|
|
A dossier of weekly information published by the International
INTRODUCTION: This week we continue to publish the speeches of the 13th Conference in Defense of the ILO Conventions and Trade Union Independence, organized by the ILC, that was held in Geneva on Sunday, June 11: - Jean-Pierre Page (France) on the subject of the "new governance", the creation of the new "new trade union international" (resulting from the fusion of the ICFTU and the WCL), of the reform of the ILO: "Therefore I think we need to look at the functioning of ILO not only lucidly but combatively since without this we will see a qualitative jump in which the ILO plans to participate by not only serving as an instrument such as the United Nations united to the capitalist and imperialist world policy, but to become its active promoter." - Patrick Hébert (trade unionist, France): "The ETUC has long demanded and practiced this form of governance up to the point that it is co-author of the European directives." - In Germany on Friday, June 30, the Budenstag approved the first element of "the reform of federalism": "The consequences will be immediate; the dispositions will be applicable as of January 2007. Each Lander will henceforth be directly responsible for the application of the stability pact dictated by the European Union. "This is a reform qualified by Merkel as the ´mother of all reforms,´ which should substitute ´market federalism´ for the ´solidarity federalism´ established after the war on the basis of respect for a principle of financial equality between the Lander, guaranteeing equality of social rights throughout the federal republic and based on the existence of united collective bargaining in all public services." - We also publish the letter from Germany, the consequence of this reform (edited by the DGB trade union federation); it completes the text of The Times (published in the ILC Newsletter No. 187) which demonstrates the determination of the European Union to destroy nations. - Spanish students and teachers reply to the Belgian delegates on the subject of the consequences of the application of the "Bologna process." - From the Caribbean, a declaration of the UGTG in regard to the Caribbean Social Forum. - From Pakistan a report on the vote on the amendment to the "Factory Act" (a law regulating labor relations in private sector factories). Subscribe to the ILC International Newsletter! ******************** TABLE OF CONTENTS: Pg. 1.: Introduction ***************************
Jean-Pierre Page (France) Good-day. I want to make four remarks. 1.Firstly, I think we cannot think about the questions on world governance, of the ILO, of the new international trade union that the ICFTU and the WCL want to create, without thinking carefully about the deepening of the crisis of the capitalist system. We must think about the rise in resistances, the class struggle on an international scale, the future of civilization confronted by the savage will of the capitalism and imperialism to impose domination in all domains in the most brutal fashion possible because for them there is no other alternative than to increase and worsen the exploitation of workers, peoples and nations everywhere. In consequence what we are seeing with the reform of the structure of international institutions, that of the United Nations, and their manifestation on the trade union level, whether it is in the life and activity of national or international organizations, everything is marked by the stamp of a coherent offensive inspired by the very nature and logic of globalization. Let us be clear that this globalization is none other than what Lenin explained in his famous opus: "imperialism" is nothing more than the highest stage of the development of capitalism. 2. This radically new situation between socialism and barbarism shows that the trade union movement is confronted by totally new responsibilities, considerable stakes, and to the extent that it is not prepared for this, its action, its proposals, any perspective of alternatives is handicapped. It is a fundamental question: the role and the place of workers in the process of transformation. This is so because trade unionism as well as the political parties emerging from the labor movement are confronted with a deep crisis of efficiency, credibility, representativity and in particular with regard to the labor world but also in regard to the youth and all the sectors commonly labelled part-time, flexible, precarious, without status, without conventions, without rights, unemployed, etc., where the trade union movement is practically absent. For example, we have spoken about the CGT which is the main trade union in France, but it is based on 65% of members in the public service and nationalized sectors. This is a reality. In fact those masses of workers today in industrialized countries or countries in development completely are completely outside the trade union movement and its intervention. It is a problem, a considerable challenge that we must face – lest we continue to weaken. 3. Much was made of this state in the introductory report of the ILO and its defense. I am in agreement. At the same time, we cannot take shelter in innocence and naivety. The ILO is an institution that has played an important role in the creation of norms, conventions, etc., important for the workers but at the same time we know the limits especially those that do not only concern the ratification but the application of these norms and conventions. We cannot emphasize enough the fact that the U.S. remains the state which has least ratified and refuses to apply these. In a more general fashion, what goes for the ILO goes for the United Nations system. The ILO is the reflection of the balance of forces. What is clear is that today it is going elsewhere, something else beyond simple instrumentalization but towards a system that actively participates in global governance. These choices and orientations are a break with past norms, a functioning considered by the dominant imperialist system an anachronism which radically turns its back on the