ILC INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER NO. 139
A dossier of weekly information published by the International
Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples
July 5, 2005
INTRODUCTION
There are defining events taking place in the next couple of months
-- for example, the Millennium + 5 Summit of the UN. In relation to
these events, the ILC therefore proposes to continue the debate begun at
the World Conference in Madrid and at the Geneva Conference In Defense
of the ILO Conventions and Trade Union Independence.
As we explain in this issue of the ILC International Newsletter:
"We propose to open the pages of the ILC's International Newsletter
to all those who, regardless of differences in opinion, think that this
debate is important and that the workers' movement needs open and free
discussion. Don't hesitate to send us your thoughts and
contributions!"
In the state of California in the United States, 30,000 people answered
the united call of the unions to defend the pensions and took to the
streets -- forcing governor Schwarzenegger to retreat on several points.
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, just became President of the
European Union. After the victory of the "No" in France and
the Netherlands, Great Britain has been presented to us as a model. What
is this about? We publish the first article of a series about the real
situation of the British working class.
From Romania we received an article on the strike of the railway
workers.
From Belgium, we are publishing an interview with Jef Sleeckx, a former
SP deputy, in which he states: "Solidarity between the Flemish and
Wallon workers is my greatest wish."
From Brazil, you will find two interviews with union leaders concerning
the strike of the public service workers who are on their fourth week of
the strike.
Finally, in issue 136 of the ILC Newsletter we published information
about the ILC's campaign "For the End to the Threats of
Imprisonment Against Serge Goulart," the coordinator of the
occupied factories in Brazil. We also published the petition addressed
to the Lula government and to the legal authorities demanding "the
end to the threats to close down the occupied factories, the repeal of
the threats against Serge Goulart, and the nationalization of the
occupied factories." We are publishing a first list of signatories
for this petition. We invite you to spread this campaign.
Subscribe to the ILC Newsletter!
********************
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
p.1 Introduction
p. 2-3 The Millennium +5 Summit: the debate continues
p. 4 United States: 30,000 march to defend pensions (California)
p. 5 Great Britain: The Blair "miracle" and reality (first
part)
--Romania: Train conductor s strike
p.6 Belgium: Interview with Jef Sleeckx
p.7 Brazil: Public sector workers' strike
p.8 Brazil: Campaign against the prison threats against Serge Goulart
--Subscription
********************
The MILLENIUM + 5 SUMMIT:
The Debate Continues
During the World Conference of the ILC, which took place in Madrid
in March 2005, the delegates decided to alert the international workers'
movement to the dangers constituted by the "new world
governance." The Declaration posed a question: "Isn't there a
real danger that the workers' organizations will be integrated into the
so-called 'world governance.' We pose these questions to the world labor
movement, because in every country there is a drive to force the
workers' movement to renounce its historic mission to defend the
specific interests of the workers on the grounds of the class
struggle."
In light of the impending events over the next few months, it seems
indispensable to us to continue this discussion.
The 93rd Annual Session of the ILO just took place. In his response to
the discussion following his report, Juan Somavia -- the General
Director of the International Labor Bureau (ILB) -- indicated what,
according to him, were the conclusions of the session.
He stated: "The ILO plays an essential role -- but if it works
alone then it will not succeed. ... After the Conference, we will go to
the Millennium Summit in September. And our message must be there: put
decent work for all on your agenda."
Citing a delegate from the employers, he specified: "None of the
objectives for development of the Millenium can be achieved if there is
not more equality and coordination on a world scale. That is also how we
see things; the multilateral system will have to rise to the
occasion."
Referring throughout his long speech to the "crisis of
employment," Mr. Somavia thus put at the center of the objectives
of the ILO the goal of moving "toward a coherent policy within the
multilateral system," through "the Agenda for decent
employment."
The Geneva Conference dealt with these issues. We asked ourselves:
"What is 'decent employment'? Will it improve the lot of working
people? Will it advance the struggle against poverty?
Shouldn't we be worried when Somavia says -- during the discussion of a
report titled "decent employment for youth" -- that
"there isn't a panacea" and that it is necessary to act
"empirically" because "the conditions have changed."
Must we substitute the 14 ILO Conventions on child labor for some
"empirical" proposals, simple recommendations for good will?
Thus Mr. Somavia praises the development of the "youth
network." What is this?
The report notes that the network "was created in 2001 with the
goal of putting into effect the project to 'formulate and implement
strategies that give youth everywhere a real chance to find decent and
useful work.' This project was formulated in the Millennium Declaration
adopted in 2000. The partnership founded by Kofi Annan, General
Secretary of the United Nations, Juan Somavia, General Director of the
ILB, and James Wolfenson, president of the World Bank, is the first
global alliance reached in the name of the ILO's Global Agenda for
Employment. It brings together decision makers, employers, workers,
youth and other partners who put their competences, the experience, and
their know-how at the service of researching original and durable
solutions to combat youth unemployment."
