strike of March 1921. Thomas recounted how layoffs in the steel industry led to spontaneous factory occupations, and the Miners’ and Steelworkers’ Union attempted to escalate the movement into a nationwide strike.
This prompted the intervention of French troops to assist Luxembourg police in restoring order.
The strike ultimately failed, with hundreds of union members dismissed and placed on blacklists that made future employment nearly impossible. Thomas noted that the episode instilled a long-lasting caution in Luxembourg’s union culture, fostering a preference for carefully organised mobilisation over spontaneous protest.
Thomas observed that the relationship between OGBL and LCGB has alternated between cooperation and competition.
One of the most significant cooperative efforts came in the 1930s, when both unions joined forces in a wage commission to push for legislation on collective bargaining. Although the proposed law was never passed, this collaboration led to the establishment of the National Labour Council – a tripartite body including unions, employers, and the government, according to Thomas.
He noted that the alliance also helped facilitate the country’s first coalition government between the Catholic right – the precursor to the Christian Social People’s Party (CSV) – and the Luxembourg Workers’ Party, predecessor to the Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party (LSAP).
In 1937, following the defeat of the “Maulkuerfgesetz” referendum – which sought to curb political freedoms – Pierre Dupong, associated with the Catholic social wing, replaced Joseph Bech as Prime Minister, according to Thomas. He explained that Bech had represented a more conservative stance, and that the new coalition marked a shift toward consensus-driven governance.
The golden age of trade union influence came in the 1970s and 1980s, according to Thomas. Union membership was high, and their political sway was strong, he noted. During this period, cooperation again intensified, particularly between the Luxembourg Workers’ Association (LAV) – a predecessor of the OGBL – and the LCGB, as the country transitioned from an industrial to a service-based economy amid the steel crisis.
The founding of the OGBL as a unified trade union also occurred during this time. Initially conceived as a broad, consolidated labour movement, the plan was ultimately limited by the refusal of the LCGB and parts of the Federation of Private Employees (Fédération des Employés Privés) to join.
Nonetheless, Thomas assessed the OGBL’s creation as a success, noting its broad presence across multiple sectors beyond its steel-industry origins.
Despite these successes, rivalry has remained, particularly during social elections when both unions often field competing lists, which sometimes leads to less-than-constructive campaigning at the company level.
While union membership has continued to grow, it has not kept pace with the overall expansion of the labour market. As a result, union density – the proportion of workers in a union – has declined. Yet unions have retained significant influence due to their institutional roles.
Thomas pointed out that Luxembourg’s social partnership system includes professional chambers, the Chamber of Employees, and the Chamber of Civil Servants, as well as the tripartite mechanism, where major policy decisions are often negotiated between unions, employers, and the state. Around 60% of workers are still covered by collective agreements, which, while lower than in Scandinavian countries, remains high by European standards.
Looking ahead, Thomas suggested that unions must find ways to attract new members and assert themselves in underrepresented sectors, such as retail, hospitality, finance, and consulting – areas marked either by poor working conditions or high staff turnover.
The recent collaboration between OGBL and LCGB is significant, said Thomas, particularly as it sends a message to the government – especially the CSV – that both unions are serious about defending workers’ rights. He remarked that this is particularly noteworthy given the LCGB’s historical alignment with the CSV, which included former union leaders who later held seats in parliament.
Still, a full merger of the two major unions is unlikely in the near future. Thomas described the current arrangement as more of a “gentlemen’s agreement”, aimed at managing differences through dialogue rather than establishing joint lists in the next social elections.
The future of Luxembourg’s social model is now under scrutiny, according to Thomas. He explained that the country has long relied on three pillars: strong union involvement in collective bargaining, a consensus-seeking approach to social conflict, and an active role for the state as mediator.
In return, the state’s commitment to resolving disputes has historically balanced Luxembourg’s relatively strict strike laws, according to Thomas. However, he warned that current developments, such as proposals to amend collective bargaining rules, changes to retail opening hours, and the controversial pension reform, could mark a rupture with this long-standing model.
“If the legislative framework around collective agreements is weakened, and if the government proceeds with its proposed reforms as suggested, it could indeed represent a break with the model that has defined Luxembourg’s labour relations for decades”, Thomas concluded.
