Bernard Koekoek, of the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV), is sceptical. “It’s tricky. If two organisations aren’t equal now, an administrative integration won’t magically change that.” He’s also sceptical about the persistent use of the term “integration”. “It’s mostly a marketing thing. Legally, there’s not much difference. ‘Administrative integration’ is supposed to convey that ‘we’re all doing this together and it’s a very positive thing’. ‘Merger’ is a slightly more loaded term, implying that both sides have to give up part of their identity.”
Either way, if the smaller partner doesn’t want to be overshadowed, it needs to “effectively put up fences around the parts of the organisation that mustn’t change – the parts its new big brother shouldn’t touch”. And then make sure those boundaries are strictly enforced. But is that realistic in practice? Koekoek’s experience with mergers of public institutions has made him wary. “I’m sure things will be equal the day after the decision. But what about a few years down the line, or if new people are in charge? That’s our concern – that the balance of power will slowly shift.”
And what about the planned new five-member Executive Council? It will make decisions unanimously, which, in theory, should prevent old loyalties from influencing matters. Koekoek chuckles. “Let me put it this way: if you’re merging to become more effective, this is a rather complicated way to go about it.” If the Executive Council can’t reach an agreement, a new joint Supervisory Board will step in. “It’s good to have that in place”, Koekoek agrees, “but if an issue ends up there, it’s already gone further than you want.” In other words, something has gone seriously wrong.
Back to the questions