|
|
A dossier of weekly information published by the June 5, 2007 Issue 238 ----- INTRODUCTION: On Saturday, June 9, the 14th Conference in Defense of the ILO Conventions and Trade Union Independence will take place on the eve of the Annual Session of the ILO. The ILC "considers that it is its duty to alert the labour movement, the officials and militants of trade unions, on an international scale, about the dangers that the 'new world governance' represents for the future of the labour movement and its independence. Š The ILO would do well to finally admit that 'corporate social responsibility' is a deception that has nothing in common with the historic mission it was given in 1919 and 1945, to contribute to social progress throughout the world and in the interests of humanity." Russia: We are publishing correspondence from a trade unionist who explains that, "The functionaries that lead the National Federation of Independent Unions (FNPR) are a threat to the workers' movement -- they stifle any attempt at workers' resistance to the bosses impositions" Czech Republic: On Saturday, May 26, 4,000 Czech workers and youth -- as well as a delegation from neighboring Slovakia -- demonstrated in Prague against the establishment of U.S. military bases and radars in the Czech Republic. India: We are publishing an interview with Franklyn D'Souza, a trade-unionist who is vice-president of the Hindustan Lever trade union, which is organizing workers to reopen their factory. "The trade unions must face their responsibilities in each country and throughout the world. That is why we call on them to support the struggle of workers at Unilever in India, a struggle which concerns all." International Tribunal on Katrina: Delegates from numerous countries met in Santo Domingo for Caribbean Conference in Solidarity with the People of Haiti. (See previous issues.) We are publishing information about the solidarity they are promoting with the people of New Orleans. Subscribe to the ILC International Newsletter! ----- Table of Contents p.1: Introduction ********************* Contact Entente internationale des travailleurs et des peuples *********************
INVITATION Saturday June 9th 2007 from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. For several years, the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples has organised "meetings in defence of ILO conventions and of the independence of Trade Unions". In the course of these meetings a debate has been engaged on the threats represented by global governance for the labour movement and its independence. Now, it is the ILO itself that is under threat. In the preface to report N° 5 presented to the 96th yearly Meeting of ILO titled "Strengthening the ILO's capacity to assist its Members' efforts to reach its objectives in the context of globalization", Mr Juan Somavia proposes reforming the ILO's institutions and presents it as "a question of governance". What is it actually? What is proposed today is to modify the agenda of the ILO's yearly meeting to introduce thematic debates on "cyclical reports on decent work" such as "employment and qualification, development of enterprises" (first year); "social protection, improvement of working conditions and increasing living standards and protection against hazards and occupational safety" (second year); "fundamental rights" (third year); "a perspective for decent work" (fourth year). This announces a new way of working for the ILO; the yearly meeting would periodically have to examine "the strategic objectives of decent work" instead of examining the ratification and implementation of the 187 conventions; does this novelty not sign a radical modification of the ILO's historic mission? Does this not pose a threat for the entire system of conventions, therefore a threat for all the collective agreements and labour laws? This modification of the institutions is proposed in the name of implementing the Decent Work Agenda, as an integral part of the realisation of the MDG (The Millennium Development Goals). The report essentially centred on governance actually affirms: "We
essentially aim to help more effectively in concretizing the Decent
Work Agenda in collaboration with others". After registering the
support of the African Union, the Asian Bank for Development as well
as "the robust support from European and Latin American heads of
States and governments", the report continues: "The European
Commission has also adopted several communications on Decent Work as
a goal of the European's external and internal policies. As well as
the backing of intergovernmental bodies, the ILO's Decent Work Agenda
has received a positive response at diverse gatherings of non-state
actors such as the World economic Forum and the World Social Forum.