This "network for youth employment elaborated some recommendations
-- a road map -- in four domains: employability, equal
opportunity, entrepreneurship and job creation."
Isn't the goal of this venture to substitute Conventions (and their
translations into national legislation, labor codes, collective
bargaining agreements) with simple recommendations based on the
"good faith" of all the partners --integrating the
corporations, civil society, and the union organizations?
Aren't we faced in all our countries with this policy, which in the name
of "creating jobs" targets the young generation (and through
it, the whole working class) with precarious jobs with individual
contracts and without rights -- jobs that are outside the realm of the
collective bargaining agreements, statutes and labor codes. Aren't we
seeing in a country like France the proposal to authorize night work for
young apprentices younger than 18 years old? Isn't this in contradiction
with one of the first ILO Conventions, Convention 2?
Isn't "decent employment" leading to more flexibility and to
the destruction of public services and social protection, all of which
were won by the workers' movement in the framework of nations, based on
the ILO's normative system?
Haven't we reached a new phase in the situation about which we have
alerted the workers' movement for many years, particularly after the
1998 adoption, in the presence of Bill Clinton, of the Declaration of
Fundamental Rights?
The questions of "decent employment" and "action against
poverty" were debated at the 93rd Annual Session of the ILO. They
are at the heart of the upcoming events, beginning with the
Millennium + 5 Summit of the UN. What we should we make of this?
Let us recall that in the year 2000, the General Assembly of the UN
adopted the "Millennium Objectives" for development. It is in
relation to these objectives that the Millennium + 5 Summit will
evaluate the implementation of these objectives.
Kofi Annan, the General Secretary of the UN, stated: "The states
cannot do the work on their own. We need an active civil society and a
dynamic private sector. Civil society and the private sector have an
increasingly important role to play in relation to the spheres
previously reserved by the states."
In Chapter 9 of the report titled "Contribution of the Private
Sector" one can find the following: "In a market economy,
private companies contribute to the reduction of poverty in numerous
ways." The fight against poverty was objective number one of the
Millennium Summit and the Millennium + 5 Summit. Thus, according to this
report, private companies play a major role in the reduction of poverty.
The multinationals intend to impose on the whole world a supranational
"liberalism" which privileges the "individual" over
the "collective." The ILO conventions, the collective
bargaining agreements, the labor codes, and public services are
intolerable to them. The multinationals adhere to the "codes of
conduct" and declare themselves in favor of "the social
responsibility of companies."
Don't we know the consequences these policies have on workers? In
Bangladesh, 300 workers died a few weeks ago in the special economic
zones. They worked in wretched conditions of over-exploitation, were
paid under the (very low) minimum wage of Bangladesh of 10 Euros a
month. No respect was given to the minimum safety conditions of the
country. The labor code, the labor laws of Bangladesh, and union rights
were not implemented. For whom did this textile factory work? It worked
for six clothing multinationals (for example Carrefour in France and
Zara) all of which had signed "codes of good conduct." Is this
decent employment? Is this the objective of the Millennium Summit?
Should the ILO be integrated into and subordinated to the set framework
of the UN's Millennium + 5 Summit? The ILO has recognized since its
foundation the existence of nations, the distinct interests of the
working class and the capitalist class. Isn't this decision by the ILO
to build the Summit for so-called "decent work" as its number
one goal an indication of its total caving in to the pressures of the
multinational corporations?
For the working classes of every country, the existence of norms
codified in national laws is a guarantee. The drive to erase these norms
codified in national laws -- for the benefit of civil society and
private companies -- is tantamount to the destruction of these norms.
Should the workers' movement integrate itself as a component part into
the "world governance," with the NGOs, the World Bank, the IMF,
and the WTO?
At the World Conference of the ILC, we alerted the world labor movement
about the dangers of "world governance", civil society-- that
is, a new supranational totalitarianism.
This debate was continued at the 12th Conference of the ILC In Defense
of the ILO Conventions and Trade Union Independence, at the time of the
93rd Annual Session of the ILO. Here is an excerpt of the concluding
statement of the Conference:
"On the international level the following two logics are
antagonistic:
"One logic aims to transform the working-class movement into a
social component of globalization. It stresses corporate social
governance, instead of norms, rights and codified guarantees.
"Another logic is the time-old position of the working-class
movement, which states that the working class has no other solution to
fight oppression and exploitation, than to organize itself as a class,
to defend its organizations, and their independence. Two logics are
opposed to one another.
