Open
World Conference of Workers
In Defense of Trade Union Independence & Democratic Rights
Update on the Political Situation in Brazil:
1) Introduction: A Change of Tone From Washington
2) Interview with Gilmar Mauro, Leader of the Landless Peasants Movement (MST)
3) Joao Felicio, National President of the Unified Workers Confederation (CUT), Following the Consultative Meeting for a Social Pact: "The Trade Unions Must Remain Independent!"
4) Speech by Julio Turra to the National Executive Committee of the CUT
(Unified Workers Confederation) of Brazil -- October 31, 2002
1) Introduction: A Change of Tone From Washington
Throughout the recent presidential campaign in Brazil, the Bush
administration sent out strong warnings, often brutal in tone, against
Luis Inacio (Lula) da Silva, the candidate of the Workers Party.
Every scare tactic imaginable was deployed to dissuade the Brazilian
people from voting for Lula. The financial markets echoed this message
with a strong run on Brazil's currency, the Real. The signal was unmistakable:
"If you, the Brazilian people, vote for Lula, you can expect massive
capital flight and a deep recession ahead; you can expect to find
yourselves in the same predicament as Argentina."
On the very eve of the election, U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill went
so far as to state that "Lula will have to prove he isn't
crazy." Other administration spokespersons noted that if a PT-led
government didn't want the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), it
could go trade with the penguins in Antarctica.
Forty-eight hours after the October 27 election, which witnessed the PT's
sweep to power, the tone from the White House changed sharply. James
Gallagher, spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, stated: "Lula
is not Fidel Castro. He is a democrat. In fact, he is one of the most
consistent democrats I've ever met." Gallagher went on the express
his hope that the changes in Brazil's politics "will be more of tone
than of substance." (O Estado de Sao Paulo, October 30)
The same day, William Perry, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for Latin
America, declared, "I have no doubts about the orientation that will
be pursued by Lula and his friends. They are pragmatists who will
implement economic policies aimed at reestablishing investor
confidence." (Folha de Sao Paulo, October 30)
Still the same day, in Quito, Ecuador, at a meeting of heads of state to
promote the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), Paul Allgeier, U.S.
trade negotiator, stated, "We are going to give some time to the new
Brazilian government. They will need a bit of breathing space." (O
Globo, October 31)
The following day, U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, Donna Hrinak, drew
widespread press attention when she announced she would wear a red dress
-- the color of the Workers Party -- on January 1, the day Lula is
inaugurated Brazil's new president. Hrinak also stated she hoped Lula
would travel to the United States to meet with Bush prior to the
inauguration.
Why this change of tone?
Clearly the U.S. administration has understood the need for greater
caution in the aftermath of a vote of 52 million Brazilian people
clamoring for fundamental change. This was stated explicitly in an
editorial published in the October 31 issue of The New York Times:
"Lula will have to walk a narrow tight rope: How to increase social
spending in a period of austerity while fulfilling his commitments to the
international banking community? ... Investors will have to grant some
breathing space to the new government and show some understanding. ...
Bush will have to be warm, attentive and flexible."
The ruling circles in Washington and Wall Street have had to adjust, at
least for now, to the new situation marked by 52 million people --
workers, landless peasants, shantytown dwellers, student -- who have said,
"Enough is enough!"
But does this change of tone by the captains of global capitalism signal a
willingness to back off from pressuring Lula and the government to move
full speed ahead in implementing the IMF's structural adjustment plans?
Hardly. Rather, this is a tactical and temporary retreat by the
powers-that-be to grant the new government and all the main "social
actors" in Brazil some time to attempt to put into place the kind of
institutional structures that can rein in to safer channels the massive
discontent expressed on October 27.
This is why all political attention in Brazil in the days following Lula's
landslide election has turned to the quest to establish a "Social
Pact" that would tie all social partners -- the government, the
employers and the trade unions -- to a binding agreement to implement the
economic policies dictated by the IMF and World Bank. Such a Pact would
require, for example, that the unions sign on in advance to a wage freeze,
and/or cuts in social spending to pay back the foreign debt, and/or
"participatory budget" structures premised upon a national
accord to pay back the debt -- and the list goes on.