The Programme of the new International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC),
adopted at its founding Congress in Vienna in 2006 states "Congress
expresses support for the ILO's Decent Work Agenda. How can that be? The IMF and the World Bank, multinationals, the Davos Forum, chiefs of States and governments all unite to promote decent work? But are these not the same institutions that, in the name of market and free competitiveness are seeking to undo all labour laws, to impose flexibility, do away with social rights so to lower labour cost in order to ever increase multinational corporate profits? And, on the opposite, is ILO's historical mission not promoting regulations, norms, precise rights that are then enshrined in national legislations and labour laws? This is how the report defines decent work: "It is important here to dispel some misunderstanding on the concept of decent work. The idea is not to introduce a new goal and the fear some might feel that official recognition of this concept would bring a definition of its content is unfounded (.) Rather than its content, the added value of this concept is rather the "integrated approach" it implies (.) An integrated implementation respects the autonomy of each member concerning the choice and the proportion of the "ingredients" as well as the pace of the implementation. This means that each member is free to decide on the rhythm of the implementation of each of the strategic objectives according to their capacities" So, in the very words of the person who conceived the idea, decent work is a vacant "concept" a mere principle that anybody can fit into whatever they want and in whatever measure they think will be suitable. All labour activists know that what workers need in terms of protection against exploitation is not "concepts" but rules, enshrined in codes of law with due precisions and figures. All labour activists know that if bosses and governments are to be expected to abide by "principles", those latter have to be enforced by laws, collective agreements and labour laws. If thematic debates around vacant concepts take the place of the ratification and implementation of ILO convention, are the very bases on which the ILO was formed not under threat? Does this not challenge the decisive role of the ILO's norm commission which every year examines the implementation of norms, how many of them have been ratified, transposed into national laws and implemented? All the more so as these proposed reforms are made at the time when an increasing importance is yearly given to acknowledging multinationals through CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) agreements and other such international framework agreements. By the same token, a meeting of the ILO and MNCs (Multinational enterprises) is due to be organised on November 16th 2007. Is a specific status not conferred on multinational and transnational organisations against nation-Sates and against labour rights that have been secured within the nation-State framework? The ILO was constituted in 1919 as a tripartite organisation. Since that date, for each nation-State, representatives of governments, of national employers' organisations and representatives of national trade unions meet at the yearly meeting. If the ILO recognises multinationals, supra-national entities as partners, does this not mean that tripartism is being challenged, does this not mean that the enterprise is put above the democratic confrontation in which opposed interests are expressed? Besides, the report underlines "the increasing influence and reach of private and non-state actors" noting "the imbalance between some States' lack of capacity or of determination to efficiently implement their social responsibilities on the one hand and the power of some of these (non-state) actors on the other, which can only strengthen the temptation to shift the burden on the latter. If for instance, the development of mechanisms aiming at promoting corporate social responsibility can contribute to remedy the consequences of the weak institutional capacity of States, the very dimension of the phenomenon may have led some to consider that they might dispense with national institutions." So, how can one understand that the ILO should tread the path that would bring it to give preference to agreements with EMN (multinational corporations) at the expense of its own mission which consists in setting international norms that have to be implemented in the framework of nation-States? What is the meaning of this gathering with multinationals in Lisbon? Many trade unionists have had to confront firms that have signed CSR agreements and that make workers redundant and scrap labour rights.
Indeed, putting the enterprise above and in the place of the recognition of the different and diverging interests of employers, workers and governments in the framework of nation-states is no novelty. In his preface, Juan Somavia himself refers to the evolution that has taken place these 15 years: 1995, the Copenhagen World Summit for Social Development, 1998, an American President - Bill Clinton - visiting ILO for the first time ever and the declaration of fundamental principles and rights"; 1999, floating the concept of decent work. As far as we are concerned, during these years, we have repeatedly warned on a course that gradually erodes the normative quality of ILO norms and conventions. Today, are we not faced with a major shift? Is the very existence of the International Labour Organisation not at stake? We invite you to discuss those first considerations. We invite you to continue the discussion during this coming 14th meeting. Today, the international labour movement has to face issues that undermine the very bases on which, more than a century ago, trade unions were formed; the bases of class struggle that pits the antagonistic interests of the working class and of the capitalist class against each other, the bases of the defence of the working class's specific interests against the capitalist class.
