|
|
A dossier of weekly information published by the October 10, 2006 Number 204
SPECIAL DOUBLE EDITION For a European Workers Liaison Committee European Bulletin No. 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pg 2: Introduction. Common memorandum for a delegation to the European
Union, act of accusation against the policy of the European Union ********************
On February 25 and 26, 2005, more than 200 delegates from 15 countries met in Berlin for a European conference at the initiative of activists and German trade unionists and the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples. Starting with the facts, the delegates established a balance sheet of the consequences of the policy of the European Union over the years: dismantling of the social gains and public services, destruction of the industrial and agricultural base and the overthrow of the sovereignty and the very existence of nations. This balance sheet called for the delegates to break with this policy and with the institutions of the European Union in order to advance on the road to a free union of the peoples and free nations of Europe. The conference adopted an address to the workers and peoples of Europe. The proposal was made to go towards a constitution of a European liaison committee of workers and peoples. In order to pursue an exchange between the delegates, the conference decided on the regular edition of a bulletin in order to discuss these questions with complete freedom. This is Number 4 of this bulletin. One of the questions discussed at the Berlin conference was in regard to the threats that weigh on the very existence of nations with the objective of dismantling all labor rights, and breaking the resistance of the working class constituted in the framework of nations. After the Montenegro referendum, an unprecedented offensive threatens Belgium. We publish an interview with Belgian activists on the results of the communal elections of October 8: "The Vlaams Belang party of the extreme right has as its historical theme 'death to Belgium.' The objective has now become to proclaim the independence of the Flanders in the framework of the European Union. The policy of the Vlaams Belang is to break the gains of the working class throughout the country including its Flemish component and thus apply the shock methods of the European Union's policy." (Page 11). In view of this offensive Flemish trade unionists and francophones launched an appeal "for the unity of the FGTB" which we published in our No. 202 issue. From Sweden, we received an evaluation of the results of the elections in which the social democrat government was defeated by a coalition of parties from the center right. "Since Sweden joined the European Union in 1995 it has continually 'adapted' and submitted the Swedish policy to that of the European Union." "In order to safeguard and re-establish the gains of social protection, protection of trade unionswe must encourage the real social democrats and the trade unions to oppose privatizations, attacks against labor and social rights and explain that all this derives from the European Union." (Page 12.) In Italy, the council of ministers has just adopted a budget project with 33.5 million cuts to the budget in order to reduce the deficit and obtain a 3% budgetary deficit demanded by the Maastricht Treaty and the stability pact. The committee for the "No to the European Union, for democracy, public services and the unity of the Italian Republic," sent us an appeal that they submit for signature. (Page 13). It is in this situation that the Belgian delegates to the Berlin conference proposed that a delegation to the European Union's institutions be organized: "We propose that the analysis we have made of the consequences (in Belgium) of the policy of the European Union, should be developed by all in each of our countries. Thus we have at hand a common memorandum exposing the reality of this policy throughout Europe. We propose that based on this memorandum, we organize a European delegation over the next few months mandated to deliver it to the European Commission in Brussels. We will ask: reply to these facts, what have you to say? We propose that we communicate these answers along with the memorandum to all labor organizations in Europe as an appeal to develop a common action to stop this policy." We are also publishing excerpts from a memorandum drafted by a German delegate in Berlin on the destructive offensive taken by the grand coalition in application of the policy of the European Union, particularly against the unemployed and collective bargaining.. It bears on the meaning of the reform of federalism. (Pages 3, 4, 5.) The delegates from Spain have also drafted a memorandum regarding a question that faces all countries: the reform of the statute of public function in application of the Treaty of Maastricht. A pre-acceptance has been signed by Zapatero and the leaders of trade union organizations. Spanish activists are engaged in a fight for the removal of this projected reform. (Pages 6 to 10). The Berlin Conference decided to constitute a worker solidarity fund with the imprisoned Romanian miners and their families. The solidarity appeal is on Page 13. The liaison committee on the process of destruction of diplomas organized by the European Union starting with the Bologna process, constituted following the Berlin Conference, and has just published bulletin No. 2. We publish an introduction as well as a table of contents on page 14. We are advised that the liaison committee plans to participate in the delegation to the European Union institutions. Do you wish to join in the preparation of this delegation and contribute elements to the memorandum? Let us know your reactions, remarks and proposals. FOR A COMON MEMORANDUM, AN ACT OF ACCUSATION BY THE WORKERS AND THE PEOPLES AGAINST THE POLICY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ****************
Following the Berlin Conference in February 2006, a proposal was made to draft a memorandum in each country on the consequences of the policy of the European Union. Heinz Werner Schuster, a member of the AFA in Dusseldorf, delegate to the Berlin Conference, sent us the elements of the memorandum for Germany. The European Union dictates the structural transformation programs to the governments in order to destroy industrial production. The dictates of the Maastricht criteria demands privatizations and the disintegration of public services and social infrastructures. 15 years after the foundation of the European Union, German workers have noted in retrospect, with mounting anger and indignation, the upheaval in which they have been thrown into and despoiled of their central gains. Now, in June 2006, after years of losses in real income, wages are lower than in 1991, the right to work has been eaten away, length of the working day has increased and an army of millions of workers have become unemployed as a consequence of the destruction of production. At the end of 2005 the government of the grand coalition was formed with the mission of ending the delay in Germany of the application of the Maastricht criteria's and the radical implementation in full of the policy of the European Union. Finance Minister Steinbruck (SPD) promised the European Commission on July 5, 2006, in the name of the grand coalition, to apply measures to "reduce the excessive deficit." (1) No one wanted this grand coalition government comprised of the cooperation of the principal bourgeois party, the CDU/CSU, with the traditional labor party, the SPD. Its installation corresponded to the will of the European Union and the only 'justification for its existence' is that it is charged with imposing the Maastricht directives to the fullest degree. In its recommendations of September 12, 2001, the European Commission explained the following problems that existed in the German labor market: There are persistent regional differences in the rate of unemployment; the new Lander are particularly disadvantaged. The active policy of the labor market has only limited effects in the eastern part of the country. Despite reforms, the global tax burden on labor continues to be high. In its National Action Plan (NAP) of 2002, the government obtained support on the recommendations of the European Commission. However, the following quotes show how the government endeavors to follow the directives of the European Union: "When the Job-AQTIV law went into force on January 1, 2002, the labor bureau was obliged to work out with the prospective employee a profile of his chances for a job (profiling). This prognosis would indicate his chances of finding a job and the individual strategy to follow that the bureau had worked out along with the unemployed and to which both parties must abide." "The agreement for integration into the labor market must be controlled after six months of unemployment and after three months for youth looking for apprentice jobs. "The relaxing of conditions for the conclusion of a short term labor contract, inscribed in the law on part-time and pre-determined length contracts, should reduce the number of obstacles to the employment of seniors as of 58 years. A supplementary incentive to the increase of employability of seniors resides in the pension code. The age of retirement for those insured for a lengthy period (63 years for men and 60 years for women) will be extended to the normal retirement age, that is to say age 65.. This process will be completed at the end of 2004. For those heavily handicapped the age of retirement will be extended to age 63. Those who opt for early retirement will have to accept a reduction of their retirement pension up to 18%. With the application of the reform in stages of the tax on revenue and the tax on companies, the arrangement has been set up for a net lowering of the tax weighing on the labor factor. In order to positively relieve the labor factor, it is not enough to lower the fiscal tax. On must also act on the social contributions. The objective is to continue through structural reforms bearing on the systems of social security to lower the group of social contributions. "On April 8, 2003 the European Commission made the following report: "There is a tendency towards an increase in unemployment