The crisis of mainstream trade unionism!

Aziz Çelik

The miners’ resistance in Ankara in April and the subsequent disarray and weakness seen in the 1 May 2026 demonstrations have once again laid bare the deep-seated problems—or, more accurately, the crisis—that mainstream trade unionism in Turkey has been facing for some time. Without addressing the structural problems of mainstream trade unionism and without strengthening an alternative understanding of trade unionism, resolving the issues facing the working class in Turkey will be extremely difficult. In this article, I wish to share some of my assessments regarding the crisis of mainstream trade unionism in Turkey.

I shall endeavour to base these assessments both on my nearly 40 years of trade union experience and on my academic expertise in the history of trade unionism and labour. I attempted to discuss my views on the miners’ resistance in the 3 May 2026 edition of BirGün Pazar. In this article, I shall focus on the crisis of mainstream trade unionism.

MAINSTREAM TRADE UNIONISM

What do I mean by ‘mainstream trade unionism’? ‘Mainstream’ is an adjective used to describe the widespread and dominant trend or movement that represents the values, traditions and principles of the centre. Examples include mainstream media and mainstream economics. Undoubtedly, there is also a mainstream trade unionism and trade union structure, as well as mainstream media, economics and academia. Mainstream also refers to the established, the non-radical, the compliant, and the moderate. Every mainstream approach has its own established order; its structures, institutions, operations, mechanisms, and so on. Therefore, if mainstream trade unionism is a mindset, there is also an established order and institutional framework associated with it.

Mainstream trade unionism is somewhat of an umbrella concept. On the one hand, it refers to traditional, established, institutionalised trade unionism. On the other hand, it refers to trade unionism that is integrated into the system and guided by it. Of course, not every institutional trade union is integrated into the system, but in terms of behavioural codes and operations, it bears mainstream characteristics. It is more cumbersome; institutional processes are slower. It is not proactive. Its reflexes are slow, and so on. Moreover, as the scale increases, this cumbersomeness may grow.

It is a mistake to categorically view all institutional and traditional structures in a negative light. However, for structural and historical reasons, the vast majority of traditional trade unions carry the risk of drifting towards mainstream trade unionism and the established trade union system. Mainstream trade unionism is also defined in the literature as ‘acceptable trade unionism’. Here, it refers to trade unionism that behaves in harmony within the larger established system, does not step outside the drawn boundaries, and is in harmony with employers and the government.

Why do I prefer the concepts of “mainstream” and “institutional trade union system” rather than “yellow trade unionism”? Because it is not correct to label every mainstream institutional trade union as a yellow union. Yellow trade unionism refers to structures created and sustained by employers or governments, and which operate under their control. Such structures have existed within the labour movement both in the past and today. However, alongside these, and far more widespread, is the trade union approach and structure known as the mainstream or established trade union system. Some of these are cumbersome, sluggish and silent due to historical and institutional reasons. Whilst transforming yellow unions—which are more criminal in nature—is virtually impossible, transforming mainstream structures is more feasible.

TRADE UNIONS HELD HOSTAGE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

When I speak of mainstream trade unionism in Turkey, I am referring to the approaches and structures that are largely organised within the public sector (central government and local authorities), confined to large-scale companies in the manufacturing industry, and which can at times take the form of collective Human Resources (HR) activities. I am describing trade unions that organise the traditional working class—those employed in jobs that are partly regular, partly secure, and stable—and which are caught in the cycle of thresholds, mandates, collective agreements, and legal strikes. These structures are largely characteristic of the second half of the 20th century, a period when trade unions were strong and based on compromise between the state and interest groups (Fordism and corporatism).

When we look at trade union organisation in Turkey, it is confined to the public sector (including both workers and civil servants). 76% of workers in the public sector are trade union members. In the private sector, however, only 6.7% of workers are trade union members. The number of private sector trade union members covered by collective agreements is even more interesting. Whilst there are 1.031 million trade union members covered by collective agreements in the public sector, there are 607,000 such members in the private sector. The number of workers in the private sector who are legally eligible to join a trade union stands at 15.1 million. Consequently, the proportion of private sector workers who actually benefit from trade union protection and pay dues is 4%.

Unionisation in the private sector is largely concentrated in traditional manufacturing industries. In sectors such as services and construction, unionisation is much lower. Mainstream unions, squeezed into the undemocratic stranglehold of thresholds, membership, authority and collective agreements, are struggling here. Whilst obstacles are placed in the way of more militant unions, those who toe the line are rewarded.

In the public sector, this carrot-and-stick mechanism operates much more clearly. The public administration (government) permits the organisation of only those trade unions it deems acceptable. Some unions become ‘acceptable’ or ‘most favoured’. Seeing this, other unions remain within these boundaries and attempt to avoid the stick or punishment by becoming mainstream. As the saying goes, ‘one bad apple spoils the bunch’—or rather, they rot together.

