|
|
A dossier of weekly information published by the
On February 25 and 26, 200 delegates from 15 countries met in Berlin for a European Conference on the initiative of German activists and trade unionists and the ILC. These delegates summed up the effects of the policies developed by the European institutions over the past years: the dismantling of the industrial and agricultural bases of all European countries, the offensive against all the social gains, the destruction of the foundations of the sovereignty of nations. The delegates put forward the need to break with this policy and with the European institutions in order to advance on the route of the free union of peoples and free nations of Europe. Their first objective is to constitute in Europe a European Alliance of Workers and Peoples. One of the contributors summed up the proposal in his response to the debate: "We are not alone, isolated, country by country. This is not only a fight to get our own country out of the European Union. It is a fight to find a solution for all workers and peoples in Europe." The conference adopted a manifesto for the workers and peoples of Europe which we publish below. The conference also decided on the publication of a regular bulletin with the purpose of discussing these questions with total freedom. The first bulletin is dedicated to the Berlin conference. It is available through the European Alliance of Workers and Peoples. What has happened since the Berlin Conference? What initiatives and proposals have been made by the delegates? The third bulletin will transmit the information relating to these questions. The reform of federalism in Germany, regionalization in France, the attempt to dismember Belgium, the attempt to reform the Italian constitution destined to transfer the powers of the state to the regions, the reform of the state in Cataluña in Spain: clearly the time has come to question the existence of nations throughout Europe. But isn't it the European Union, after having organized the referendum in Montenegro, which establishes this policy of dislocation in order to dismantle all the gains and even divide the resistance movement of the workers and peoples in the framework of these nations? It should be pointed out that this offensive provokes the resistance against it in all countries, of activist workers and leaders, on all levels, who wish to preserve the independence of their organizations. In view of this, the Belgian delegates proposed that a delegation to the European institutions be organized in the fall: "We propose that the analysis we have made of the consequences (in Belgium) of the policy of the European Union be developed by all of us in each of our countries. We will then publish a common memorandum to denounce the reality of this policy throughout Europe. Based on this memorandum, in the next few months, we should organize a European delegation in order to present it to the European Commission in Brussels. We will demand: An answer to these facts. We propose to distribute these answers to all the labor organizations in Europe as a call to develop a common action in order to stop this policy." (See pages 9 and 10). The Spanish delegates have decided to respond positively to the proposal of the Belgian delegates. In the framework of the Liaison Committee constituted at the Berlin Conference -- on the process of destruction of the diplomas, organized by the European Union in Bologna -- it is proposed that the delegation to the European institutions include teachers and students who have prepared an accusatory letter regarding the consequences of the establishment of the Bologna process in Spain. (See page 11) The German delegates have also responded positively to the Belgian proposal. The Romanian delegates have already transmitted a memorandum regarding the consequences of privatization of the postal service in Romania. (See page 12) A Hungarian metallurgical trade unionist adds his opinion: "An unbearable increase in the prices for families of workers." (See page 13). We are also publishing a document of a delegation composed of trade unionists and Jean-Maurice Dehouse, vice president of the PS group in the European Parliament, which was received on July 11 by the leaders of the PS group in the House. (See pages 15 and 20) What do you think of this proposal? *************************
"No to the privatization of the postal service!" The Romanian postal service (CNPR) is one of the last organizations whose capital is held by the Romanian state. The CNPR employs 35,000 workers. After the 1989 revolution, when the government of Petre Roman took a capitalist line, the destruction of public companies began. Initially, with the excuse of making them profitable, their dismemberment lead to an artificial break of the links that existed between the different components of these organizations. Some of the components went bankrupt thanks to this break up. The division of the postal service took place in 1991, with the division of independent organizations such as Communications, Telephones, Radio communications and press services. Now the former telephone company has been 50% privatized as well as the public organization of press distribution. The postal service is about to be privatized as well as radio communications. Previously, Romanian postal service was organized as an Autonomous Public Service (RAPR) in accordance with Romanian law and was the property of the state. At the time of the Democratic Front for National Salvation (the party of Ion Iliescu) the government from 1992 through 1996, there were no changes. The new government which took power in 1997 decided to divide the postal service into various organizations, for no economic reason. Thus there are different commercial organizations for urban postal service, express postal service, printing of stamps, administration of postal buildings, information services, etc. The government's intention was to facilitate the total or partial privatization of postal services. In order to make them more financially attractive, workers' wage increases were frozen. At the same time ROMTELECOM, the most profitable service was privatized under debatable circumstances in 1997. In 2000, the new government (a social-democratic majority) tried to rebuild the postal service by reuniting the various services. But as a result of international pressure (European Union and IMF), the government gave way. 1) Sub-units were created on a regional level, even though there are