in 2003 which requires a preventive, active and efficient policy in regard to the labor market. The existing regulation could prevent the creation of employment and should be revised. This also goes for the institutions that establish wages on the labor market, as for example the "branch national collective bargaining" and the "principle of acquired advantage." Therefore the European Commission demands of the Schroder government that it continue to pressure the unemployed, that it create a sector of low wages, etc. The government partially replied with the Hartz laws: creation of individual companies (Ich-AG). Mini-jobs, 4.1 million of the 'little' jobs should exist by 2004. Their function, among others, is to materially ensure the unemployed so that they cannot receive unemployment insurance. They are firstly hired in the commerce sector as well as the social, health and catering business. The creation of mini-jobs that do not pay more than 800 euros massively causes the disappearance of hiring for normal full time jobs. The government thus revised its 1999 position when Riester wanted to subject all jobs to social security rules, even the annexes All measures taken following recommendations of the Hartz law serve to destroy the contracts for normal work, protected by collective bargaining as well as collective bargaining and trade unions as well as the destruction of the social security system. The government increases its attacks In the 2004 NAP the government explained its initiatives - actually brutal attacks against the rights of the working population. They praised the measures against which in 2002 the voters had rejected Stoiber and given their vote to the SPD. Its response to the European Commission illustrates how one violates the will of millions of workers in Germany and the mandate they had given to the SPD. It is the program of the European Union and Schroder that has gnawed away through incessant derogatory clauses the national branch collective bargaining that was traditionally strong in Germany that especially encouraged the bosses in the East, to forgo collective bargaining by leaving the bosses unions which increased low wage jobs for eight million people. In the 2004 NAP the government indicated: "In over 130 collective bargaining, there are hourly wages lower than 6 euros. Finally, even in the framework of collective bargaining, there is the possibility of foreseeing increases as well as reduction in wages according to the particular economic situation. The regulations regarding the length of work foresee nearly all the possibilities of flexibility in relation to the length of the normal work week." In the 200 NAP Schroder praised the modernization of safety standards at work, the law on reforms of the labor market which went into force on January 1, 2004 that relaxed the protection against layoffs, the 27,000 agreements signed (in 2003 there were 60,000 collective bargaining) that represented nearly half of all collective bargaining, the flexibilization of the length of work in agreement with the workers affected, the number of part-time workers that reached 7.2 million in 2003, the decrease in the maximum length of unemployment insurance to 12 months as of 2006, and 18 months for older workers and the obligation of the unemployed to accept whatever work is offered or loose 30% of unemployment insurance. Equally the NAP 2004 takes pride on the modernization of the legal health insurance law that went into force on January 1, 2004 that introduced a forfeiture tax on medical consults and other measures that will lower the health coffers by 10 million euros and the decrease the attractiveness of early retirement. The government estimated that in the last ten years, collective bargaining were flexibilized by derogatory clauses and numerous elements concerning the length of work and wages. The government is proud of collective conventions in which clauses allow the suppression of single premiums (for leaves, end of year, reducing the competition and capacity for innovation and reinforcing conditions for investments." Everything hangs by a thread The European Commission requires all governments to increase 'absolutely' the pressure and constraints on the labor force in order to break the resistance. The governments of European countries are sincerely trying to respond to the demands of capital. But this is not enough! In their communication to the Council of Europe (a project in common on employment 2004/2005 on January 27, 2005; KOM 13) the Commission warned: "The solution of continuity among the priorities for employment at the level of the European Union and the application in member states must be imperatively fulfilled. The governments must absolutely reach the objectives of the European Union and reinforce public opinion on the conviction that the obligations of the European Union must be transcribed into national and local measures." That is why the accelerated disintegration of the gains and labor organizations is necessary for the European Union and the governments. This requires the dismantling of the nation as a framework in which the conquests have been gained and defended and in which they continue to be situated. The "reform of federalism" "The new objective 'regional competition and employment' serves to anticipate and promote the structural change via the improvement of competition and attractiveness of the regions in the European Union." This is from a report from the Commission (KOM 2005-299) titled: "The policy of cohesion for the benefit of growth and employment-strategic directives of the community for 2007-2013.)" The Europe of regions is the application of the dictates of the Maastricht criteria and the application of the European Constitution. In Germany it takes the form of modifying the constitution in two stages, called "reform of federalism." The reform of federalism foresees a vast and radical revision of the fundamental law an constitutional institutions, in the framework of which society was constructed after 1945 as "United Federal social and democratic state" with great social gains resulting in particular from the battles of the labor movement. The 'reform' was supposedly to 'modernize the state order' that, as the Constitution and society, must become 'eurocompatible'. The 'cooperative federalism' must be 'replaced' by the 'federalism of competition' defended by the European Union, by the 'regionalization promoting competition' in the spirit of Maastricht that requires a 'free and undistorted competition.' In order to achieve this the deficit criteria of Maastricht and the stability pact must become the foundation of new constitutional institutions. Competition between the federal state and the Lander and the communes must become the new constitutional imperative in place of the principles of federalism and the intervention of the state to guarantee the 'unity of conditions of life' throughout the country. The obligation of the state to guarantee the unity of conditions of life translates into the constitutional institutions an obligation of financial assistance from the federal state for the Lander and the communes, as well as the financial adjustment among the various entities. The total of this federal financial adjustment came to 33.6 million euros in 2002, of which 28.3 million went to the eastern Lander. It is this framework that the financing unifies the financing among regions, thereby guaranteeing the same rights for all members of society. A threat to the entire structure of social and political democracy In this framework, the labor movement obtained through its struggles and unified statute of civil servants and the system of national branch collective bargaining in the public service and private industry. This constitutes the backbone of independent and free trade unions, fundamental pillars of the structure of social and political democracy. The trade unions are founded on the freedom of coalition of workers, the right to defend their interest with total independence, to freely negotiate, to strike. These are the guarantees of national branch collective bargaining and the workers' great social conquests. Collective bargaining is the backbone of the collective systems of social security, retirement, unemployment and sickness insurance, and their financing by direct and indirect wages. The SPD takes its place in the structure of social and political democracy as well as the traditional political defender of the interests of workers. The destruction of their gains under an SPD government or a coalition in which the SPD has a seat, threatens the very existence of the SPD and its trade unions. This democratic political and social structure is the 'social state' threatened by the reform of federalism. Adoption of the first part of the reform of federalism The reform of federalism 1 adopted by the Budenstag on June 30, foresees the revision of around 40 dispositions of the fundamental law. Under the name of 'national stability pact' the deficit criteria of Maastricht including the mechanism for sanctions, are introduced in the new articles 104 and 109 of the fundamental law. The public budgets of the federal state, the Lander and the communities are subordinated. The judicial and legislative authority (and financial responsibility) of the federal state is broken in many areas and totally transformed, especially in the Lander. In other areas, the Lander the Lander must concede the right to break with federal legislation on: education, university teaching and professional formation, remuneration and retirement of civil servants, penal law, environment, social security, assistance for children and youths, commercial hours, the right to association and the press. The federal statute unified the civil servants and broke into pieces, because the principal dispositions concerning remuneration, the length of the work day, retirement and conditions at work are no longer under the authority of the Lander. The Schroder government had alredy negotiated with the leaders of the Ver.di trade union and the Union of civil servants behind the backs of colleagues, a 'reform' of the civil servants statute and the collective bargaining of workers and employees in the public service who, while the reform of federalism was