interests of the workers and trade union organizations. We speak of the tripartite system and its defense. But what is the tripartite system system today? It is a system that pits two against one. We should not pretty-up things! As regards the functioning of the ILO one must have the courage to say that one is confronted after dozens of years by the hegemony of an international organization named ICFTU that thanks to its reactionary role and the weight it carries, prevents the functioning of the organization any real representation as well as any real intervention by the workers, the trade unions of the world in the different structures of the ILO. Evidently the wealthy countries in the first place, the United States of America and the European countries, the bosses, encourage this situation, but it has now reached its limits. The ICFTU is incapable of confronting this new situation because it must choose between committing suicide or flee from governance which is the goal given to this new international. The system no longer responds to what one expected of it. So one must change it with the vision described in the famous report on "the social consequences of globalization" prepared by a group of experts that brought together trade unions, NGOs, multinationals, international financial institutions, etc. One more thing: the ILO is the promoter of a certain number of objectives shared by an important part of the international trade union movement, especially the ICFTU, but also by states not the least important of which is the United States of America and the European countries. For example, we have the idea of a partnership between the ILO and the WTO which Clinton came to Geneva to promote. Today it is an objective taken up by the international trade union movement especially by the ICFTU. It is this partnership between the ILO and the WTO that aims to determine the social progress in the function of the evolution of international commerce which is evidently one of the elements to set up with the new governance. Therefore I think we need to look at the functioning of ILO not only lucidly but combatively since without this we will see a qualitative jump in which the ILO plans to participate by not only serving as an instrument such as the United Nations united to the capitalist and imperialist world policy, but to become its active promoter. The reform proposed by Kofi Annan means just that. 4. A few words on the new international trade union. I share your thoughts in this report. It is important and there is a battle to be fought in each of our organizations and also a debate to be held on an international level.. While one participates in congresses around the world or in one's own country, one can realize one's ignorance of the real objectives of this organization. I think we should situate them in regard to the conditions of the crisis in trade unionism, its reconstruction and the objectives of capital. There is a large margin between intentions and realization. There must be an effective will on the part of the ICFTU and the WCL, and even if it has not been mentioned, on the part of the ETUC. We must not forget that the project of a new international federation is fundamentally a European project of trade unions from wealthy countries. Gabaglio is one of the initiators. He is the former secretary general of the ETUC. They have not reached their objective because, first of all, because they are in conflict with an idea that we must embrace. Everyone is in agreement with the need for trade union unity. But do we fight for trade union unity for struggle, to develop solidarity or to become a partner in the governance? But why become the third among organizations that should participate in this type of debate? It is totally unsupportable, but it is the choice of the ETUC/WCL. There is also a third international organization called FSM which held its congress in Havana with 250 national organizations from 78 countries, and is today an undisputed force. There was the question of the CUT in Brazil. The second tendency within the CUT representing 20% of its forces has joined the FSM although the CUT is associated with the ICFTU. It think it is very important that a majority of federations throughout the world that are not affiliated internationally are excluded from the debate. I think this is unacceptable. I think the problem of trade union unity is a real problem. It is true that there is an urgent need for the workers and trade unions of the world to unite to fight capitalist globalization. But this project does not provide an answer. It responds to totally opposed objectives including the federations that were asked to participate in the debate. If what has been said of the CGT is correct, it should be clear that it refers to the leadership of the CGT. Last year during the debate on the European Constitution, the leadership of the CGT and the ETUC, B. Thibault, were in the minority by 83% of the members of the CCN that rejected the European Constitution. I don't know if the same thing will happen with the new international federation, but it is true that many people are concerned to see these things brought up again, since everything is done by the leaders of the CGT trade unions in order to avoid a real debate. Sometimes we abuse the leaders of the trade unions, since this project is not a formula including in the ICFTU. Most of those that have been approached to become affiliated have declined the proposal. What is needed is a great debate on the contents of international trade unionism. Considering the failure of European trade unionism in regard to economic and social policies, to be inspired by this vision, these principles of organization that they want to implement in this new international federation could provoke new disappointments and perhaps even bring about the end of trade unionism. ----- Patrick Hébert (France) I am a member of the CGT-FO, an organization arising from the split of the CGT in France. We have held this type of meetings for the past 13 years and we note how the offensive, on an international