************************
"The functionaries that lead the FNPR are a threat to the workers' movement -- they stifle any attempt at workers' resistance to the bosses impositions" News on the Congress of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR) The ILC International Newsletter has received from Russia a letter from a trade unionist who, as he explains, would like to explain to the working-class activists of the world the nature of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR), which has been presented by Guy Rider, the General Secretary of the ITUC, as the "biggest organization in the ITUC." We have decided -- with the approval of the author -- to publish excerpts of this letter as a contribution to the discussion in the workers' movement. ----- Dear Friends, In our remote Russia we lack information concerning the international workers' movement, due to our situation of very difficult social crumbling. Thus we only found out in mid-November 2006 about the constitution of an "International Trade Union Confederation" (ITUC). We found out during the congress of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR) on November 14 and 15. The FNPR, built in 1990, is the inheritor of the single and obligatory labor union that was part of the state apparatus before 1990. Guy Ryder, a leader of the ITUC, attended the FNPR congress and exclaimed that the FNPR, which claims to represent 28 million members, is the numerically biggest of the organization that joined the ITUC -- made up of 206 organizations, representing 168 million members. A little bit after the congress, we learned on the website of the ITUC about the formation on March 19, 2007 of a Regional Pan-European Council (CRPE) of the ITUC, "following a founding assembly in Rome, Italy, fifty years after the signature of the Rome Treaty, which marked the beginning of the process of European integration. The creation of the CRPE is the result of a resolution adopted during the founding congress of the ITUC in November 2006, in Vienna. As the constitution of the CRPE codifies, John Monks, the General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) will be the General Secretary of the New Organization. Mikhail Shmakov, president of the FNPR of Russia, was elected president of the Council." Thus the CRPE was constituted mostly by the ETUC and the FNPR, as well as organizations similar to the FNPR in Ukraine, Kazakstan. We do not know much about the ITUC or the ETUC. We have asked for more information. But if there is one thing we know, here in Russia, it is the nature of the FNPR. Maybe trade unionists in the rest of the world do not know about the FNPR. The first thing to know is that when we say that the FNPR is the "inheritor" of the old official trade union -- single and obligatory, which existed before 1990 -- we mean this both literally and figuratively. It inherited both the buildings and furniture as well as the members of the sectors where contributions are still obligatory. Concerning this, I collected the testimony of comrade P., an activist who built an independent trade union on the railways. He writes: "When you get a job, your trade union contribution is automatically deducted, without any request to join the union (which, nevertheless, the law explicitly calls for). Why not protest? Because there is the risk of conflict and the leaders do not want to lose their jobs -- in general, the functionaries of the FNPR are the former members of the enterprise administrative council. This is why the impression is given that we have a huge organization -- the numbers are inflated. If a worker is laid-off, he continues to be counted as a member of the trade union, if he didn't request to be dropped or if his request was ignored by the branch. Then he gets a second or third job and everything begins again. Š. If a worker wants to leave the trade union and doesn't buckle under
strong opposition, it's possible. But if he would like to join an independent
trade union (called 'alternative' unions by the bosses), repression
is used; ten to fifteen years ago there was only still moral pressure,
but now, with the strengthening of power, you can face physical assaults
and even be put on trial. Today, the independent trade union movement
has been virtually liquidated on the railways. In the best of cases,
some take a few just actions, but since 2003, nobody dares to organize
any real actions for demands. My own union is moribund. The functionaries
who lead the FNPR are a threat to the workers' movement, they stifle
any attempt at workers' resistance to the bosses impositions." I pose the question: Hasn't the basis of free and independent trade
unionism always been the conscious, free, and voluntary adhesion to Is it possible to defend the rights of the workers while trade unionism remains -- in practice, though not in law -- an "obligatory" trade unionism, with the automatic contributions of the workers? I repeat, this is not a discussion here of the orientation of the leaders of the FNPR, but of the nature of this kind of "trade unionism"; of course, in any democratic union you can challenge this or that position. This isn't the problem. So Guy Ryder praised the existence of the 28 million "members" of the FNPR. But at the congress of the FNPR there were speeches from Vladimir Putin, MPs from Russia United (the party of the president), representatives of the bosses associations, the Church, etc. The center of all their speeches was praise for conciliation and social partnerships. It fact, Putin opened and closed the congress. The president of the state Duma (our parliament), Boris Bryzlov, also one of the major speakers, declared: "Our party and the FNRP are linked by ancient, solid, and constructive links. The agreement between Russia United and the FNRP represents a solid basis for common work. It is important that the practical results of the world respond completely to the tasks of the unions and the party." Alas, we workers of the ex-Soviet Union know the significance of subordinating