"One, in the name of a new world governance, aims to impose a
supranational, totalitarian, and corporatist order destroying the
nations and the social gains of the working-class.
"The other asserts that political democracy implies the right to
political and trade union freedom of organization, which recognizes the
existence of antagonistic interests in a society that is divided into
two classes.
"We say: the normative systems of the ILO and the ILO conventions
are part and parcel of the constitution of political democracy. We must
defend them. It is high time that we return to strict conventional
systems. It's a question of the survival of our civilization. The ILO is
at the crossroads -- the debate is now open. These debates will continue
in relation to the preparations of the UN summit and in relation to the
agenda of the international trade union movement.
"As we do not seek to be a substitute for any existing
international organization, we intend to be part of this debate by
publishing the minutes of the conference, the minutes of our discussion
and all the information that has been provided in the bulletins of the
ILC."
We think that it is necessary to map out the calendar of all the
upcoming events:
- In September 2005, the Millennium + 5 Summit of the UN will take
place
- In December, the WTO Summit will take place in Hong Kong
- In December, the General Assembly of the UN will take place
- In January 2006, the fusion congress of the ICFTU-WCL will take
place on the eve of the Social Forum of Porto Alegre
Facing these deadlines, the ILC considers that is has a
responsibility to inform the union leaders and activist throughout the
world.
The ILC was founded in 1991, 14 years ago. For the last 12 years, it has
taken the initiative to organize these Conferences in Geneva.
Events in the following months are crucial for the international
workers' movement. They raise questions and discussion. More than ever,
activists are in need of free debate and the confrontation between
different viewpoints. The ILC -- which is not a substitute for any
existing organization of the international workers' movement -- intends
to contribute to this debate.
This debate began at the Madrid World Conference and at the Geneva
Conference.
We propose to open the pages of the ILC International Newsletter to
everybody who thinks that, regardless of our differences in opinion,
this debate is crucial and the workers' movement is in need of open
discussion.
Today, through the instrument of this Newsletter, we intend to provide
all the documents at our disposal concerning these upcoming events so
that every one can judge for themselves.
********************
UNITED STATES
Confronted with the united action of the trade union movement which
mobilized 30,000 strong to defend their pensions, California, Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger was forced to retreat on many points.
[On Wednesday, May 25, responding to the call issued by their trade
union organizations, more than 30,000 workers gathered in Sacramento and
Los Angeles to oppose the privatization of the pensions systems proposed
by Governor Schwarzenegger. We publish below excerpts from a report
published in The Organizer newspaper, published by labor and
political activists who support the ILC in the United States.]
30,000 Protest Schwarzenegger Statewide!
On Wednesday, May 25, union members made history in California.
20,000 union members filled the Capitol in one of the largest protests
anyone in Sacramento could remember. Another 10,000 simultaneously
filled the streets of Los Angeles. The rally was in opposition to the
$80 million special election planned by Schwarzenegger to pass his
anti-labor ballot measures.
The "Action Day for a Better California," as it was called,
was organized by the coalition that is fighting the Governor's attacks
on working people. The event was a testament to the unity the labor
movement in California has shown since Schwarzenegger made union members
an explicit target.
Busloads of teachers, nurses, firefighters and scores of other union
members descended on the Capitol and downtown Los Angeles in a sea of
matching shirts, chanting in unison, "Hey, hey, ho, ho,
Schwarzenegger's got to go." The crowd was loud and spirited even
in the sweltering 90-degree heat.
Among the hundreds of homemade signs held by union members were:
"Don't sell out fallen firefighter families"; "Saving
lives is our special interest"; "California is not for
sale" and "Save Prop. 98."
[ILC Editors' Note: It is striking that this last slogan of
"California is not for sale" is the same one that protestors
have raised, in relation to their own countries, in Bolivia, Ecuador and
Bangladesh -- countries that are being decimated by U.S. imperialism.]
Schwarzenegger has referred to unions derisively as "special
interests," while raising more real special interest money -- from
corporations in California, Texas, Florida and other states -- than any
governor in the state's history. He has taken in over $26 million in
contributions all together, much of it from corporations that directly
benefit from his bill vetoes and policy changes. He has accepted
millions from the pharmaceutical industry and corporate giants. He
returned the favor by vetoing legislation that would have reduced
prescription drug costs, stopped offshoring of California jobs and
increased the minimum wage. He has tried to cover hypocrisy by calling
unions of nurses and teachers special interests.
Union members expressed outrage that the Governor has cut education
funding while attacking teachers, reduced hospital staffing ratios while
attacking nurses, and has tried to eliminate the pensions and survivor
benefits for police and firefighters. Teachers were especially angered
at his refusal to pay back $2 billion borrowed from school funding last
year. The Governor has proposed slashing $4 billion in ongoing education
funding, which would mean a $25,000 cutback for every California
classroom.