scale, to implement deregulation and privatizations has developed with a certain coherence. We discuss this every year, with variations but always on the same track. When we say "defense of the ILO Conventions and trade union independence"—trade union independence being a means to defend the workers' interests—this does not mean that we considered that the ILO conventions were perfect, that it was de facto that it regulated the group of problems of the labor movement on an international scale. When a national plan, in a professional sector after a fight, we negotiate and eventually sign a collective convention, we know that it is an agreement, a point of support to go a step further in the defense of workers' interests. The question that has been asked is not to know if what exists is perfect, satisfying and that it would be best to give up the fight in order to obtain more. The question asked is why the governments want to cast doubt on what exists in order to destroy all the conquests of the workers on an international scale in each of our countries. I think this offensive carried on to reduce all of our conquests to nothing, we believe the central question is "the new governance" rather than the integration of trade unions on an international scale. The comrade that preceded me, recalled the role of the ETUC in this area. I recall that originally the ETUC was called the CESL (the L stood for liberty). The CISL (ICFTU) also had the same L and I note a simple coincidence in both cases, at the time when we reform the European structure several years ago and now internationally, it has resulted in the suppression of the L of liberty. Perhaps this is a mere coincidence but a troubling one. What characterizes the CES (ETUC) is that in loosing its L it was transformed into something other that a trade union federation because the ETUC demands and has long been practicing this form of governance considering it is the co-author of the European directives. At this stage they are not directives since the constitutional treaty was beaten or at least not applied as yet but we can imagine if tomorrow Europe adopted the constitution that some want, these would not be directives, they would be laws. We know these directives have practically the force of law since in France, 80% of parliamentary work is the simple transcription into French right of the European directives. In France, 80% of the legislative work of the deputies consists in translating into French law the European directives and the ETUC participates directly in the authorship of these directives and from this point of view it can be considered as a legislator of the European plant. So the ETUC positions itself not as a trade union in the European plan, but as a governor or at any rate a legislator. According to Montesquieu, there is a distinction between executive and legislative. But on the level of the European Union we no longer see the distinction because even this elementary democratic conquest which is the separation of powers between legislative, executive and judiciary does not exist. It is one commission that acts as a legislative and an executive power. The ETUC has a long experience in co-legislation. In our meetings we have fought the national plan. I have the impression following the introductory report that the way things are going in the international plan with this new federation, the will to participate in world governance, strangely resembles what we have already experienced in Europe. This fierce will on an international level, on the level of Europe and each one of our countries, to implicate and integrate the trade unions into the national plan, or a company plan is also the expression of a resistance by the working class. If there wasn't this resistance, it would not be necessary to integrate the trade unions into their plan. This resistance was expressed in particular in France in different ways over the last few years as in the victory of the NO to the referendum a year ago on May 29. Despite all the official political forces that called for a YES vote, the French people, especially the working class, showed that 84% of workers voted NO and 60% of employees and youth voted NO. There is a rejection to this policy that is expressed to the referendum plan when the occasion arises, but more globally by trade union action and this translates in a spectacular manner on the occasion of the battle for the withdrawal of the CPE. I would say this spectacular fight is just the most manifest face of the daily fight. There are no daily great battles like those against the CPE , but every day in France in companies in diverse forms, there is resistance, strikes and sometimes we win and sometimes we don't but this trade union movement exists and even if it is not as strong as we would wish, because we are all trade unionists, it exists. We were able to thwart the French government regarding a European project. The CPE, the excessive flexibility, labor casualization are not a French project, but rather a European one. And the fact that we were able to thwart it is a victory and a point of leverage in France as well as in Europe and on an international scale, which proves we can win. Because of the weakness of the trade union movement we have to revitalize it. We have not won everything, we have taken blows and had setbacks, but there is a reality which is resistance. That is why they want to neutralize trade unions on an international scale, a European scale and a national scale. In France, this takes the form of two reports that were issued to which comrade Sandri refers to in his speech. I think I can say that since the birth of the trade union movement, that is, since the bosses and the governments were obliged to concede the right of workers to freely organize, they immediately sought a solution so that the trade unions would not be totally independent. I compare it to a social conquest; in order to gain something, a collective convention, etc., you have to fight, to go on strike and when you win you sign, but once you have signed it is not won until