the unions to a single party. I would like to specify: Andre Issaev, who at the end of the 1980s was a real unionist, is today both a leader of the FNPR, an MP, and the head of the commission on social affairs, which played a key role in the liquidation of the Soviet labor code and the social advantages of certain layers of the population (pensioners, war veterans, etc.), which led to demonstrations of tens of thousands of workers and pensioners. The mayor of Moscow, Louiri Loujov, declared to the FNPR congress: "The time has passed where questions are resolved through pickets at the mayor's office, like in 1990. Today the process of negotiations is on the agenda. A tripartite agreement will allow for the resolution of all the conflicts and the realization of the main tasks of the unions." What can be the nature of an organization whose congress is a series of speeches of governmental leaders coming to preach "tripartite agreements" and the abandonment of all traditional activities in defense of the specific demands of the workers? I would like to signal to our foreign comrades that at a moment when the congress of the FNPR took place, there were also big movements of workers' strikes in the oil the sector in Siberia, workers who live in conditions of incredible misery. The strikers, unionized in the FNPR or independent trade unions, even sent a delegation to the FNPR congress. Many workers who are members of the FNPR or independent trade unionists -- when they (rarely) do exist -- aim to oppose privatizations and defend workers. But the delegation of the striking oil workers, coming from Siberia, was denied entrance to the congress by the policy, who were ordered to do this by the leaders of the FNPR and the state politicians, who wanted to monopolize the speeches. D., and independent trade unionist in St. Petersburg, writes: "During the demonstration of 1998, Chmakov heavily supported the mayor of Moscow, Iouri Loujkov. Beginning in 1999, the unions of Chmakov demonstrated with "The Nation" of Loujkov in the May 1 demonstrations. The logical result of this alliance was the support given by the union for the OVR bloc in the legislative elections in 199 and in the election of the adjoint Chmakov, Andre Issaev, as MP on the OVD slate. Chmakov knew how to turn his political closeness with Loujkov into commercial dividends. This is the sixth year in a row that the Mayor of Moscow has given a subvention of 10 to 20 million $ for the Kremlin Christmas Tree, for which the FNRP is one of the organizers. And the trade union is in charge each year for the part of the party of the 'Art-Mix' company, whose general director is the son of Mr. Chmakov, Victor." The Moscow mayor, Iouri Loujkov (one of the richest men in Russia) and the leaders of the FNPR march hand in hand. Loujkov has for example decreed the FNPR's ownership of the "Izmailovo" hotel complex, built for the Olympic games, 50,000 meters squared of offices that are rented for 300$ per meter a year. D. writes: "Since 1992, the trade union has been given 2582 apartment buildings, 678 sanatoriums (including the Maurice Thorez sanatorium, the sanatorium of Lazarev, and close to half in Mineralye Vody, in the Caucus), 131 hotels, 568 stadiums and sports complexes, 500 camping grounds, as well as car centers and storesŠ For example, the building of the Institute of Leadership Training of the union was sold to the Stolitchnii bank, the Pestovo pensions building to Tsentrobank, etc. The evaluation of independent experts on the value of these goods varies from 6 to 100 billion dollars. These variations can be explained by the fact that the buildings were often sold at extremely low prices. Thus, it was only in 2007 that we learned that, a year earlier, 12 hectares of land for "Baltiets" amusement parks for children was sold for 1 million rubles, which is the price of a studio downtown. The buyer was an unknown investment company that wanted to build cottages. The functionaries of the committee for the administration of goods of St. Petersburg declared that they did not observe any irregularity with the privatization of "Baltiets." After these declarations, the leaders of the independent trade union did not even dare to register a complaint to the Justice to verify if this operation was fraudulent or not. In St. Petersburg, the trade unions posses 177 expensive buildings. The transactions of the buildings are often overtly criminal. That is why, on May 23, 2004, a group of leaders of the main unions of the region publicly demanded the demission of the president of the federation of St. Petersburg trade unions, Garri Lisiouk. The motive of the scandal was the conclusion of an inspection commission concerning 2003. The main accusation was the attempt to sell (for a symbolic price) the main Palace of Culture of the city to the Petroproinvest company, who according to the experts, was linked to the sons of a union leader. Previously, Garri Lisiou sold at a low price, without the agreement of his colleagues, a space in the Lensoviet Palace of Culture and seven hectares of land downtown and signed a whole series of documents concerning the sales "for free" of the central yacht club and the Ioubileinii Sports Palace. In the Autumn of 2004, Garry Lisiouk, who had just stepped down due to the scandal, was beaten up in the street. According to numerous commentators, this attack was linked to a conflict between the diverse commercial structures, which had been trying to control to Spartak stadium, on the Krestovski island, next