Since his State of the State address in January, Schwarzenegger has been
threatening to call a special election if the legislature did not pass
his list of "reforms." It appears very likely that he will
call for an election. The Governor has until June 13 to call an election
that would be set for early November.
Although he was forced to withdraw his initiative to privatize the
public pension system, Schwarzenegger has threatened to put it on the
ballot in 2006.
Schwarzenegger's public image has taken a serious hit from his battles
with unions. Schwarzenegger's attacks on pensions and benefits for
public workers, and especially on death and disability benefits for
firefighters and police officer, have outraged Californians.
Labor's campaign has helped bring his approval ratings down from 65% in
January to 40% today. The union alliance has fought back against the
Governor's assault this year and forced him to withdraw several measures
from his agenda. In addition, a new statewide poll shows that California
voters share union members opposition to the Governor's potential fall
special election. The poll, release by the Public Policy Institute,
shows that 62 percent of California voters are opposed to the Governor's
special election and only 33 percent are in favor.
-- Report by Nadia Garuti
-----
Schwarzenegger Seeks to Impose Bush's Counterreforms
On the national level, President Bush made his plan for Social
Security privatization one of the centerpieces of his political agenda.
Paramount in this coordinated attack is California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger's prominent push to privatize the State's public pension
system.
Schwarzenegger announced his support for pension privatization in his
State of the State address in January. He has since actively supported a
ballot initiative and similar legislation that would change the state
public pension system from the current defined benefit plan --
one in which you are guaranteed a fixed monthly payment when you retire
based upon your salary and years of employment -- to a defined
contribution plan -- one in which employers pay in a set amount of
money but the worker is responsible for money management and is not
protected from losses.
This would essentially privatize pensions by offering only 401K style
plans run by private, for-profit investment companies.
The plan to privatize public retirement systems will force retirees to
gamble their savings on the ups and downs of the stock market. More
importantly it is a step towards the eventual withdrawal of government
from the obligation to provide a safety net, and indeed from the
business of governing at all. -- N.G.
********************
GREAT BRITAIN
The Blair "miracle" and reality (Part One in a series)
On June 23 -- a few days after the massive "No" in France
and the Netherlands -- Tony Blair, the British prime minister who will
become the president of the European Union on July 1, addressed the
European Parliament: "The question is not the principle of the
European Union, but its modernization. What can be the new lines of
actions for Europe? Š First, modernize its social model. Š The purpose
of our social model should be to maximize our ability to support
competition and to help our constituents accept globalization."
Blair cited the following as examples of the "achievements" of
the government that he leads:
"The current government adopted its 'New Deal' in support of the
unemployed, the biggest European jobs -reation program, thanks to which
unemployment for youth has practically disappeared. In five years, it
has augmented the investments in public services more than any other
European countryŠ . We have gotten over a million children out of
poverty and improved the living conditions for two million pensioners.
We have set in place a profound reform, without precedent in our
history, of aid for childhood, maternity and paternity."
What is the truth behind this "miracle"? In the following
articles in the ILC International Newsletter, we will try to
answer these questions on the basis of the facts.
"Each morning, when driving my children to school, I pass in front
of the construction sites for the luxury apartments, which are sprouting
up like mushrooms. The reality of the economic model that our government
aims to sell to the rest of Europe -- and which the French have rejected
so forcefully -- jumps out at me. Workers from Hungary work on the sixth
floor without helmets. In the last two months, 11 construction workers
have died on building sites in London. Lithuanians demolish the walls of
a building with precarious walls. Only one thing is missing: A sign that
was formerly made mandatory by the health and safety regulations and
which read: 'Without a helmet or boots, it is prohibited to work on the
site.' Š Experience shows that where the employers can get rid of
security regulations, there is no reason for them to correctly pay the
workers or respect the hours of the working day."
This quote taken from The Guardian -- a daily that has shown lots
of indulgence toward Blair -- testifies to the reality behind the
so-called economic miracle. The quote only reflects a fraction of the
true withering away of all forms of regulation.
In 1990, The Economist magazine drew a balance sheet of the 18
years under Thatcher: "This horse medicine has given birth to a
much more flexible market."
Blair has continued this destructive drive. The balance sheet? We'll
cite a few figures furnished by the official institutions.
A third of British households now comprise the poorest wage-earners.
Since Blair took office, the richest 1% of the population have seen
their fortunes rise by 150 billion pounds. The poorest 50%, for
their part, saw their share of the national wealth fall from 10% in 1986
to 5% in 2002.
Officially, poverty affects one in four babies. One million industrial
jobs have been lost under Blair.