Establishing such a Social Pact, however, will not be so simple -- as the
articles below will attest, each of them reflecting the fighting will of
the Brazilian people and the deep attachment to the independence and
autonomy of their organizations in relation to the bosses, the government
and the state. - MARCIO OLIVEIRA
**********
2) Interview with Gilmar Mauro, Leader of the Landless Peasants Movement
(MST)
(reprinted from O Trabalho newspaper, the biweekly publication of the O
Trabalho current of the Brazilian Workers Party)
"We expect the new government to take an energetic and concerted
stance against the latifundio [large, feudal-style landholdings covering
90% of all productive lands--ed.] across Brazil," declared Gilmar
Mauro, one of the top leaders of the Landless Peasants Movement (MST),
following the national conference of the MST held at the beginning of
November in Caruaru, Pernambuco.
Mauro quoted from a letter addressed to President Lula and the Brazilian
People adopted by the MST conference, which states: "We are certain
it is possible to deal a decisive blow to defeat the latifundio through
the organization of the people and the political will of the new
government."
After calling on the workers and landless peasants to organize and
mobilize, the MST letter concludes: "We now have the possibility of
carrying forth with the historic taks of putting into place a true
agrarian reform, thereby eliminating hunger, unemployment and social
injustice."
Mauro developed further the purpose and content of this letter. "The
MST will present what it considers its priorities," he said.
"Titles to the land must be awarded to the 100,000 families presently
occupying lands across Brazil, and all laws that block implementation of
agrarian reform must be abrogated."
Mauro continued, "To begin with, all lands belonging to landowners
who owe money to the state, as well as all lands left fallow, must be
expropriated by the state and turned over to the landless peasants."
Mauro noted that the Brazilian Constitution itself calls for
"expropriating all lands that don't fulfill a social function."
Having been invited to a Consultative Meeting aimed at gathering the
opinions of different sectors of society on the question of forming a
Social Pact, the MST replied that it would participate in such a
consultation but that attending did not imply it would accept signing a
Social Pact. "The word 'truce' is not part of our vocabulary,"
said Mauro. "Hunger does not grant any truces to the landless
peasants and the dispossessed."
Mauro continued, "The MST will maintain its independence and
autonomy. This is what's called for by all social movements in relation to
the State. Our task is to organize workers at the base, at the level of
the rank and file, to put pressure on the government so that we can
finally enact a true agrarian reform."
********************
3) Joao Felicio, National President of the Unified Workers Confederation
(CUT), Following the Consultative Meeting for a Social Pact:
"The Trade Unions Must Remain Independent!"
By JOAO PENHA
SAO PAULO, Brazil -- The first meeting aimed at discussing the
establishment of a Social Pact was held November 7 at the initiative of
outgoing President Fernando Henrique Cardoso in the framework of the
two-month, end-of-term transition. Ultimo Segundo, an internet press
agency, described the meeting as follows in its headline,
"Participants in this consultative meeting differ on the need to make
sacrifices."
A few days earlier, in fact, the National Executive Commission of the
Unified Workers Confederation (CUT), concluded with a decision to
participate in this consultative meeting with the aim of presenting its
full list of union demands. Its mandate was not to make any commitments
regarding a Social Pact and to uphold the autonomy of the trade unions. It
was to be present, but not to participate in the meeting.
As one trade unionist who participated in the meeting explained, "The
government is fulfilling its role when it proposes to bring together all
social actors. But our role as trade unionists is to represent and defend
the interests of our members, not to co-legislate."
The account of this November 7 consultative meeting illustrates well the
situation facing working people in Brazil in the aftermath of the October
27 PT landslide.
According to Ultimo Segundo, Horacio Lafer Pilva, president of the FIESP
[the most influential employers' association in Brazil], proposed at the
consultative meeting that the unions sign onto a wage freeze as a first
and essential point of agreement in the envisioned Social Pact.