no 'regions' in Romania and the only sub-divisions are departments-'judete'. Although the organization was no longer an autonomous public service it is under observation by the IMF. The right-wing government of 2004 accelerated the march towards the privatization of the postal services. The new minister for communications and technologies announced as his first priority the privatization of the Romanian postal services as well as the sale of the state's remaining shares in ROMTELECOM-49%. In 2006 after studies by foreign entities with a view to privatization (generously remunerated) the first steps towards privatization have been made. Privatization includes the trade unions that will be the principal protagonists of this privatization. **************************
An unbearable increase in prices affects the workers' families! Report by a Hungarian metallurgy trade unionist (August 23, 2006) Last April, Ferenc Gyurcsany was re-elected prime minister. His campaign theme centered on the budget deficit. Before his election Gyurcsany had announced a public deficit of 4% and after the election he admitted it had tripled to 12%. The European Union in the name of the fight against 'excessive public spending' twice rejected the plan proposed by the government. Meanwhile trade union leaders started asking: Where is the money? And the demand was that it would be necessary to find the money to inject it into the state budget and get the Hungarian economy back on its feet. Instead the government has just decreed a general increase in prices. Gas has gone up 27%, electricity 14.4%. Basic foodstuffs such as bread, meat and pork products went up 10 to 15%, the price of transportation 10%. As for the VAT, that had been reduced to 10% from 25%, was again raised to 25% or more on certain products. Meanwhile the government has proposed that wages in both the private and public sectors should follow inflation, that had been calculated at 4%. Economists explained that the lost budgetary funds had been used to pay off the foreign debt. Another economist explained: "Without an important political change, the Hungarian people run the risk of dying from hunger." Gyurcsany's cabinet decides on budgetary matters, particularly in the distribution of European subsidies, completely supplanting the parliament. He conferred the responsibility for the European subsidies on the president of a large food processing company. His company had been liquidated in a few months, after exploiting thousands of small farmers from whom he had purchased their production and this former businessman, who had been declared innocent, is now responsible for the European subsidies. The increase in prices is unbearable for the workers' families. The majority of Hungarian wage earners earn a minimum wage of between 200 and 220,000 florins (720 to 790 euros). What will happen when everyone realizes the effect of these increases at the end of September? Students have already started to complain about the price of education. TV has reported on various workers' actions especially that of retirees who block highways in order to express their disapproval. Pensioners are more affected than those who work since their meager advantages have been removed. Gyurcsany's popularity has fallen 14 points. There is a change in the air: at our last trade union demonstration we were only 10 out of 150 workers at my factory. This time a young worker asked: "What are you doing? When do we take to the streets?" Although the old trade union-inherited from the Stalinist era and linked to Gyurcsany's government-has distanced itself from our last joint demonstrations, it seems that some demonstrations will be called for in October. Many are suggesting October 23, the 50th anniversary of the 1956 uprising. ***********************
Statemen of the delegation received on July 11, 2006 by the PS group of the House, represented by Thierry Giet (leader of the group), Stephane Verschuere (political secretary of the PS group) and an associate of the PS group. The delegation carried 400 signatures in a letter to the PS group in the House with respect to the 'Pact of Generations.' Members of the delegation were: Jean-Maurice Dehousse, former vice president of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (Liege). Yves Eeckman, SETCa activist (Brussels) Roberto Giarrocco, CGSP delegate (Verviers) Philip Larsimont, former SETCa delegate (Liege) Antoine Ruggieri, former 'permanent' of the FGTB Cockerill (Liege) Paul Wattiez, SETCa activist The delegation was backed by the FGTB regions of Liege-Huy-Waremme and Namur, including presidents and secretaries, Marc Goblet, Thierry Bodson, Jean-Maire Flamey and Guy Fays had excused themselves due to the holiday period. Henri Jean Ruttiens, secretary of the SETCa industries of Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde also excused himself. Antoinie Ruggieri, handed the letter to Thierry Giet. He thanked the speakers for receiving them, indicating the importance of this meeting before the end of the political year and apologized for those unable to attend. He informed that the delegation had