To deal with the liquidation of the retirement plans and the bankruptcy
of the pension funds, most households invest in single homes, which they
then mortgage to borrow money to deal with the necessities of daily
life.
Thus, during the first trimester of 2005, 26,000 households saw the
banks repossess the deeds of their homes as the former owners could no
longer make their mortgage payments for lack of funds.
A recent study done by the KPMG Co. shows that households go into debt
mostly to be able to pay the bills at the end of the month. In four
years, the sum total of the credit card debt has doubled.
A recent report by the Leeds Business School revealed that the sum total
of individual debt referred to credit agencies rose by 70%, reaching 5
million pounds per year.
Three years ago, an average household was 10,000 pounds in debt. This
debt is now averages 25,000 pounds, due to indebtedness to 15 different
creditors.
British households are on average in debt to the tune of 124% of their
income. But that is only an average. The distribution of debt shows that
for those with the lowest wages, 11,500 pounds per year and below, the
rate of debt is 450%.
(To be continued.)
********************
ROMANIA
Train Conductors' Strike
For almost four weeks, the Romanian railway workers, specifically
the train conductors, (1) have been out on strike. Their main demand is
for a 10% wage increase. The strike has affected the whole country. In
accordance with the law, the strikers need to ensure a minimum service
of a third of job activity. The National Railway Society of Romania (SNCFR)
(2) -- which transports both cargo and passengers -- refuses to
give the wage increase. The principal reason given is the agreement
between the Tãriceanu government (center right) and the IMF. The
agreement prohibits wage increases in the state sector for all the 2005
fiscal year. It is a fact that the losses aleady incurred due to the
strike are larger than the amount of money being asked in wages.
The administration has filed a complaint against the strikers, but the
court said that the strike was legal.
On June 20, the conductors' strike was joined by workers in the
commercial sector and in the infrastructure of the railroads (SNCFR
infrastructure). The strike has become generalized-- and thus no longer
is covering the "minimum assured services." The administration
demanded that the courts suspend the strike in the name of the
"general interest."
This time, the courts accepted the complaints (3) and suspended the
commercial and infrastructure workers for 30 days.
The legal suspension has not affected the conductors' strike, which
continues.
Correspondent of the ILC in Romania
(1)The union of the conductors belongs, for the most part, to the
Meridian Federation.
(2) In Romania, the National Railway Co. was broken into several bits,
in the form of commercial corporations, with the state as the only
stockholder
(3)The Appeals Court of Bucharest declared the conductors' strike
illegal and demanded their return to work.
********************
BELGIUM
Jef Sleeckx, former Socialist Party federal deputy and co-signer of a
petition to the Flemish parliament concerning the European Constitution
Interview
"Solidarity between the Flemish and Wallon workers is my greatest
wish."
Q: Together with George Debunne, former General Secretary of the General
Federation of Belgian Workers (FGTB) and Lode Van Outrive, ex-Member of
Parliament in the European Union, you issued a letter to the Flemish
parliament. Can you summarize its goals?
We presented a request to the Flemish parliament asking that this
body not to deliberate on whether or not to ratify the European
Constitution before having a thorough discussion -- where those for and
against the Constitution could have their side heard. In this way, the
Flemish parliament could become the true spokesperson for the Flemish
population.
There is no reason for a rushed ratification because the parliament has
more than a year to ratify it. We are demanding that the Parliament hold
a series of discussion meetings, with the participation of the citizens,
and representatives of social and democratic organizations.
Q: For your part, you made a declaration on the radio where you
clearly affirmed that you were against the Constitution. Why are you
against it?
I am against the European Constitution because it means savage
competition in all social and economic spheres. For example, our social
laws would be smashed. I am also thinking about the Bolkestein
Directive. I am against the method employed, because practically nobody
in Flanders understands the content of this Constitution, and for this
reason a debate is absolutely necessary.
The European Constitution must not be voted on in Parliament without our
population understanding its consequences.
Q: Has the "No" of the people of France and of the
Netherlands had an important impact on Flanders?
Ever since the "No" in France and Holland, I can attest to
the fact that when I speak with people, they are now beginning to ask
questions about their pensions, social security, working conditions, and
labor contracts.
There is now more awareness among the Flemish people concerning what
this Constitution would mean for them. For this reason, we are going to
discuss in all the corners of Flanders about this Constitution, and we
will also distribute our petition.
The president of the Flemish Parliament, Norber Debatselier, wrote me a
note on June 22 to say our request is admissible. It has since been
submitted to the Foreign Affairs Commission of the parliament and will
be dealt with at the end of September or the beginning of October.
Q: You have often said that you were the deputy of the workers. Don't
you think that the policies of social regression that the European Union
has imposed on us is a threat to the very important social model won
after the war?