For his part, Joao Felicio, president of the CUT, insisted repeatedly that
"the union must remain independent." Felicio, according to
Ultimo Segundo, reaffirmed the CUT's position, which is that Brazil's
workers, who have already borne the brunt of cutbacks and austerity, have
no intention of giving in on matters of wages and working conditions.
"The ones who have incurred all the losses over the past years have
been the workers. Now it is time for the other side to feel the
pinch."
Felicio's point of view was shared by Paulo Pereira da Silva, president of
Força Sindical [a smaller union federation], who also declared that his
union "will not give in on any point that would result in takebacks
for the workers and their rights." He continued, "A wage freeze
is simply out of the question. I don't even want to hear any talk about a
freeze. ... If there is to be any discussion of wages, it should be about
an across-the-board wage increase."
The representatives of the employers' associations were equally
recalcitrant. Eugenio Staub, the president of Gradiente (a large,
high-tech electronics manufacturer) declared that his association would
not make any concessions to the unions under the guise of a Social Pact.
Paulo Skaff, the head of the Textile Manufacturers Association, declared
that he was not about to engage in a discussion involving
"negotiations over wages and conditions." Alencar Burti, the
president of the Sao Paulo Chamber of Commerce, declared, "I am not
interested in talking about what I'm supposed to give up."
Other employers, likewise, went on the offensive -- insisting that the
only way for the transition team and the new government to reassure
international creditors is for the unions to understand that for "the
good of the entire society" they will have to accept the need to
"swallow the bitter pill" of IMF austerity and make significant
sacrifices and concessions. Some among them noted it would be best for the
union to have a place at the table in the Social Pact so that their
concerns could at least be aired.
Alencar Burti reiterated this last point, insisting that there is an
urgent need to "reform the extremely rigid and outdated Labor Code
and the national systems of health care and retirement."
Another wing of the employers, the "soft cops," noted that while
no one wants to make sacrifices, "it will be necessary for everyone
to make an effort."
All this time, the strongest pressures are being exerted from Washington,
New York, and the City of London for all parties to reach agreement on a
Social Pact as soon as possible so as to tie the workers' organizations,
parties and unions to the implementation of the policies decided at the
behest of the employers' associations in tandem with the international
financial institutions of global capitalism (IMF, World Bank, WTO).
The Washington Post, for example, in an editorial on November 8, noted
that the creation of such a Social Pact was a "necessary, albeit
monumental task." The Folha de Sao Paulo, for its part, underscored
the difficulties confronting the advocates of a Social Pact as it quoted
Elio Gasperi, former director of the Institue for Trade Union Statistics,
who stated:
"The bosses are confused about one point. Elections are not the same
thing as opinion polls. Whereas opinion polls, like soccer matches,
produce results and scores, elections produce mandates. In this sense,
Lula, the incoming president, received a mandate from the Brazilian people
to do what he said he'd do -- and that is improve the lot of the Brazilian
workers and peasants. Nothing, other than his refusal to uphold his
pledge, should be allowed to compel Lula to listen to those one floor
above who are now saying what Lula should and shouldn't do."
********************
4) Speech by Julio Turra to the National Executive Committee of the CUT
(Unified Workers Confederation) of Brazil -- October 31, 2002
Brothers and Sisters,
With the election of Lula to the presidency, we are now living a new
situation. The CUT, as we know, played an important role in this battle,
in allowing for the advent of a new government -- one in which the people,
in particular the workers in the country and the cities -- have placed
their hopes. We know that it will be difficult. But what is the particular
responsibility of the CUT at this moment?
No one has ready answers; the debates among us and the exchange of
opinions are essential. Nobody, least of all me, can claim to be the
"possessor of the truth." It is with the aim of contributing to
this reflection and collective elaboration that I would like to take
advantage of the meeting at hand to raise questions that may help us
arrive at some conclusions. I would like for our discussion to determine
the position of the CUT in relation to the Social Pact, national pact or
economic and social council, proposals that appear at the center of the
current political debate.