the support of Goblet and Bodson and introduced the members of the delegation. Since the general strikes and demonstrations against the Pact of Generations the workers had indicated they were fed up with social regression. The Pact of Generations was the straw that broke the camel's back. The workers and those receiving social subsidies want to know where was the decision they expected from the PS, as in the area of social security. All the FGTB federations are dismayed by the incredible gifts to the bosses on contributions to the ONSS while no new jobs are created. There is also an increased concern regarding social subsidies. In this context, the Pact of Generations is totally unacceptable. Roberto Giarrocco recalled that the petition of the PS group was motivated by two elements: firstly he wanted to establish that the answer of the group to the letter promoted by the FGTB Liege-Huy-Waremme was incorrect in saying that the negative effect of the Pact of Generations had been slightly reduced. The letter establishes the mandate given to the PS. He mentions Vandermeeren declaration on October 7, 2005 in which he says that democracy is listening to the people that are in the streets saying no. The mandate of the PS congressmen is to respect the interests of the workers and those on social subsidies. Undoubtedly the Pact of Generations is the application of the Lisbon strategy, the National Reform Plan is proof positive of that. Question: Should the socialist congressmen obey the orders of the European Union's institutions or should they respect the mandate given them by the voters? This is an important question and deserves an answer. Thierry Giet said that all the socialist leaders on all levels are not insensitive to the demonstrations and have maintained some contacts with trade unions in order to discuss possible political solutions. They also had contact with the SP.A. Up to the very day the Pact was voted on they maintained contact with Vadermeeren. But the three amendments obtained at the last minute indicate we have done everything possible to improve the text. While the mandate does exist, there is a governmental coalition and political conditions that do not allow all the political latitudes possible even if they are disagreeable. Verschuere indicated that the opposition parties had abstained or voted against, which surprised us since they were in agreement with the basic objectives of the Pact of Generations. In their letter they criticize the manner of the re-financing of social security (500 million from the treasury and 500 million in reductions of social contributions). The PS has compromised in relation to the structural and coherent financing of social security especially in regard to taxes on capital. Although the reduction in contributions is questionable it is not less productive due to its effect on employment. It will be necessary to analyze their impact by an economic simulation of the past four years and the next four years. A member of the PS group said the new financing system should have integrated health care into the Pact of Generations. Verschuere: in relation to Europe you have situated the debate on a level that justifies criticism. We do not control Europe. There are many positive aspects in the Pact in regard to social security. Dehousse says the delegation came to start a dialogue. What we think of the Pact appears in our letter. The refinancing of social security arose only because of the reduction in contributions to the ONSS, which has been in effect for 20 years. What has happened with employment in the past 20 years? Verschuere: the reduction in contributions does not create jobs but avoids losses in employment. Dehousse sites Goblet when he says the Pact of Generations is contrary to the mandate given the PS. So the world is not easily controllable but is increasingly dangerous. Decisions taken are beyond our control. It is incredible to see the large sums invested in automobile production in Eastern Europe when we know the markets are saturated. You could say the automobile sector is in Flanders and the sub-contractors are in Valonia. Closures are planned. The ACGS is a two-headed agreement that refers to the liberalization of 160 types of services including education, health care, etc. The decisions taken in this framework will legally override national laws. Are congressmen not informed nor do they have political control? Is it normal for the French government to be denounced because it has not submitted a petition at the request of the private sector its program of formation of members of National defense? This shows the grave threat to the weakening of public power. It is necessary that the PS and the FGTB exert a common defense of the workers' interests. Larsimont indicated that there have been discussions between the FGTB and the PS on the Pact, but the trade unionists are upset at the result of the vote. At the Namur meeting it should have been the FGTB that explained what the Pact was to the congressmen. A member of the PS group indicated that the meeting had been held hurriedly and they were not prepared to give any answers. Larsimont: The question is are the socialist parties allied with the FGTB. Goblet asked us to inform you: 1. We await a clear decision from the PS in regard to the freedom of
negotiation relative to the debates to be held on a federal level with
reference to market competition, buying power, the relation of social
security of well being, reduction in social contributions, the treasury,
public service, employment and formation. The government should not
present proposals on matters already included in the social pact. Otherwise
the bosses will be taking a back seat and impede an inter-professional
agreement. It should measure the risk of a break with social peace.