being readied, had led to the dismantling of the largest German collective bargaining in the public service, the BAT, and had presented the first opening to differentiations between the civil servants according to the Lander. With the reform of federalism, there have been reiterated attempts of the Lander and the communities to disband the national collective bargaining and deregulate and radically atomize the working conditions of the civil servants. At the same time drastic measures were taken to lower the cost of health care which led to an unprecedented wave of strikes in the public services and the hospitals. The same fate awaited the universities. They only partially refused to accept the authority of the federal state, the traditional unity of teaching and research is broken and privatization is undertaken. Is there another reason to break with the European Union? Nevertheless, the principles of cooperative federalism and the guarantee of unified living conditions are inscribed in the fundamental law, as well as the system of financial leveling and the obligation of the federal state for assistance. This must be the goal of the 'second stage of the reform of federalism' to 'replace' them by federal principles of competition. This will not only transform into chaos the unified right of the state, the judicial system of the republic. It is about breaking up the social state in its federal unity. A century and a half after the formation of the national German state, 16 years after the reconquest of political unity in Germany, the reform of federalism I and II will open the door the a process of judicial, social and political decadence of society. This because the European Union orders it, in order to sacrifice the industrial force and the social conquests and democracy to international financial investors. Who can accept this? Who can accept the fall of society into barbarism? 100 deputies of the SPD have, following the reform of federalism I, confirm and made public their refusal. They declared war on the application of the first phase of the reform aimed at a federalism of competition and going against the federalism of solidarity and unity in living conditions. This is even more opposed to the intentions of the second reform. As the European Union pressures the government of the grand coalition to pass the reforms of federalism II and the group of other anti-reforms, more conflicts arise in the government and it reinforces and extends the refusal of all society, the workers, in the trade unions and the SPD. This refusal runs counter to the constraints to which the SPD is submitted to by the government of the grand coalition, an instrument of the policy of the European Union. The defense and re-establishment of the social and democratic gains fundamental to a social state and the unity of Germany can only be realized by breaking with the policy of the European Union and its institutions.
- an increase of 0.4% in the deduction for legal retirement insurance It goes without saying, the projected measures with the 'reform of the health care system of 2006" which will lead to privatizations and attacks on the self-management of the workers' funds. -- Heinz Werener Schuster ********************
What should be the attitude of the labor movement in reference to the draft of the statute regarding public service? In June 2006, the Zapatero government signed a pre-agreement with the leaders of the public service trade union in order to establish a new base statute for the employee. The document we publish below shows the components with which the partisans of the ILC in Spain carried on a campaign against this 'reform.' In the meantime, in September, the agreement was signed and presented for approval to parliament. Where does this statute come from? In 1964, under Franco, a law was decreed on the civil servants of the state. After the death of Franco one of the workers' demands was to review this law, especially to integrate collective negotiation, which the transition regime did not accept. It wasn't until 1984 that a reform of this law took place. But on the eve of the entrance of Spain into the European Union, this reform did not integrate the demands of the civil servants but on the contrary, introduced layoffs and geographic mobility. As one can verify, the new statute is totally integrated the European directives. The Zapatero government obtained the preliminary support of the leaders of the federations of the UGT and worker commissions-which the federal authorities should approve or not-the draft of the statute regarding public service (EBEP). Both the FSP and the UGT and the public service sector of labor commissions congratulated themselves on the pre-agreement obtained from the public administration minister. They assured in their reports that the improvement in wages had been included, that important advances on careers had been obtained and above all, that the right to collective negotiation was recognized. As we understand it, this assessment does not correspond to the reality of the draft that threatens the very bases of public service. To support this draft is to endanger the place of trade union organizations. Let us see what it is: Increased wages? Let us start with increased wages: Article 21.2 " Increases in wages cannot be offered if they presuppose a global increase in the wage mass higher than the limits fixed annually by the law of the general budget of the state for its personnel." Article 31.8 "The procedures for determining working conditions in public administration will take into account the provisions established in the conventions and the international character of agreements ratified by Spain." We can point to other articles that stress the same aspect and are in the same sense, but this is sufficient. There is a decisive international agreement: the Treaty of Maastricht, from which directives constitute the stability pact. "The member states agree to respect the budgetary objective in the short term and draw near to a balance or obtain a financial surplusand to take corrective budgetary measures they esteem necessary. They correct the excessive deficits as soon as possible. This correction should be made no later than the following year." (Resolution of the European Council on the stability pact and growth. Amsterdam, June 17, 1997.) "The governments of the member states will be responsible regarding the protocol of the deficits of the group (central, regional and local governments and the social security funds." Protocol on the excessive deficit annexed to the treaty of the European Union. What wage improvements are possible in the framework of the budgetary provisions of the Treaty of Maastricht, of the zero deficit, of the supposed control of inflation? Isn't this the argument that all the governments use to freeze or lower wages? After the Treaty of Maastricht was signed in 1992 and up to the present, year after year, with one government or another the generous budgets of the state have reduced the buying power of civil servants. What interests impose this limit to the legitimate interest of civil servants who do not want to loose their buying power and attempt to recuperate what they have lost? The trade union leaders, who have agreed to subscribe the base statute in order to affirm that the wage increases are included, argue that the triennial bonus is paid to the temporary employees. Nevertheless, Article 25.1 states: "temporary employees receive the same base treatment, excluding the triennial taxes and the exceptional wages (13the or 14th month Ed.Note)." Through the application of the EBEP the temporary workers loose the right to receive exceptional wages! Will they touch the triennial bonus? The same article on line 2 affirms: "Despite the precedingwhile the convocations to the test of consolidation of temporary employment foreseen by the transitory disposition three are done, the public administrations will make sure they are paid their seniority." Therefore if the tests for consolidation of employment are not convoked (which the administration is not required to do) the temporary employee will not receive the triennial bonus. If this is the case there are two possibilities: if the temporary worker has been accepted as a civil servant he must be paid the triennial bonus or if he fails his job will be taken by one who has succeededand he could find himself out on the street. Does the appendix in point 2 of Article 25 constitute the right to recognize temporary workers to receive the triennial bonus? It would seem not, and what is clearly affirmed is that temporary workers will not receive exceptional wages. If they do this to temporary workers, what won't they do when they evaluate personnel commitment? Another argument is used in Article 22.4: "There will be two exceptional wages, each adding up to a month's base was of the totality of complementary remuneration except those that are mentioned in points c) and d) of article 24." This refers to the section on complementary remuneration that takes into account "the degree of interest, initiative and effort made in commitment to their job, the performance or any other result that will be obtained" and "the exceptional services rendered in overtime." In the first place, no one has quantified the portion of the wage in question by what is called 'productivity' which will be measured by such objective criteria that "the degree of interest, initiative or effort made in commitment to their job." This article can be interpreted as a recognition of what has already been gained through most administrations and, in certain cases, like a set back in wage moderation, since in numerous administrations the personnel have received their exceptional wages in total without exceptions. However, it should be noted that the government has armed itself against the possibility that the civil servants attempt to get wage increases that contradict the policy of lowering public expenses as required by the European Union and trade union leaders back down when they are faced with a government that supposedly favors their interests yet any measures that imply a wage revision, is the only guarantee that civil servants will not again loose their purchasing power. Can we really call this wage improvement?