Most mainstream trade unions are effectively held captive within the public sector. They compete in compliance and docility to preserve their organisational standing. To such an extent that there are large organisations among them that cannot utter a single word against the government’s economic policy or economic management. A similar situation is unfolding in large-scale companies and workplaces within the private sector. As a result of the ‘noble’ Turkish employer, with the backing of legislation, appropriating the workers’ right to choose a trade union as if it were their own personal right (!), delicate balances are emerging among trade unions, and those unwilling to lose members are joining the mainstream. Just imagine: a single move by an employer could result in the loss of tens of thousands of members and hundreds of millions of lira in membership fees.

TRADE UNION OLIGARCHIES

The most significant consequence of mainstream trade unionism is that it has effectively turned trade unionism into a profession and created trade union oligarchies. The established trade union system produces trade union oligarchies, and within these oligarchies, the ‘iron law of oligarchy’ (a concept attributed to Roberto Michels, referring to the tendency for organisations to inevitably fall under the control of a small ruling minority) operates. Oligarchies are becoming increasingly mainstream in order to protect their positions and the status quo. As a result, issues regarding trade union democracy, transparency and financial affairs are deepening.

Mainstream trade unionism, unwilling to endure the hardship of organising in the private sector or organising subcontracted and precarious workers, is attempting to retreat to the relatively stable boundaries where it is organised, whether in the public or private sector, and is adopting an attitude of compliance out of a concern for maintaining good relations with employers. Relying on the comfort of the mechanism whereby union dues are automatically deducted by employers and the undemocratic internal union election rules, mainstream trade unionism is keeping its distance from ‘dangerous waters’. They prefer to preserve the status quo and remain anchored in safe harbours.

Problems regarding internal union oversight and transparency are creating serious financial issues. Shortcomings in financial transparency and oversight are reinforcing the power of union oligarchies. In Turkey, there is a ‘presidential problem’ not only in the political regime but also in the union regime. This problem is rooted in a history far longer and deeper than the political one.

OVERCOMING DINOSAURISATION

All these factors are creating a mainstream impasse within the trade union movement. Both the miners’ resistance and the debates surrounding 1 May 2026 have once again brought this reality to light. The working class and the labour movement are not limited to the pillar upon which mainstream trade unions rest. Moreover, mainstream trade unions represent only a very narrow section of the class. Workers who are precarious, unorganised, and working under low wages and harsh conditions do not appear on the radar of mainstream trade unions, or mainstream trade unions consciously keep their distance from them. Those outside the traditional and relatively secure working class—those working in precarious, subcontracted or temporary roles—do not fall within the mainstream’s sphere of interest.

Yet the major problems facing the working class necessitate an alternative, different kind of trade union focus. Despite all its shortcomings, there is a need for a solidarity force and focus that will encompass the existing organised labour movement, serve as a social conscience, and be trusted by the oppressed and the working class. There is a need for a focus that will inspire confidence in society and stand by those who resist and seek justice under all circumstances. There is a need for a centre of solidarity that will not merely consider the interests of its own members and its organisational consolidation, but will serve as a beacon—a guiding light—to which people can turn regarding social injustice.

The miners’ April 2026 Ankara resistance and the fragmented and weak picture on 1 May 2026 have once again demonstrated the limitations of mainstream trade unionism. To become an alternative trade union focus or centre, one must act without reservation or qualification and set aside the baggage. The silence in the face of the miners’ resistance and the tendency to gloss over 1 May have become a new example of the impasse facing mainstream trade unionism. It was expected that DİSK would act as a revolutionary focal point, transcending the mainstream, both in relation to the miners’ resistance and the organisation of 1 May, but unfortunately, DİSK distanced itself from this with an incomprehensible stance.

Çetin Uygur, one of the symbolic figures of an alternative trade union struggle, described the crisis of mainstream trade unionism in the 1990s as the ‘crisis of the dinosaurs’. However, in the approximately 35 years since then, mainstream trade unionism has maintained its power, and the tendency towards ‘dinosaurisation’ has become even more widespread. As the regime and the labour regime became increasingly despotic, there was a need for mainstream and apathetic trade unionism. For this reason, mainstream trade unionism was strengthened.

Increasing objections to both the despotic labour regime and mainstream trade unionism are coming to the fore. However, these objections cannot take root or grow. The fact that the miners’ resistance and those fighting against trade union stagnation on the occasion of 1 May 2026 have failed to make a significant impact, that alternative struggles remain isolated, fading actions rather than becoming mass and widespread, and, in short, that we should also reflect on the challenges facing a different kind of trade unionism.

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Ana akım sendikacılığın krizi!, published in BirGün newspaper on May 4, 2026.