Fine, a government should take into account the interests of everyone in
the society. In this sense, Lula is fulfilling his role as president when
he announces the intention to sit the bosses, the unions and other sectors
down at the same table for a consulation.
But we are the CUT, a trade union federation. Our particular role -- I
would say irreplaceable role -- is to represent the specific interests of
the workers. When we go to a negotiating table, our objective is to defend
the interests of the workers, in the face of the bosses and the
government.
Can the objective of a negotiation be to sign a Social Pact? Everyone here
knows the history of the CUT and its longstanding rejection of the Social
Pact with [former Brazilian Presidents] Sarney and Collor. It is clear
that with a Lula government, which we helped to elect, the situation is
not the same. But the words have the same meaning. The very idea of a Pact
supposes the establishment of a "permanent alliance." To
negotiate, to sign or not sign accords, when necessary, with the bosses
and the government, is part of our role as a trade union organization.
When we sign accords or collective-bargaining agreements, it is always on
the basis of concrete clauses that translate the demands of wage earners.
At the same time, the right to negotiation, implies, in any circumstance,
that the CUT and the unions are free to sign or not sign an accord. But
even when we sign an accord, do the bosses and the workers stop having
contradictory interests?
We all know that they do not! The Letter of Principles of the CUT states
our stance in favor of "a society without exploited or
exploiters." Has this stopped being our objective? Of course not; no
one among us has renounced this objective. At the same time, we know that
we are not going to achieve it tomorrow or any time soon. But, in order to
advance in the direction of this objective, the working class needs an
independent trade union federation.
Thus, when the bosses of the FIESP say that in a Social Pact (which they
favor) "business owners and workers will have to lose a little"
-- we all say: we want to negotiate to advance, albeit gradually, but not
to give up a millimeter of what we have now.
By the way, when the CUT, at the National Assembly, called for a vote for
Lula, it was on the basis of our demands!
In the new open situation in Brazil, don't you think, brothers and
sisters, that the best contribution that we could make as the CUT -- and I
would say, including to ensure the success of the policies of a PT
government that attends the needs of the people -- is to continue being
the CUT, an independent trade union federation, and not to be confused
with, or merged into, the government?
Wouldn't such a confusion, brothers and sisters, be damaging to the CUT,
to democracy and to the actions of the Lula government itself?
I won't tire you all repeating that I don't like the expression
"pact" -- whether it is a Social Pact or a national pact. On the
other hand, reflecting on the "national" dimension here, it
occurs to me that, as we are seeing, great threats lie ahead to the
sovereignty of the Brazilian nation. We have seen the insolence on the
part of Bush's spokespeople as they order Brazil to go negotiate with the
penguins and as they say that Lula has to prove he isn't crazy! Now, in
the face of these threats of imperialism, don't you think that if the CUT
were invited to give its opinion on what to do to defend the sovereignty
of the nation, we should appear with our proposals, the results of almost
20 years of struggle and seven national congresses?
We, the CUT, played a central role in the advent of the historic moment of
October 27th in which the Brazilian nation declared that it wanted to be
the master of its destiny!
Who should decide the destiny of Brazil - the nation or imperialism? We of
the CUT respond that it is the nation! In short time, if it is impossible
to attend the demands of the people and of the IMF, what will the CUT say?
The CUT will say: the priority is to attend the demands of the people!
If it is impossible to fight hunger and poverty, and at the same time
continue paying the Foreign Debt, which will be the priority for the CUT?
For the CUT the priority will be to put an end to the hunger of our
people!
If it is incompatible - as all of us here at the CUT know that it is- to
build a free and sovereign nation under the rules of the FTAA, which will
be the priority for the CUT? The priority for the CUT is the defense of
our sovereign nation!
By the way, I am not talking about anything other than that which we have
already adopted, all of us together, in the congresses of the CUT.