Yes. For this reason, I feel obliged to act with all my socialist
conviction for a social Europe. People must absolutely know what is in
this Constitution and what its anti-social consequences would be.
The European Commission is more and more busy imposing neo-liberal laws
and we are going to lose the things that we have always fought for.
Q: You were a SP deputy for a long time. You saw the transformation
of the SP into the SP.A. Do you think that the implementation of the
current policies of social regression constitutes a menace to socialist
values?
Certainly. I note that solidarity is in the process of diminishing.
Solidarity is a socialist conception; it is the great strength of the
working class and should promoted with all our energy. Sometimes, I note
that the Socialist Parties have forgotten, more than once, this great
idea of solidarity: it is the great strength of the working class.
Q: Is there any special message that you would like to address to the
Francophone readers of the left?
Solidarity between the Flemish and Wallon workers is my greatest
wish. Workers' solidarity is the most important guarantor of the future
of our social security. If the workers let themselves be divided, the
bosses are going to quickly privatize our social security. Our strength
is and will remain in the solidarity of between the North and the South.
The Socialist of the North and the South are obliged to work together
and must not let themselves be divided by "communitarian"
problems. As a left socialist, this is what I really want.
Interviewed by Philippe Larsimont
For the Tribune of the Workers and Labor News, June
25, 2005
********************
BRAZIL
Fourth week of the federal civil service workers' strike
The federal civil service workers have been on strike for four
weeks. They are demanding the adjustment of their wages, which were cut
18% in the last three years. They also are demanding the creation of a
lifelong job training program. The Lula government is only offering them
0.1% and a vague promise that the question of their wages will be
included in the discussion of the 2006 budget.
In the past week, Lula has begun to brutally impose the withholding of
wages of the strikers. At the negotiation meeting which took place on
June 30, the representative of a minister went so far as to express this
threat: "We are going to crush the strike by withholding your
wages." Indignation was widespread.
-----
Interview with Edison Cardoni, one of the strike leaders
"The bosses have obtained 3 billion reals from a government that is
rejecting our demands"
Q: During a special hearing with the government last Wednesday, the
government continued to only offer a 0.1% wage increase and proposed a
"schedule of discussion with the unions for 2006." What was
the reaction of the strikers?
The strikers clearly rejected this offer -- it is an insult to us.
We cannot afford the costs of food, electricity, school, and housing. I
am not going to tell the grocer on the corner to wait until 2006 so that
I can pay him; it's the same thing for the implementation of a job
training program plan for the re-restructuring of the ones that exist.
This is the only way to end precarious working conditions and labor
contracts without statutes -- which, in passing, is the source of the
awful corruption that has provoked the current political crisis.
The current deadlock means that the CUT trade union federation must put
all its energy into organizing a strike of the entire public sector, as
the union to which I belong, CONDSEF (one of the civil servants unions--
Editor), has demanded.
We have just seen the landlords block Brasilia with their tractors and
receive in a few days 3 billion reals (1 billion Euros.) How is it that
the government refuses to do the same for us, the people who elected it?
Why is it that the government gives in so easily to the people who are
most opposed to it?
-----
Interview with Julio Turra, member of the leadership of the CUT trade
union federation
"The CUT must go all out to help the strikers win"
Q: The Executive Commission of the CUT met on June 30. What did it
decide?
The Executive Commission heard the reports of the leading comrades
of the striking unions: CONDSEF, FENASP, CNTSS and of FENA-JUFE (1).
They were unanimous in underlying the absence of any proposal by the
government concerning the readjustment of the wages of the federal civil
servants at the negotiating meeting of June 29 at the Ministry of
Planning. They unanimously denounced the position of the government's
representative, who declared that the withholding of wages was aimed at
crushing the strike.
For my part, I demanded that a resolution be immediately passed
condemning the scandalous comments of the representative of the Ministry
as well as a resolution responding to the legitimate and urgent demand
of the CONDSEF, who have called on the CUT to organize a strike of the
entire public sector labor force.
All day, the chair of the meeting refused to submit this motion to a
vote. He limited himself to "assuring the strikers that the
Confederation supports them." But this is not going to break the
intransigence of the government. The declaration of the government's
representative is completing revolting. The CUT must help the strikers
triumph. We are all concerned and affected by the strike's outcome.
And the government dares to tell us there isn't any money. There is
money: The very same day that it refused to discuss with the strikers,
the government announced a new record of primary fiscal surplus, which
diverts public funds for the payment of the debt, filling the pockets of
the bankers and the speculators.
Why didn't the CONDSEF immediately receive a positive response to its
proposal?