In article 38 it says: "If the agreements ratified refer to subjects reserved by lawtheir contents will lack direct effectiveness. When an agreement is not ratifiedit must be renegotiated. Supposing the renegotiation does not result in an agreement it will be up to the government's administration organs to established working conditions for civil servants." If this is not sufficiently clear, point 10 of the article indicates: "Pacts and agreements will be honored except when there is a serious cause casting doubt on the public interest provoked by a substantial modification of economic conditions, the organs of the government's public administration suspend or modify the application of pacts and agreements already signed, within the strict limit necessary to safeguard the public interest." As we well know, 'public interest' is a very flexible and adaptable argument that, in general, has two possible interpretations; the one in which public interest is mixed up with the interests of the multinationals and speculators which is the one that governments want to impose and that of those who confide in the fact that this term can hide the interests of the workers and the majority of the population that usually see their attempts frustrated each time this concept is used to justify governmental measures. Public servants, in our long struggle to obtain the right to collective bargaining, to defend the conventions that have been signed, we have been continually in conflict with the directives of the European Union. The notice we have given against the convention concerning the personnel of a municipality, the state lawyer put forward: "It is notoriously well-known that the definition of the limits on remuneration of personnel in the public sector are subject to the reduction of the public deficit; this reduction is today the prime objective of the Spanish state, given impetus by the government in the exercise of functions attributed to it by Article 97 of the Spanish constitution and accepted by the Cortes when they have approved the law on general finances of the State. It is useless to expand on the importance of that the realization of such an objective has for the general interests since it is well known that the level of public deficit is a determining factor in the full participation of states in the European Union, since it has been set up in the most recent modifications of the constitutional treaty of the CEE." When the draft of the base statute is advanced as a motive for the annulment of agreements on "public interest" we are faced with the legal recognition of obstacles with which we are in conflict. In view of this the only guarantee obtained would seem to consist in the fact that "in this case (the non realization of pacts), public administrations much inform trade union organizations of the causes for suspension or modification." In Article 40: "Function and legalization of representative organs," plus the usual "receive information", "make a report", "have knowledge of and understood", we find: "f) collaborate with the corresponding administration in order to obtain the realization of all the measures that allow the maintenance and growth of productivity," a strange function for the workers' representatives! This is not so bad if one takes into account Article 31 on the general principles of collective bargaining, affirmed in point 5: "The exercise of the rights established in this article is guaranteed and pursued by the organs and specific systems established in the present chapter, without prejudice of other forms of collaboration between public administrations and their civil servants or representatives." Therefore the collective bargaining is framed by the "manner of collaboration between the public administrations and the representatives of the workers." Does "to collaborate" with the policy of lowering wages and privatizations that we are affected as civil servants mean it replaces the function of trade unions? We would all say that the function of trade unions is to organize the fight to recuperate wages lost and privatized services. How can a trade unionist engaged in the defense of the interests of workers support the EBEP? Career and "evaluation of commitment" As to career Article 16.3 establishes in addition to the present vertical career the awarding of jobs through competitive merit exams, the horizontal career without the need to change jobs, linked to development of job skills and productivity, evaluated and recognized." That said, vertical and horizontal careers, training and an undetermined portion of the wage are subject to evaluation in hiring personnel. Article 20 states: "3. Public administrations will determine the effects of evaluation in the horizontal professional career, training, awarding jobs and in the perception of complimentary remuneration. 4. Maintenance of a job obtained by competition will be linked to evaluation according to the evaluation systems which each public administration will determine." So the so-called professional career consists in a periodical evaluation of civil servants that eliminates the right to stability and a fixed wage and equal for all civil servants who have the same qualification. It supposes the individualization of working conditions and the loss of independence vis-à-vis the political leaders of the administration. In any case, no one can say that the evaluation and contracting of personnel constitutes a demand of civil servants, rather on the contrary. Nevertheless, it constitutes the cornerstone of the EBEP as stated in their motives: "evaluation of hiring personnel for public service is in any case, the fundamental element of the new regulation. ]Furthermore it transpires that with the EBEP there are no jobs. Article
73: "2. A job is the ensemble of functions, activities, tasks or
other responsibilities demanded by the administrative organizations
from each employee. Article 75 adds: "Job relationswill at least include de denomination
of jobs, groups of professional classification that will affect them
as well as the system of provision and the corresponding complimentary
remunerations." If public administrations are already profiting with all the elements that can have been introduced into legislation in order to avoid public offers of employment, the competitions of for transfer and the negotiations of connection for jobs, by introducing arbitrary reclassifications, the service commissions and the free designation as the usual manner to obtain jobs, the evaluation for the hiring of personnel can only bring the elimination of obstacles that protect the civil servant and the citizen of the interests and manipulations of little and strong pressure groups-orchestrated by speculators and multinationals-with political leaders that are in charge of public administrations. Aren't all these questions sufficiently serious to consider the pre-arrangement
with the ministry of public services should not be ratified, that the
trade unions should not give their approval to the government in order
to affect the EBEP? Among other things, because the vote for the PSOE
of March 14 was a vote to ratify the demands of civil servants and not
for it to pursue the policy of Aznar in the public service. The statute,
defined as a base, establishes the impossibility of increasing the mass
wage including the level of inflation, shoots down the right to collective
bargaining and trade union prerogatives and subjects employees to a
sort of slavery vis-à-vis their hierarchical superiors. Regionalization and the disappearance of the civil service The breakup of the public service employees into 18 different statutes is established in article 6: "In the development of this statute the general courts and the legislative assembly of the autonomous communities will approve, within the framework of their competency, the laws that govern the public service of the general administration of the state and the autonomous communities." Firstly, this supposes the unlimited growth of the process of differentiation of wages and working conditions of civil servants. What is the objective? "Today we are in the presence of a gradual multiplication in the forms of management of public activities in the heart of each territorial level of government. The traditional bureaucratic organization essentially created for the exercise of public powers in application of the laws and regulations is fragmented in a plurality of organisms and various types of authorities. The correct management of public employment requires different solutions in each sector and consequently, the basic general legislation cannot constitute an obstacle or a factor of rigidity. On the contrary, it should ease and instigate the necessary reforms for the modernization of the administration in all areas." 18 statutes: We are far from reality. One must eliminate all models of reference for public service. It is therefore about a base statute coming into force that opens the door to dislocate public service, through autonomous administrations in hundreds of "entities and organisms of various types" and in the final instance, to dismantle it. Is it logical when it is no longer about exercising public powers in the application of laws and regulations? Wasn't it the definition of public service? The application of laws and regulations was the guarantee of democratic and social rights gained by the citizens of a country, particularly thanks to the labor movement. That is why a public service was needed and this management was exercised by an 'organization' that the ministry now considers 'bureaucratic'. In place of public service the draft bill of the EBEP proposes a series of 'public activities' in charge of a 'plurality of organisms and entities." (No doubt public, private or mixed). Who will guide them if it is not longer about applying the law that guarantees the rights? The multinationals? This is the role of regionalization: it does not pretend to create regulatory frameworks of the civil service in each autonomy, but dynamite the regulations founded in the framework of the state considered as obstacles by the multinationals and the European Union. Without regionalization, the social and economic destruction would not be possible. Firstly, because the unity of workers and their organizations on a state level is the central obstacle to their plans. The dismantling of the public service is not hidden. Title V of the EBEP "the ordering of professional activity" is expressly dedicated to unify and establish the measures to 'modernize' and 'reform' public administration. Article 69.1: "The planning of the human resources in public administrations will have the objective of contributing to obtain efficiency in the provision of services and efficiency in the use of available economic means through the adequate use of its work force, its improved division, formation, professional promotion and mobility." Article 81.2: ""The public administrations can transfer their civil servants because of service or functional requirements, in the units, departments, public organisms or entities different from their appointment. While their new job may require a change of commune, the civil servants will have the right to anticipated indemnities." We make a parenthesis here. It is true that a number of these measures are already included in the legislation in place, but they co-exist with others that make their application difficult. In this sense, the EBEP has the objective to replace the different existing norms, sometimes contradictory, in order to eliminate the obstacles to redeployment and privatizations. In the same manner, privatizations structured by plans for employment or utilization of resources, the creation of agencies, services, institutes, etc., have had disastrous