it has been applied. Our trade union independence is similar-- we have conquered it but now we have to fight every day to keep it. Because, every day, under various forms, they attempt to make us something else rather than independent trade unionists. This has taken important forms in France. In 1969, General de Gaulle had proposed a reform to the constitution that pretended to make trade unionists into senators. Already they wanted to transform us into legislators. Today we see the same project under a more subtle form proposed by Chertier. The reporter remembered that the merit of the North Americans was their frankness. They called a cat a cat. Chertier proposes to make us co-legislators because he wants to remove from parliament the right of legislate on all social matters and give the social partners, that is to say the trade unions and the bosses, the right to create laws in agreement. Concretely this means, at least in regard to the social domain, that the deputies would strip themselves of the essential democratic prerogative, that is to legislate for the benefit of trade unions, who would suddenly become legislators. So, being legislators, they would not only make laws but logically, they would be mandated with implementing them regardless of the consequences. Consequently, from an organization defending the rights of wage workers we would become an organization charged with defending the law. But a law is not only a law for employees. We know that in a society such as ours, a capitalist society, the interests are contradictory and that one law that could eventually correspond to the general interest, is not necessarily a good law for the particular interests of employees. In the case of a certain concept of democracy and not only the separation of powers but of functions, it would seem absolutely necessary to allow an independent trade union organization to defend the specific interests of the working class, even if these can momentarily appear contradictory to the general interest. We are faced with a second report named Hadas-Lebel who which takes this logic to its natural conclusion because it proposes to somehow finance the trade unions directly through the state. There, everyone would become a trade unionist, and one presidential candidate. Segolene Royal, recently proposed "obligatory trade unionism in France." We heard of this during the war at the time of Pétain. Thus the Hadas-Lebel report means that the trade unions would be directly financed by the state and there would no longer be a need to become a trade unionist and therefore our ‘power' would not come from employees who become trade unionists freely and who give a mandate, but it would come from the state who would finance us and we would become a force charged with having laws respected that were decided together by the state and the trade unions. Of course this is only a project but we must not underestimate the dangers. We heard what the German comrade said, all this is inscribed in a totally European project in conformity with the ETUC and in conformity with what they want us to do on a national and international plan. In each country, even in the federations that would not join this international federation one must find the way to implicate them and integrate them in the state plan. *****************************
After the vote on the "reform of federalism" in parliament In Germany, as in Belgium, France, Spain and in the Balkans, we see the policy of the European Union aimed at the dislocation of nations, in order to dislocate the working classes and their conquests. On Friday, June 30 the Budenstag voted on the first stage of the "reform of federalism" presented by Angela Merkel as the "fundamental reform of the government of the grand coalition." After a suspenseful week, the forces of the government of the "grand coalition" were finally successful in gathering the necessary 410 minimum number of deputies in order to undermine the 1949 fundamental law. Among the 60 deputies of the SPD who had indicated their intention to vote against it, thus expressing the sentiments of the majority of the SPD base and the trade unionists, only 15 finally held to that position. This, despite the incredible pressures exercised against them. Let us remember that the DGB trade union federation had, several months ago, declared that it was opposed to the dismemberment of Germany. Each Lander must apply the "stability pact" of the European Union. On July 2, Angel Merkel commented: "The switches are now correctly set for the change." Is this so certain? The consequences are immediate; the dispositions are applicable as of January 1, 2007. Each Lander will therefore be directly responsible for the application of the stability pact dictated by the European Union. The vote had barely taken place when a series of conflicts ensued (1). Ulrich Goll, Minister of Justice CDU of the Land of Bade-Wurtemberg, demanded the right to immediately use the new powers of the Lander in criminal matters. Rudolph Bohmler, his colleague at the CDU at the Stuttgart chancellery, was indignant at the federal government's intention to prevent the lengthening the retirement age to 67 in the Land of Bade-Wurtemberg. ERdsiek Rave, SPD, Minister of Education in the Land of Schleswig-Holstein denounced that the immediate consequences of the "reform" would be the competition between the Lander to get rid of "cheaper teachers." (1) Excerpt from <www.lycos.de/nachrichten/deautschland/show_story -------------------- Public servants, doctors and students strike against the "reform of federalism" One of the major factors of the conflict will no doubt be concentrated on the right applicable in the Lander and the communes. Let us recall: for over three months, in Lander after Lander, all public services in the country were paralyzed by the strike. The workers fought against the intention of public employers to lengthen the hours of work, suppress the bonuses registered in the collective bargaining conventions and to impose the individualization of wages. Then the doctors joined the strike, 