I therefore decided to directly call on all the unions, all the workers'
assemblies, all the assemblies of strikers, asking them to massively
send in motions, telegrams, and faxes to the leadership of the CUT
saying: "We are shocked by the comments of the representative of a
minister saying, 'We are going to crush the strike.' We all are on the
side of the strikers! The CUT must go all out to help the strikers
triumph. The CUT must responded to the appeal of the CONDSEF for a
united general strike of the entire public sector workforce."
At the same, I proposed to send thousands of telegrams to Lula saying:
"Is it acceptable that a representative of a minister of your
government says, 'We are going to crush the strike'? You are the
president of the republic, we call on you to immediately stop the salary
freeze, open negotiations, and satisfy the legitimate demands of the
strikers!"
(1) Unions of different categories of functionaries (state, territorial,
and municipal)
********************
BRAZIL
International Campaign for the Withdrawal of the Threats of Imprisonment
Against Serge Goulart
Model Petition to the Lula Government and the Judicial Powers, to be
Used Widely
END THE THREATS TO CLOSE DOWN THE OCCUPIED FACTORIES!
FOR THE NATIONALIZATION OF THE OCCUPIED FACTORIES!
Unusual procedures by the ministers of the Lula government have
received the support of federal judges to declare the Cipla, Interfibra,
and other factories, illegal. Using means never used up until this point
-- not even against the criminal landlords who have stolen from the tax
department and the workers for 10 years -- they decreed the confiscation
of 20% (to be enacted as of June 4, 2005) of the income of Cipla/Interfibra,
factories that have been occupied and run by the workers since 2002.
Federal judge Oziel Francisco de Souza also specified that Serge Goulart,
the coordinator of the Occupied Factories Councils, is the person
responsible for the administration of the factories by the workers.
Failure to pay the government 20% of its gross revenue would make it
illegal henceforth to pay salaries and purchase goods. Serge Goulart
faces imprisonment if the Workers' Council does not comply with the
judge's directive.
Thousands of jobs are at stake.
The workers of the occupied factories have insisted for the past two and
a half years that Lula must nationalize the factories to save all the
jobs.
In two and a half years, without having made the smallest gesture in
favor of the workers of these factories, the ministers of the Lula
government are currently hastening to recover the debts of the former
owners and threatening the workers and their leaders.
It is urgent that a solution be found. We support the demand of the
workers: The federal judges should suspend these procedures, and
President Lula should receive a delegation of the workers to concretize
the nationalization of the occupied factories. The prison threats issued
against Serge Goulart, the coordinator of the factory commission, must
end immediately.
The letters should be send to:
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva - President of the Republic
Palácio do Planalto - Praça dos Três Poderes
Brasília/ DF- CEP 70250-900
or protocolo@planalto.gov.br
To the federal judges:
Juge Fédéral Titulaire : Dr. LEONARDO CASTANHO MENDES
Juge Fédéral Suppléant: Dr. OZIEL FRANCISCO DE SOUSA
Directeur du Sécrétariat : Bel. ROSAN LUIS DA SILVEIRA PERES
Adresse :
Rua do Príncipe, 123 - Centro CEP : 89201-001
Téléphone(s) : (47) 433-9079 - PABX
E-mail : SCJOIEF01@jfsc.gov.br
Please send a copy to: imprensa@cipla.com.br
Contact : (47) 3026-9140 -
imprensa@cipla.com.br
Antônio Hélio Pereira and Silvia Agostini
Initial signatories
Germany : Adolf Ernst (Ver.di) ; Altmann Michael (SPD, AfA,
Ver.di) ; Bachman Manfred ; Bahr Bernd (Ver.di), Bahr Detlev (Ver.di) ;
Armin Bauer (SPD, AfA-Landesvorstand Sachsen) ; Becker Heinrich
GEW-Bezirksvorstand, Frankfurt) ; Bergunde Kerstin ; Boulboullé Carla (ehem.