We will verify on what side the PS is on in relation to the workers'
expectations. I hope it will not make the same mistake it did with the
Pact of Generations. Verschuere and Giet ask to clear up the question of the negotiation on the AIP (inter professional agreement) and the application of the Pact. It is clear: they want to be paid twice. Larsimont says there is another important challenge: Next year everything indicates that the maintenance of the character of federal social security, collective bargaining and labor legislation, everything that is essential for our social model, will be placed in the center. If they regionalize these matters it will be the end of our social model. The trade unions generally admit that regionalization of social security leads to privatization. Giet: We feel impotent. The leaders have been robbed of their political power. Our work consists in transcribing the directives of the European Commission. How can we reinforce the social movements in order to act on a European level? Verschuere says the PS has not been up to date in measuring the dangers of what is at stake even though it was one of the first to oppose the Bolkenstein directive which will promote the liberalization of the social sector. In October 2005 after the French and Dutch NO, each political group in the chamber was asked to present its positions. The PS presented a critical document that pointed out the political resignation, market deregulation, democratic deficit, absence of political control on the European Commission, etc. The PS group again pointed out what is at stake on the European level. There is only a commission that does not work effectively and is swamped by texts. The PS will propose a modification of the Chamber's rules resulting in an annual debate in the chamber for two or three weeks. This should force a debate, transparency and adoption of positions. Dehousse said there is no serious debate on the European Constitutional Treaty while the PS had agreed to carry it. Some multinationals sponsor the debates of the AGCS openly to the tune of 200,000 euros in subsidies. Verschuere: Our impotence is real but we don't have to give up. The PS proposal is not revolutionary but it is a step forward. The debates between the parties are tough. The social movement that has radicalized the positions has been beneficial. Without this radicalization we would have had to accept the declarations of the QUADEN on competitivity. As to social security it is clear that the reduction in contributions was a fallacy that made it appear as a deferred wage code to one of charges on the company (at the petition of the European Union.) Larsimont: There have been strikes. The Pact was approved. If the PS is not our ally what should we do? Could the PS say NO? We don't think everything is lost. We must promote a crisis and measure its consequences. Eeckman informs that the debates in the SETCA/BBTK have been serious on the question of maintaining the widening of the reductions on contributions to the ONSS, the source of the deficit on social security. The activists, the delegates and the trade union leaders in the SETCA/BBTK are discussing reining in these reductions. Giarrocco returns to the debate on the maintenance of federal unity of social security and collective bargaining. The fundamental part of the social gains have been maintained on the federal level. Is the communitarian strategy sufficient to maintain the federal character of workers' rights or should one depend on a common strategy of the PS with the federal FGTB which has just reaffirmed these positions at its last congress. If we launch into a battle of communities against communities we run the risk of loosing the Flemish workers affiliated to the FGTB, which would make our debate stronger. Verschuere says the SP.A has tabled the matter of regionalization of social matters for 2007. He is opposed to the project of Civil Service of Collective Utility in the national defense. Dehousse says as regards the weight of the Flemish majority, the francophone congressmen can sound the alarm. Larsimont said the FGTB is firmly opposed to the regionalization of social security and other social gains. He points out that the FGTB position has obliged the CSC to abandon its position on regionalization of complimentary subsidies (health care assistance and family subsidies). The tension between the FGTB and the PS is great because of the PS position regarding the Pact of Generations. Wattiez informs that at a recent federal congress of the FGTB/ABVV they have indicated their support to maintain a federal and united FGTB. A united FGTB must continue to be federal for the defense of social gains as in the case of social security. The new leaders have indicated they are ready to defend this inheritance. A serious point of support for socialist congressmen. Due to its position on the Pact of Generations, the PS has questioned the historic link that exists between the party and the trade union. The workers have expressed their disagreement on the position of the PS on more general questions such as the policy on employment and the Pact of Generations. Verschuere says there is a need to re-establish the links with the FGTB. The PS has established links with the SP.A on questions such as trade union representation in the PYME. It is important to establish a relationship with the FGTB on social subsidies and the minimum wage. Giarrocco: Concerning the minimum wage-contrary to France, the minimum wage is negotiated by sectors since it is linked to collective bargaining. Larsimont: There is a distancing between the socialist parties and the FGTB. It is necessary to work together in order to project a true defense of the workers' interests as regards the dangers on the federal social rights. Giet says we are on the same track for 2007, since the PS is clear on the federal chacter of social security. There is still much to decide on political positions. The PS is aware and is still pondering its ideas. It will pay attention to the signers of the letter and agrees to inform all members of the PS group on the debate with the delegation. Verschuere warns of the dangers of future European directives on the l liberalization of the water market, social services or the positions in Europe on social security financing via the public deficit linked to a reduction in taxes. He considers the FGTB must continue to debate these questions, especially the non-mercantile SETCA. Eeckman says that in the SETC/BBTK the workers are not concerned in knowing under what code the employer deduction to the ONSS are registered. But they will defend the principle of federal financing of social security. Whether they are francophone or not they realize that the regionalization of social security represents a real danger to its privatization. Ruggiere closes the meeting, thanking the representatives of the PS group and especially their leader, Giet, for having received the delegation. The delegation received a copy of the PS group's text on Europe that was the basis of Verschuere's discussion. Yves Eeckman and Roberto Giarrocco.
|
Open World Conference of Workers