National sovereignty? Can we defend it without mentioning the
privatizations, which transfer the control of companies that were once
national property over to international financial capital? How can we
defend national sovereignty without fighting the Postal Law that would
privatize the Postal Service, for example, which is a bill currently in
the Congress, and without pointing to the necessity of renationalizing
already privatized companies?
Can we talk about the defense of national sovereignty if we don't defend
universal Social Security and health care for all, against the looting by
private pension funds, in general U.S. pension funds, of workers' money?
National sovereignty is impossible if we don't preserve the greatest
wealth of the nation, which is the labor force, the working class, their
jobs, their wages and their rights!
Finally, there is no national sovereignty without democracy -- and there
is no democracy without trade union independence, as our own history has
shown us: independence and freedom to negotiate and sign contracts if
necessary, without any external constraints, submitting the results of
negotiation to deliberation by the appropriate union bodies.
In conclusion, I believe that it is legitimate that the CUT participate in
the consultative roundtable discussion or in other meetings to which it is
invited, always on the basis of a clear statement of its independence and
with concrete proposals based on the demands of the workers. I think that
we would all be in agreement in affirming the willingness of the CUT to
present concrete demands and to arrive at agreements that register
positive steps for the workers.
We will, very quickly, be confronted with the question of
"reforms", in particular of Social Security. Here there is an
enormous risk of pitting the workers of the public sector against those of
the private sector. Now, the very essence of the CUT is to unite all,
public and private, city and country, as the working class. We cannot
favor a division.
There are arguments which aren't new, because the bosses have always used
them, that there are "privileged" workers and that
"justice" and "equality" should prevail. But why level
to the lowest common denominator and not to the highest, for example? Why
shouldn't the benefits system for federal employees, basing retirement on
the most recent wage earned, be the system for all workers?
This recently edited dossier on Social Security registers the position of
the National Assembly on the revocation of the laws for the Reform of
Social Security of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, from the Executive Committee
20.
Shouldn't we, beginning now, demand this revocation, clearing the terrain
for a broadened and deepened discussion between our base and ourselves?
A second question is that of the reform of the union structure and labor
laws. About the labor laws, we all agree, we will not accept less than the
level of rights that are currently in the CLT [National Labor Code] --
this is why we demand the immediate withdrawal of the Dornelles Bill.
Without letting go of any of our labor rights, we must give meaning to our
congressional decisions for the revocation of the laws and proposals for
flexibilization of rights ("flexible" work hours, layoffs,
temporary contracting, etc.).
With regard to the union structure, we have the principles of the CUT and
the Conventions of the ILO as a reference. At the same time, it is
necessary, before changing the current structure, to verify the objective.
For us it can only be the objective of reinforcing our unions. Everything
that goes in the direction of dispersing or weakening them should be
rejected. Even more so in a global situation marked by an offensive of the
NGO-ization of unions, in order to remove from them the character of
organs intended for the organization and defense of the demands of the
workers.
All of this points to the need for the CUT to be able to conduct free
discussion in order to define what is necessary for us to fulfill the
mandate that the workers have given us. We may have different points of
view, but we must discuss them!
On the question of negotiation with the government and the bosses, won't
the principal question be to know what mandate the CUT delegation will be
sent with? In my opinion there are 2 things that cannot be left out of
this mandate:
1. Our participation will not be predetermined by a requirement for an
accord. We will have our hands free to sign or not sign.
2. We will go to the table to win, even if it is only a little, and never
to lose, like the bosses of the FIESP have already started preaching. We
will make clear that they cannot count on the CUT to take away workers'
rights, nor to impose even greater losses on wages, or even to "flexibilize"
rights or work days.
This is, brothers and sisters, the current stage of my reflections, which
I put to discussion, for us to find together the most efficient way to
fulfill the mandate that the workers of the CUT have given us.
Julio Turra,
Member, National Executive Committee,
Unified Trade Union Confederation (CUT)
Brazil