effects. Nevertheless at times their application or has been partial as a product of the resistance of employees of privatized organisms or on the road to be privatized, who have found points of support in the legislation and the trade union organizations., In those cases the administration, who could go far without provoking a major shock to civil servants, what was most important was to obtain the support of the trade union leaders in order to privatize. And when they did not obtain this, to take all possible steps towards privatization. Let us close the parenthesis to which we will return later. A step in the long process demanded by the European Union On what does the government rely on to give free rein to privatizations and the dismantling, more or less programmed, of public administrations? In order to understand all aspects of point 8 of article 31: "the procedures to define the working conditions in public administrations will take into account the provisions established in the conventions and agreements internationally agreed upon by Spain" one must refer to the motives. The third paragraph is revealing: "the base statute is an important and necessary step in the reform process, which we foresee is long and complex, which must adapt the structure and the management in public employment in Spain to the needs of our times; the reforms which we are presently realizing in other countries of the European Union as well as the community administration." No doubt we must remember that in the last period in Great Britain, France, Germany and Portugal we saw strikes and mobilizations in public services against the decrease in the right to retirement or wages, against the lengthening of the work day or the plans that announce thousands of layoffs in the public service, the product of these 'reforms' instigated by the European Union. The orientation that the treaty of the European Union imposes that the directives develop and the project of a European Constitution claimed to consolidate, is the substitution of public services by "economic services of general interest" and more generally, the subordination of all public administrations to market forces, which leads to the disappearance of the public service Article 3 of the treaty of the Union states: "the communities' action will leadg) a free market that is not false." In this regards Article 86 states that "abusive exploitation that could affect commerce between the member states will be forbidden, whether it derives from one or several companies in a dominant position in the common market or in one part as a consequence of it." Article 90.1: "The member states will not adopt nor maintain vis-à-vis public companies or companies to which they have conferred special or exclusive rights or any measure contrary to the norms of the present treaty. 2. The companies responsible for the management of general economic services whose official nature is that of a fiscal monopoly will be subject to the norms of the present treaty, especially as regards competition where the application of said norms does not impede, in fact or in right, the realization of the specific mission they are charged with." In this regard, the Green book of the Commission already indicates, "the fact that the general interest service providers are public or private has no importance in community right." It is the opening of public services to privatization. This criteria is introduced in all administrations; they eliminate the independent character of the civil service vis-à-vis private interests in order to subordinate the administrations to the criteria and interests of private companies. This is the basis of the "evaluation of commitment" and the supposed "productivity." In the application of article 86 (and the preceding ones) the European Commission has adopted the directives of liberalization, for example in the electronic communications market. 15 decisions since 1985 relative to the mail service, mobile communications, airports, ports and maritime transportation, insurance and radio and television. In essence the EBEP is not a civil service statute but a dislocation in order to apply all these directives and it includes all other directives to come from Brussels, with the autonomous communities being directly responsible for their application, which is favored by regionalization of civil servants and adaptation of the regional market of trade union organizations. For example: the civil servants' workday has no guarantee as to duration or weekly distribution. Article 47 stipulates: "The public administrations establish the general day and the specialties of their employees." It is all for regulation. It is well know that public administrations have not lagged in introducing the divided day throughout the public service. The EBEP leaves the workday open to whatever attack from the autonomies. Furthermore, if a directive from the European Union wanted to 'regulate' the workday in the civil service in order to 'harmonize' the time of work, the autonomies in the EBEP would be 'obliged' to apply it in the same manner as in the application of the directive on the time of work, for example, without taking into account doctors on call as 'effective time of work', but only the time where they are actually assisting in an emergency. The new batch of autonomous statutes sanctions the role of the autonomies as executors of the Brussels decisions breaking all the previous state regulations. Will it be easier to defend the work day and working conditions with the regional division and dislocation imposed by the EBEP when we have not obtained the clause for wage revision, an electoral promise of Rodriguez Zapatero, for which all civil servants have mobilized and will do so again massively until we obtain it? Have we been able to defend our purchasing power autonomy after autonomy when a pact of wage moderation has been signed by the central government? How long must we wait for the different administrations take up the subject of the divided work day now that they can lean on parity in the framework of the European Union, the growth of productivity or the necessary modernization? Since the entrance in force of this statute, our federations will be invited to turn their backs on the united struggle on a state level in order to submerge itself in the mirage of the defense of rights in a regional civil service, when in reality the role assigned to regions is to liquidate the civil service. That being, the trade unions were constituted to obtain the unity of the workers in order to resist and conquer pressures within a company, to be able to use the force of numbers in the fight to obtain the common demands and not to accept the scattering of the resistance center by center, institution by institution. Isn't it the Bolkenstein directive that institutes privatization of all public services and the complete deregulation of labor conditions in our midst? What is at stake The questions posed by the EBEP do not conclude here. For example, we could refer to the pilot experience of telework done by Jordi Sevilla in an attempt to reconcile work and family life, halfway there, the introduction of the public leader or plans for retirement, but we think that suffices for the trade unions, the trade unionists and the civil servants in general to reject the EBEP and demand its total withdrawal. Would it not be possible to organize the defense of our demands in unity against the policy of privatizations? This is our point of view: the multinationals know that it is practically impossible for the governments to undertake counter-reforms, so-called 'modernizations' without substituting the sovereignty of the governments and parliaments of each state to the decisions of the non-elected supra-national authorities. If this is the case, it is impossible for the governments to calmly realize the 'reforms' without closely associating the trade union organizations to their development and application. They know that while the trade union organizations retain portions of independence faced with privatization plans demanded by the multinationals on the way by Brussels institutions at their service (to which the governments submit), the counter-reforms, the privatizations will be constantly curbed by the resistance of the workers in a process of accumulation of forces which could lead to a change in the situation where the unity of the workers and their organizations will be imposed in the fight to defend their demands. This is why jointly with the suppression of rights and measured designed to dislocate and liquidate the civil service, the EBEP denies trade union organizations a margin of negotiation, assigning them the job of dismantling the civil service. What chance of rejecting a plan for reconversion/privatization would trade unions have, while in addition to what has been indicated above on collective bargaining, are an integral part of the negotiation on "functional and geographic transfer, as well as the general criteria for strategic planning of human resources, the questions that refer to working conditions of civil servants" that are excluded from the negotiation "the decisions of the public administrations that refer to their authority to organize." (Article 37). Why should our leaders accept an EBEP which in two years of dialogue and three short months of negotiation has not included a single fundamental demand of civil servants, but contains all the attacks in power? We know that the mission of the so-called European Confederation of trade unions is to pressure the workers trade union organizations to submit to Brussels' demands. Could the workers' trade unions renounce the right to negotiation? Isn't the existence of our public service federations linked to the existence of the civil service and public services? How can we ask our federations to participate in the dislocation, atomization and destruction of the public service? Or the pursuit of privatization? We understand that a number of our comrades are susceptible to the demands of the Zapatero government, particularly as we see the offensive of the Franquista reaction against his government. But when the European Union repeatedly demands 'reforms' from the Zapatero government, contrary to the needs of the workers who have carried the socialist party to office, what position should the trade unions take? If our trade unions collaborate on the application of regressive reforms, they would be following the road taken in Germany in the fall of the social-democratic government. Conversely, when the workers' trade unions (and the parties) defend the public service and the civil service, they participate in the reinforcement of the social base of leftist governments, opening the door to the politics of progress. If Zapatero responds to the demands of public servants, recognizes the right to collective bargaining in the public administrations, if he refuses to sacrifice civil servants and their trade unions to the demands that flow from the Treaty of Maastricht, this would strengthen our organizations faced with the Franquista reaction. Events indicate that the only solution to any problem, to our demands is to stand up to the European Union and its policy of regionalization. Trade unionists and workers cannot allow the increase in the policy of privatizations and the dismantling of the civil service and, even less, that take away the independence of our organizations to defend our demands and our rights. Therefore we propose to all public service employees and all trade unionists in the civil service to fight for the withdrawal of the EBEP:
Prepare motions for trade union authorities not to sign the pre-agreement
with the ministry of public administrations and if they did sign it,
for the withdrawal of the signature.