25,000 of them twice demonstrating in the streets against the reform to the health services programmed by the government of the "grand coalition." The same occurred in the universities, where the students demonstrated last week, 8,000 of them in Hamburg, and 10,000 in Wiesbaden against the increase leveraged on enrollment, the start of privatization (in the framework of the "reform of federalism"). In all sectors, the demonstrations, nourished by the attacks started under Schroeder and now exacerbated by the government of the "grand coalition" converged in a strike against "the reform of federalism." "The mother of all reforms" (Angela Merkel) A reform qualified by Merkel as "the mother of all reforms" which would substitute"market federalism" with "solidarity federalism" established after the war on the basis of respect for a principle of financial equality between the Lander, guaranteeing the equality of social rights throughout the federal republic and founded on the existence of a collective convention unique to all public services. It is the entire social state that is threatened with explosion. It is in this framework that the government of the "grand coalition" wants to push through the reform of the labor market and the reform of health services. How will this be possible? In virtue of this law, it will be impossible for the federal state to assume responsibilities of a national state without regard to the Lander saddling them financially in areas such as education. How is it possible that labor regulations will be different in each Lander? Is it possible that the Eastern Lander will be simply abandoned seven years after reunification, as Deputy Steppuhner suggested? Is it possible at the time when the government is preparing a dramatic reform of health care, that each Land accelerates the privatization and the destruction of hospitals? Won't the demands of justice and democracy , before each concrete consequence of this reform, pose the question of organizing a fight to regain the social state founded on the principles of "solidarity federalism" established by the fundamental law of 1949? ***********************
Spanish University students and teachers' reply to the Belgian delegates A group of teachers and professors bearing a letter addressed to Prime Minister Zapatero, with 500 first signatories, against the application of the Bologna process (1) visited the presidency of the Spanish government. The letter stated: "We see in this process a choice of privatization of higher education and the subordination of several educational disciplines and the search for profitable criteria more proper to companies." Last February, after an international conference in Berlin, a European liaison committee was constituted: -to defend and reconquer the university and public research against privatization-destruction; -to defend and reconquer the diplomas tied to collective conventions won by the workers; -for the abrogation of laws that permit the application of the European space in higher education, to break with the Bologna process and with the reports, memorandums and recommendations of the European Union. Following this, on April 25, the Philosophy Department of the University of Alcalá de Henares organized a meeting to present this liaison committee, with speeches by Carlos Fernández Liria, professor of this faculty and professor Michel Eliard from the University of Toulouse. After this meeting it was proposed to constitute a delegation to address the government to desist from applying the Bologna plan and to place a term on all applications and consequently, abrogate the organic law of universities (LOU) and its application decrees. In the Spanish state, the LOU was the first law opening the way to the demands of the European Union in view of the creation of the European higher education space (EEES). This law has been fought by workers, students and personnel of public universities throughout the state because of its effect of privatization and submission to the dictates of the employers' union. We note that what is called harmonization is in reality a project for the harmonization of the privatization-destruction process of public universities in Europe and not an increase of rights on a European scale, that would suppose a legal recognition of the diplomas of each state and not their flexibilization and their adaptation to the needs of companies in a regional framework, as is proposed in the reform project of the LOU. Last year over 2,600 professors and research personnel of the public university went on record (2) against the steps imposed by the European Union, calling attention to the dangers that the supposed "harmonization" entailed. ----- Reply to the Belgian comrades Prior to presenting their signatures, the delegation met at the faculty of philosophy of the central university in Madrid. On the same day, the Spanish government had adopted the decrees for the application of the organic law for universities by the council of ministers. After the meeting, the following was decided: "After noting the proposal of the Belgian comrades to organize a delegation to the European Commission and to prepare a memorandum, we reply affirmatively and we propose that this European delegation to Brussels be integrated by teachers, students and trade unionists of the university, who can prepare their own accusatory act in regard to the Bologna process, and their demand to be received. We are convinced that in each country, the organizations of the worker and democratic movement, the intellectuals of each one of our countries cannot accept this plundering, as demonstrated today by the united strike of Greek students and teachers." (1) Bologna process: name of a plan for privatization-destruction of
diplomas and universities set up by the European Union (known in France
as the LMD) ********************