Landtagsabgeordnete NRW, GEW) ; Beschoner Christof (BR) ; Dallmann
Siemen (WASG Landesvorstand, Berlin) ; Damian Werner (Ver.di) ;
Engstfeld Ellen (SPD, Ver.di) ; Ensel Hermann (PR Studentenwerk) ; Ernst
Manfred (SPD, AfA) ; Fischer Karl C. (SPD, Ver.di) ; Först Heinke (SPD,
GEW) ; Frey Henning (SPD, Ver.di) ; Futterer Michael (SPD, GEW ;
Kreisvorstand) ; Gerhold Karlheinz (SPD, AfA-Landesvorstand
Sachsen-Anhalt, Ver.di-Gewerkschaftssekretär) ; Gellrich Martin (Ver.di
- Berziskerwerblosen-ausschuß Berlin) ; Grahl Ute (SPD) ; Gürster Eva
(SPD, Ver.di, PR) ; Hahn Gaby (SPD-AfA-Landesvorstand Sachsen) ; Helbig
Winfried ; Kirschner Bernd (Ver.di, VM, PR) ; Koch Andreas (Ver.di) ;
Kraft Isa ; Krupp Gotthard (SPD, AfA-Landesvorstand Berlin,
Ver.di-Bezirksvorstand) ; Ludwig Barbara (GEW-Kreisvorstand-Land,
Darmstadt) ; Ludwig Helmut (SPD) ; Müller Jürgen (SPD, AGS) ; Nagler
Heinz ; Ott Lothar (SPD, GEW) ; Özebistan Mehmet (Ver.di) ; Paternoga
Paul (SPD, IGM) ; Pingel Ulla (Ver.di -Vorstand
Berzisker-werblosenausschuß, Berlin) ; Prasuhn Volker (Ver.di -Vorstand
Berziskerwerblosenausschuß, Berlin)¸ Saalmüller Peter (Ver.di) ; Schöne
Volkmar (SPD, AfA-Landesvorstand Berlin, Ver.di-Bezirksvorstand) ;
Schubert Simon (SPD, Juso) ; Schwefing Günther (Ver.di) ; Sevecke
Regina (Ver.di) ; Sohr Ute ; Stoffel Stefan (Ver.di-VM) ; Timmermann
Olaf (SPD, Ver.di) ; Uhde Werner (Ver.di ; Internationale
Arbeitnehmerverbindung - IAV) ; Weismann Bernhard (AfA) ; Weisskirchen,
Margit GEW) ; Wernecke Herbert (Ver.di) ; Wernecke Monika (Ver.di-PR) ;
Zeller Inge (Ver.di) ; Zutz Axel (SPD, AfA-Landesvorstand Berlin, IG BAU).
Spain : section syndicale Commissions ouvrières (CCOO) de
l'entreprise John Deere Iberica SA, Madrid ; section syndicale CCOO de
l'hôpital de Valme, Séville ; section syndicale UGT de l'hôpital de
Valme, Séville ; section syndicale CCOO de l'hôpital Rocio, Séville.
France : Michèle Simonnin (secrétaire générale de la fédération
des personnels des services des départements et des régions CGT-FO) ;
Alain Mignet (secrétaire métaux FO Paris Nord Ouest) ; Donna Kesselman
(syndicaliste de l' enseignement supérieur, Paris X Nanterre) ; Odile
Mourre(syndicaliste action sociale) ; Michel Allain (syndicaliste FO équipement).;
Georges Vidal (élu CGT DP/CE) ; Dr Pierre Debat (syndicaliste) ; Daniel
Dutheil (syndicaliste hospitalier) ; Catherine Cochain (syndicaliste
hospitalière) ; Vincent Vilpasteur (syndicaliste) ; Jean-Claude Dezelée
(syndicaliste cheminot) ; Pierre Besse (syndicaliste CGT cheminot) ;
Frank Berrier (syndicaliste FO cheminot) ; Pierre Compain (syndicaliste
FO) ; Christian Lefèvre (membre du bureau CGT-SPDIT EDF-GDF Issy les
Moulineaux, CE de l'UL CGT Issy les Moulineaux) ; Sophie Suchard (élue
CDFD-FSU 92) ; Philippe Geoffre (syndicaliste CGT) ; Luc Benoit (syndicaliste
CGT impôts) ; Adjera Boubou (syndicaliste CGT Muséum Paris) ;
Christian Renard (syndicaliste CGT construction) ; Michel Guéguen (FO
Trésor) ; Jean Paul Gady (syndicaliste métallurgie) ; Noël Coudert (syndicaliste
Sécurité sociale) ; Luc Arrignon (représentant FO au CE Le Parisien)
; Line Roques-Téboul (sécrétaire FO du Lycée Murillo, membre du
bureau UL-FO Saint Denis).
Italy : Antonella Chieffa (delegata RSU CISL-Scuola, Magenta-Milano)
; Ugo Croce (redazione Tribuna Libera-Intesa Internazionale-Italia) ;
Gabriella Daniele (delegata RSA CGIL-Commercio, Torino) ; Rita Defeudis
(sindacalista CISL Magenta-Milano) ; Gianni Giglieri (delegato sindacale
UIL-Chimici, Torino) ; Guido Montanari (Prof. Università, Torino) ;
Michele Rejna, Maria Grazia Sala (insegnante CGIL, Milano) ; Lorenzo
Varaldo (membro direttivo UIL-Scuola, Torino).
Back to Home Back to
ILC Newsletter Index
|
Open World Conference of Workers