National Committee for the "NO to the European Union, democracy and public services, unity of the Republic" The law on finance is about to be discussed in the Italian parliament. As the appeal below indicates, the Telecom Italia affair shows or leads to privatizations. To the question posed in the senate by a member of the opposition, "do you plan to re-nationalize Telecom Italia", Romano Prodi answered, "to re-nationalize would be contrary to all my political past." The finance law adopted by the council of ministers will be submitted to parliament within the next few days. Appeal for the NO to the finance law, NO to budgetary cuts in health, education and the civil service, No to the reforms on retirement. We the undersigned, workers, trade unionists, activists from different sectors, met on September 21 at the initiative of the "National Committee NO-UE, democracy and public services, unity of the Republic." On April 7 the workers, the youths, the retired, clearly expressed their will through their vote against Berlusconi: we want to change the policy. The thousands who voted for the party of the Union did so in order to defend and regain public education, health, public services, the unity of the country, and democratic conquests. But following the vote our Committee presented a list at the municipal elections in Turin that raised a problem: is it possible to satisfy these demands, to change the policy, to open a new perspective with Prodi, who daily announces that he wants to continue to apply the directives of the European Union that are precisely the root of the attacks we have endured these past 13 years? Is it possible to aspire to a real change when we know Prodi is the man who dictated all of Berlusconi's plans for the past five years? Are we right or wrong? At the time of this writing the government is preparing the final version of the finance law that foresees budgetary cuts in the amount of 30 million euros:
In health care, newspapers announced 10 million in cuts with the
imposition of a fixed hospital rate After the first wave of 'liberalizations' in July, the draft of the finance law foresees privatizations at the very time that the affairs of Telecom and Alitalia are indicating this policy, wanted and imposed by Prodi. Prodi, as president of the IRI and later as president of the council from 1996 to 1998, and later as president of the European Commission, sold the largest companies in the country. As the finance law is being prepared, the government announced as necessary the umpteenth 'reform' on pensions in order to push back the age of retirement. It is a fact: it is about a number of measures against workers, against the majority of the population, a shock comparable to the 1996 budget, when Prodi imposed the heaviest finance law of the past 15 years, 60 million liras in comparison with 30 million euros! While the government prepares to launch its attacks, the finance law also foresees the lowering of the cost of labor by five points, for an estimated global sum of around 15 million euros. As Prodi once declared in an interview with Monde the decrease in the cost of labor means a "reduction in social charges". In other terms: lowering the cost of labor means precisely to trim the contributions that finance health, education, services and local collectives. It is striking to note that the figures of the budgetary cuts in public services are equal to the decrease in the cost of labor. This means precisely: again it is the workers, the youths and the pensioners who must pay the increase in capitalist profits who will profit from this decrease. We must needs be more precise. The government has calculated the lowering of the cost of labor at 60% for capitalists and 40% for the workers. The initial calculations estimate that this will translate into "20-30 euros or more on the pay check." At the same time the government has authorized the local collectives to increase local taxes in order to cover the budgetary cuts. These 20-30 euros (which are a joke) will be double absorbed by the cuts in public services and the increase in local taxes while the capitalists will benefit by millions of supplementary euros. These are the facts: who can deny that the government is preparing to continue and strengthen the policy of destruction of our conquests already started in these past years? Behind all this there are European Union directives A glance at any newspaper is sufficient to see how the European Union ant the BCE dictate and impose the directives that are the basis of everything. Nearly every day throughout the summer, Almunia, commissary of the European Union said: "We must strictly respect the parameters of Maastricht, no difference will be tolerated." On the other hand the BCE reported on September 1 that, "Italy is one of the countries who most do its homework in respecting the stability pact. It is absolutely essential." On August 30, Ferraro, the minister of Communist Refoundation, asked to reduce the budgetary cuts that had originally be en announced at 35 million euros and "to negotiate with Brussels the budgetary cuts and the reduction of the deficit over two years." Nevertheless he indicated it was not about ignoring the 'rigor' demanded by Brussels. Should we then accept in the name of the stability pact, 30 million attacks against workers, and the population, the public services against the will expressed on April 7, May 28 and June 26? (1) that 30 million would be acceptable? Prodi has often added: "We know the Brussels rules, we will respect our commitments, and the reduction of the deficit cannot be divided." A new social pact? What for? Guglielmo Epifani, secretary general of the CGIL, declared during an interview for La Reppublica (10/9): "I no longer support the BCE. There are good technocrats but there is a gap between the figures and something behind the figures. Behind the figures there is the life of a million individuals."