Caribbean Social Forum and the Mystification of Social Struggles Excerpts from a letter from the General Union of Workers of Guadeloupe (UGTG) to the trade unions of the Caribbean (June 9, 2006) Presentation: What is the relevance of the Amiens Charter, which was adopted by the French CGT trade union federation exactly 100 years ago -- in 1906 -- and which affirmed front and center that "the new federation is rooted in the recognition of class struggle, which counterposes in the economic plane the workers in revolt against all forms of exploitation and oppression, morally and politically, that are implemented by the capitalist class against the working class"? At a moment when the trade unions that were built by the working class are being invited to dissolve into the so-called "civil society" as NGOs -- and at a time when the very existence of the ILO is in question -- we are publishing large excerpts from a declaration by the General Union of Workers of Guadeloupe (UGTG), the main union federation on the island, in which the union leaders explain why they will not be participating in the Caribbean Social forum, which took place on July 5-9, 2006 in Martinique. --- Dear comrade, A Caribbean Social Forum (CSF) is due to meet in Martinique at the beginning of July. This is quite trendy; social forums are sprouting everywhere over the globe. A festival of discussion, debates and articulation of proposals by "social actors" (NGOs, trade unions, associations and so on). This is the picture we are presented. ... International Capitalism supports the social forums. In January 2001, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) sent an observer to Porto Alegre. At that time, on France 2 [a French TV channel] the former CEO of Vivendi Universal declared: "Porto Alegre is a true phenomenon (...) It is a way of encouraging and setting up a social dialogue between enterprises and the representatives of civil society, of trade unions, and of organisations such as NGOs (....) Besides, I totally embrace such dialogue." However, workers and peoples across the world are daily victimised by massive layoffs, dismantling of public services, threats to social gains, repression against trade unions, termination of labour laws and collective agreements. Faced with such barbarism, Workers and Peoples are holding their ground and organising otherwise in the framework of trade unions structures, independent from any political, economic or financial power. Social forums have therefore been conjured up as barriers to try and contain this discontent. ... Left-wing as well as right-wing ministers participate. They are financed by governments of every stripe, by the institutions of capital, by multinationals, especially through NGOs. ... Hence, the Caribbean Social Forum had an initial 5 million Euros budget funded thus: 1/3 by the French government; These last months, workshops and other such gatherings on a new social dialogue have shot up, pushed by the bosses and the State. Their goal: to co-opt trade unions into the process of terminating the social gains in the name of the sacrosanct globalisation of economy. The European Union and the Ministry of Overseas Departments and Territories are funding Forums on social dialogue, which are the forerunners of social forums. The only purpose of these forums is to silence workers and their trade unions. ... The European Institutions, the French State and the Economic and Social Council have selected Martinique as a laboratory-cum-shop-window for "institutionalised social dialogue"in the Caribbean, heavily subsidised by the State and by Europe. ... The UGTG reaffirms that when one chooses to stop fighting for the rights and guarantees of the large masses, one also chooses to give up the independence of trade unions, it means choosing to defend capitalist interests. So those who claim that only social peace and the labour-capital-state pact could alleviate the social regression imposed by capital are deceiving themselves as well as Workers and Peoples. This is the path leading to capitulation and shameful compromise, since, how can one claim to defend workers and fail to oppose the lay-offs and all the brutalities they are the victims of? The UGTG claims that, in Guadeloupe as well as in every country in the world, resisting and organising to defend independent trade unionism that continues to act in defence of the class interests of the working class is an absolute necessity to fight capitalist and colonialist barbarism. For all those reasons, the UGTG will not attend the Forum in Martinique. Dear comrade, we are sending our union greetings. On behalf of the Trade Union Council The General Secretary ********************
The National Assembly of Pakistan just recently voted amendments to the Factories Act, a law that regulates labor relation in the private sector factories. The amendments increase the working day from 8 to 10 hours for women, and from 10 to 12 hours for men. In light of this decision, the All Pakistan Trade Union Federation called its emergency meeting in which it was decided to start a "Campaign" for the removal of this amendment and to hold a Protest Rally in Lahore on June 22, 2006 against 12 hours working day. APTUF demonstrated outside Lahore Press Club to oppose increase in working hours of 12 hours a day which violate ILO Conventions. Hundreds of workers including women joined the rally, displayed banners and placards written slogans against the decision and called for its cancellation. Workers chanted slogans against the policy makers. Heavy contingent of police stop the workers to move on the city roads. Violation of ILO Conventions Gulzar Ahmed Chaudhary, General Secretary APTUF, Rubina Jamil, Chairperson, Aima Mahmood, Secretary WWO, Shabbir Ahmed, President, Capital Industries (Pvt) Ltd. Muhammad Ilyas, Nisar Art Press, Nasir Chaudhary expressed their great concern and demanded to the government to immediate abolish this anti workers amendment, this act of government shows that government is totally in the favor of employers, the amendment is clear violation of ILO Convention, speakers emphasis to repeal of Industrial Relation Ordinance 2002 and curtails the right to form trade union, collective bargaining, right to speak and right to strike. -- Correspondent
|
Open World Conference of Workers