How is it possible that on September 14 the trade unions were in agreement with Padoa Schioda's proposal to "write a new social pact, to renew the negotiations?" Schioda is the most ferocious defender of budgetary cuts, and the respect for European directives. He has been the vice president of the BCE for years. If he is now inviting the trade unions to renew and re-write the negotiations and the social pact of 1993 (which opened the way to the worst attacks against workers), it is because the government well knows that it is necessary to involve them if they really want to pass the finance law. Giordano, secretary of Rifondazione declared: "one cannot apply the finance law against the trade unions." We concur with the opinion of a trade union activist who said in May: "It is essential to preserve the independence of trade unions." Isn't it just this independence that is today being overturned by the social pact and the finance law? Can we open a perspective without breaking with the European Union? Prodi and Schioda have said it: the finance law is dictated by Brussels. Communist Refoundation and other members of the government 'criticize' but they emphasize that it is not about re-thinking the European Union. But it is obvious that without the break with the European Union and its directives we cannot open the way to change. There is only one issue for us and that is the break with the European Union. We want to defend an regain public services, the right to health care for all, public education, national contracts and the unity of the republic. That is why we say today: NO to the finance law. NO to cuts in health care and hospital tickets. NO to cuts in the civil service and public education, re-establishment of all jobs and classes. NO the 'reforms' on retirement. With respect for everyone's opinions we launch this appeal in order to assist in building unity on these points and help to mobilize. We are ready to support all concrete steps that will really go in this direction. In order to widen the discussion and the re-grouping of all those who seek a way, an outcome that goes in the direction of the aspirations of the immense majority, we propose to all workers to circulate, discuss, sign and have others sign this appeal at the workplace, in the trade unions, in the organizations and to help us build a national conference. On April 7, the day of the general elections that ousted Berlusconi, on May 28, the day of municipal elections, on June 26, date of the referendum on decentralization, where the NO was in the majority. (2) secretary generals of the CGIL, the ICFTU and the UIL. ********************
Community elections of October 8 We all came to immortalize the conquest of Antwerp (Anvers) by an extreme right mayor For the past several months there has been an increase in the offensive in Belgium aimed at breaking up the unity of the labor class. Last June 1, the chamber of deputies declared as acceptable a proposed bill of the Vlaams Belang (an extreme right Flemish party) aimed at splitting up Belgium and make Flanders and the Wallone pretended 'sovereign nations'. A few weeks earlier, the extraordinary congress of the CMB (metallurgical federation of the FGTB) had approved new statutes that divided the financial means and the patrimony of the federation between the francophones and the neerlandophones, thus 'communitarizing' the federation. In the ILC Newsletter No. 202 we published an appeal signed by Flemish and francophone trade unions for the defense of the unity of the FGTB and the federal social conquests, which was submitted for signature to Belgian workers and activists. An interview with Philippe Larsimont What are the comments on the results of the community elections of October 8? Le Soir remarked that "dozens of foreign journalists had come here with the same mission: to immortalize the conquest of Anvers by an extreme right mayor." The Vlaams Belang is not just any other right wing party. The historic watchword of the Vlaam Belang was "To hell with Belgium!" is today evidenced by aiming to proclaim the independence of Flanders in the framework of the European Union. The policy of the Vlaams Belang is designed to do away with all the conquests of the class in all countries including the Flemish component, and thus apply the policy of the European Union through shock methods. Supported by an important sector of employers this party has become over time the second in Flanders and the first in Anvers, the most important town in Flanders. Nevertheless on October 8 all the prognosis were thwarted by an historic event: the victory in Anvers of the SP.A (Flemish socialist party) that went from 19.5% in 2000 to 35.3% returning to what it was in the past: the leading party in Anvers (it gained two seats over the Vlaams Belang). The result in Anvers shows that the workers have not given up using their traditional parties (PS francophone and SP.A Flemish), contrary to the policy of the leaders, allied to the liberal right who participate in the federal government that applies the social regression imposed by the European Union. That is how in October 2005, two general strikes paralyzed the country against a plan that set back the pensions of this government, a plan directly dictated by the European Commission, as can be seen in official texts. Was this putting into action of the policy of the European Union sanctioned in these elections? Under different contradictory forms, the putting into action of the policy of the European Union was sanctioned in these elections. In Flanders, the party of the prime minister, the VLD (liberal right) suffered an important defeat. Its francophone alter ego, the MR, did not suffer the same fate. But its president was out to win the mayoral seat of Liege, one of the two big cities in Walloon. The result was that the PS mayor, Willy Demeyer, won the election after signing a document in which he stated: "We fight together against social regression, that leads us to protest against the recent vote of a law that unjustly penalizes the victims of work-related accidents and professional illnesses and to regret that our party, our ministers and our parliamentarians did not oppose it." This also lead to condemn, in a limited fashion, the orientation imposed on the PS by its president, Elio Di Rupo. That is how this leader (president of the Liege federation of the PS, the most important of this party) won the election under difficult circumstances. Conversely, in the Hainaut region, the PS often lost 10% or more. In Charleroi, the second city in Waloon, the PS lost its absolute majority and more than 10%. This was due in large part to the affairs that shook this town. In Mons, the PS lost 10% where nothing in particular occurred save for the fact that the mayor of this town in Elio di Rupo, president of the PS. Although his party had an absolute majority in MOns, following the October 2000 elections, he decided to set up a coalition with the liberals of the MR, which is against all socialist traditions. That is what Di Rupo wanted to impose everywhere under the slogan of "Opening." Di Rupo wanted to prevent his party from using the absolute majority it already had so, in order to apply the social destruction policy imposed by the European Union, one must destroy the labor organizations by stopping them from applying the mandate of the social electorate. The victory of the SP.A in Anvers cannot mask the fact that this party has the same orientation. Behind the result of these elections stands the resistance of the voters, the activists and socialist leaders that refuse this route in this form, and confront the policy of the European Union. Witness to this, on another level, is the appeal for unity of the FGTB signed by Flemish trade unionists and francophones. (See No. 202). ******************
Following the elections in Sweden, the social democrat government, with the support of parts of the left and the Greens, was defeated by a coalition of the center right parties. Our correspondent sent us this report. Swedish workers face a difficult period With 178 seats against 171, Sweden has a new majority in government. The social democrats with the informal support of the left the greens, was defeated by a coalition of center right parties. The dominant party of the coalition, the Moderate party (formerly conservative party) obtained a record rate of 26% (11% more than in the 2002 elections) a gain of 640,000 voters. The three other parties of the center (formerly rural small landowners' party) gained 1.7%, the liberal party lost 5.8% and the Christian democrat party lost 2.5%. The coalition gained 335,000 new voters. The coalition won because the social democrats with Goran Persson as leader and prime minister made their worst score since the 20's. They obtained 35%, a decrease of 5% in comparison with 2002, a loss of 170,000 voters. Furthermore, the leftist party lost 2.5% or 120,000 voters. The Green party registered a slight increase of 40,000 new voters. Voter participation rose from 80% in 2002 to 82% which indicates that while all the parties of the coalition and the social democrats are partisans of the European Union, people generally have confidence in the parliamentary system. Observers had predicted an increase in the rate of abstentionism. A series of little parties presented themselves gaining a total of 5.7%, over 315,000 votes. Among these parties, the nationalist Swedish party, of the Le Pen type in France, the Swedish democratic party obtained 3%. In Sweden, a party must obtain 4% to have a seat in parliament, by the Swedish democrats obtained many new seats in over a third of municipal elections from voters disappointed by traditional parties. In the municipality of Landskrona, in the south, that is familiar with the problems of immigration and segregation, of 20% of the voters favored this party. Before the elections the campaign led the majority of Swedes to believe there was no doubt the coalition would win It was the most 'American' campaign in all of Swedish history. The media presented the campaign as a duel between the leader of the Moderate party, Fredrik Reinfeldt and Goran Persson, the social democrat leader. There were five or six debates on prime time television between them. The leaders of the other parties played a secondary role. For the voters, this was a new situation when they saw Reinfeldt present his party as the "new moderates" or the "new labor party" whose strategy was to use the winning theme that was a traditional winner of the social democrats, that consisted in convincing people that their party is the best placed to defend and create new jobs. This could be achieved, said the coalition, by lowering the social taxes-the deductions made from workers wages to pay for unemployment insurance and the social security system. These were presented as burdens on employers. The coalition also promised to lower the tax on companies and the tax on capital gains and the tax on people with lower incomes. The argument on employment played a decisive role with middle class voters in order to swing them from the social democrats to the "new labor party." Another reason for the defeat of the social democrats was that the campaign was more or less a personal show for ]Goran Persson. After Sweden became a member of the European Union in 1995, it had continually 'adapted' and submitted Sweden to the neo-liberal policy of the European Union that began with the disastrous conservative government of Carl Bildt in 1991-94. Before Sweden joined the European Union the rate of unemployment was 2-3% but after the economic crisis of 1992, the rate rose to 7-8 % and continued at this level throughout the year, showing the social democrats were incapable of breaking the link to the European Union. Instead, the social democrats were the first to introduce the directives of the European Union of privatization of infrastructures, applying a number of other regulations of the Union and strictly following the stability pact. During 1989-2001, the gross income of 10% of the highest wages increased 39.5% in absolute value but the 10% of the lowest wages decreased 16.8% according to national statistics. Taking into account the state services sector, 400,000 employees left, the former pension system founded on solidarity was placed on the market, social security system, which was of good quality, went into a continual process of disarray and deterioration. Several opinion polls showed that 2/3 of Swedes continued to support a strong system of social security counter to the policy practiced by the leaders of the social democrats. Because of this a large number of former social democrat activists left politics in order to "cultivate their own garden" and look after their own affairs. During his reign, Goran Persson became increasingly arrogant, forcing his ministers to do his bidding, making the elections of this year a one-man event. He and his party started putting forward arguments against the coalition's policy of job creation far too late to reveal its true class contents. Thus the coalition parties were able to mobilize enough new voters from the middle class to vote for them while a large number of traditional social democrats protested by staying home. An examination of the measures and electoral program of the coalition, reveals that the measures are destined to support the interests of companies and capitalists and those better off to the detriment of ordinary people, the unemployed, youth and Swedish immigrants, etc. The link between the internal Swedish policy and the policy of the European Union was studiously avoided during the debates. The Constitution of the European Union was not discussed. The anti-Union parties of the left and the Greens were not powerful enough to place this on the agenda. Also, the weakness of the new government was that a coalition of four parties had set aside their differences in order to produce a common electoral program. The conflicts between the parties will soon become visible, when the program is implemented. Up to the present the parties of the coalition have not needed to formulate their European policy. On the contrary, up to the election they have more or less supported and sometimes applauded a policy favorable to the European Union and the social democrats. Three weeks before the elections, it was learned that its youth organization had gained access illegally to the password to the computer system of the social democrats, so they were able to adapt their campaign to string along to their campaign. The secretary of the Liberal party was informed and he resigned. The scandal became a judicial affair and it can implicate the leader of the liberal party, Lars Leijonborg. On the night of the election Persson announced he resigned not only as prime minister, but also as leader of the party and assumed all responsibility for the defeat. The process began by searching for a new leader for the party. It will not be easy to find a true social democrat after decades of a brain drain within the party. It is not a good sign when a good number of the followers of a party want the commissary of the European Union, Margot Wallstrom, to become the leader of the party. For Swedish activists who want to safeguard and re-.establish the gains of social security, protect their trade unions and restore a full democracy, it will be important to explore the differences within the parties of the coalition and to push the real social democrats and their trade unions in order to oppose privatization, attacks against workers' and social rights, re-establish an independent foreign policy, etc., explaining that the neo-liberal policy comes from the European Union. - Jan-Erik Gustafsson ******************** LMD: the destruction of 900 years of university history in Europe The "European Liaison Committee constituted following the European meeting in Berlin (February 2006) composed of university professors, researchers, and students has just published its first newsletter. We publish the introduction (excerpts from the first newsletter), see ILC newsletter No. 182. "The policy of Bologna is already here, the national education policy is destroyed." This is the cry of alarm of a Swedish university professor who rises up against the "Bologna Process", that is to say the process of privatizations and dismantling of knowledge, diplomas, universities and public research under the aegis of the European Union. A plan that French universities and students know under the name of LMD. A German academic noted: "A normal professor received, until recently after hew was appointed to his job, a ministerial service letter that required him to 'defend his courses with total independence in research and teaching'" What degree of deterioration have we reached for the representatives of the different courses are forced to renounce their responsibility in the defense of the independence of their course?" Why this destruction of knowledge, of courses? "A French university professor said it was the end of the transmission of knowledge, learning, and diplomas, to replace them with mechanical skills. Mechanical skills are like the wind of a society that casualizes labor." Doesn't this lead to submission to the European Union, asks a Swedish professor, who noted that, "the social democrat government of Sweden (support by the leftist party) proposed in June a charter for the system of higher education.: 'A new world , a new university'. This charter is a product completely adapted to the European Union and, if applied, will destroy what is left of the policy of national higher education." Destruction, as the former vice rector of the University of Ljubljana (Slovenia) wrote: "It is the first example in 900 years of university history were the states (of the European Union) conspire against university institutions." In France, Spain, Hungary, Great Britain: all the reports published in this newsletter allow us to open the discussion. Why should one accept this? With one proposal, formulated by Spanish academics replying to the Belgian delegates to the Berlin Conference: can we raise a bill of accusation against the LMD in each country?
TABLE OF CONTENTS SPAIN: Reply to the Belgian delegates to the European labor conference
in Berlin (February 2006) No. 2 - September 2006 - 2 euros. For information: Jean-Pierre Barrois, 56 Ave. Diderot, 94100 Saint Maur, France. E-mail: j-p.barroisQwanadoo.fr Order the "Newsletter of the European Liaison Committee" (higher education), Entente International des travailleurs et des peoples, 87 rue du Fbg St-Denis, 75010 Paris. 2 euros, check to the order of CMO.
We demand the immediate release of Miron Cozma, ]Constantin Cretan, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu, and the withdrawal of the accusations and sentences against them. They were sentenced and thrown into prison in violation of ILO Conventions 87 and 98. The families of the jailed miners are in a desperate situation because of the brutal activities, arbitrary and illegitimate Romanian authorities. The jailed miners were deprived of all their civil rights including the right to look after their children. The families are without any support. The labor movement of all countries has always acted according to the principle that the workers, the colleagues, the trade unionists who campaign for their rights and the rights of all workers can count on their solidarity and support from all labor organizations in the event of persecution. In the framework of this tradition, we address all trade union organizations, all trade union sections and the trade unionists in our countries and we appeal for the creation of a fund for support of the jailed miners and their families. If all contribute to this fund within their means, we can adequately support the families of those jailed and relieve the jailed comrades of the worries they have for their wives and children. We propose that the funds for support be place under our responsibility, that we will use the funds in the spirit of the donors and make a public accounting to the organizations that contribute. Henning Frey, trade unionist, Germany Send to: Henning Frey Each organization or individual will receive a receipt from the solidarity fund and regular reports, starting with the text of the complaint lodged by the National Trade union confederation MERIDIAN of Romania.
|
Open World Conference of Workers