to the State Datcha and the diplomatic residencies. Currently, Chmakov lives in Ptitchki, a town for the eliteŠ where the price for houses ranges from 850,000 to 10 million. Also living here is the daughter of the ex-president of the Committee of Customs, Anatoli Krouglov, Anna Krouglava and Andrei Nerodenkov, who was part of the Mabeteks business. His name is also on the list of the investigation of the judge, Daniel Devo. Also living here is the top-manager of Vneshtorbank, Dmitri Touline. Also living here is Valentin Roumachev, the president's ex-media guru Viatcheslav Kostilov, another Kremlin leader Serguei Filatov, the former head of the company ORT-Publicité, Serguei Lissovski, and the current vice-mayor of Moscow, Valeri ChantsevŠ" Excuse us for this long description, but this concerns the frankly Mafioso nature, contrary to all the traditions of free and independent trade unionism, of the structures of the FNPR, which Guy Ryder praised for joining the ITUC and fusing with the ETUC into the CRPE. Despite our isolation and lack of information, we feel that it is our duty as independent trade unionists to provide you with this information. Respectfully, M. D. **********************
4,000 workers and youth demonstrate in Prague on May 26: "No to U.S. military bases! Out with NATO!" Introduction On Saturday, May 26, 4,000 Czech workers and youth -- as well as a delegation from neighboring Slovakia -- demonstrated in Prague against the establishment of U.S. military bases and radars in the Czech Republic. They gathered in the Vencelas plaza and the demonstrators marched to the headquarters of the president of the republic, Prague Castle. They chanted: "Referendum! We will not back down! No to U.S. military bases! Let's leave NATO! Out with the government! No to war! Don't decide for us! War against the peoples -- the peoples against war!" Their signs read: "Only the citizens have the right to decide! Youth against war and occupation!" A correspondent for the ILC International Newsletter interviewed some of the participants. Three students from Prague said: "We are against U.S. foreign policy. We don't want the American army here, just like we didn't want the Russians in 1968. We are not against the American people -- we're against their government." Mizek, a pensioner who belongs to the KSCM Communist Party explained: "We don't want radars here. It's always the French, English, Russians, and Americans who decide. Now, we should decide! They lead us to war but we don't want war. I've lived through war. The government acts secretly, without disclosing information to us. We know nothing." Aneta and Helena, students in Prague, exclaimed: "The government is acting in our name -- but without us. This must change. We are here against the war. We signed the petition. We will not back down. We have no favors to give to the United States. We are against rockets and radars in Europe. They want to dominate the whole world. This is the beginning of a cold war against the Russians. The Americans are provocateurs." Vladimir, a 58-year-old worker, told us: "Why am I here? I am a worker. I worked for 29 years for CKD, an electronics company that made transformers and generators. Today, the factory no longer exists. There are only ruins. The Germans bought the company. I worked there until the end of the 1980s. I knew how to do everything. There were layoffs. Now I have a family and children. We don't want them to go fight against the Russians. That is why I am here, at this demonstration. Europe can be made -- but a Europe of peace. You know, workers in your country have the same problems as workers in our country. They fight for better wages, for schools for their children, etc. If there is a war, nothing will remain. That is why I am here. I am a communist. Now I work in a private enterprise. My old factory, bought by Siemens, had production in Prague discontinued." Hana explained: "Why am I demonstrating? Because I live 2 k.m. from the spot where they want to set up the radars! We've already experienced the Russians, we don't want an American occupation. I am the spokesperson for Brdy (the location where the radars are planned to be installed). This is my second protest. I am not in any party. We don't want radars." Jakub and Jana, two students, told us: "We are against the radars and for a referendum. It is not a given that they will be set up -- because even the U.S. has to see the question of finances. But the Czech government and president already agree, although 75 to 80% of the Czech population is against these plans!" Helena, a housing agent, said: "I am against the military bases of a foreign army. We already lived this with the Russians. The Americans are imperialists. They want to run the world. Maybe it's a democracy -- maybe not. But everything is done without us. On these crucial decisions, everybody should be allowed to decide. This was not part of the electoral programs. Then a minister made an agreement with the Americans. We found out about this after the elections. We went six years without knowing! I go to all the demonstrations and I will continue until we have democracy and the removal of all the bases! Our media does not give us news. They do not admit that 80% of the population is against bases and radars. I wrote to the television station. I asked them why there was no news, why they referred to "a few hundred demonstrators" when over 3,000 of us were at the protest! I did not receive a response. I don't listen to the television or the newspapers. They lie. They don't tell the truth." (Interviews conducted by O. Smolikova) **********************
Solidarity with the workers of Unilever, who are fighting to reopen their factory: An interview with Franklyn D'Souza, the vice-president of Hindustan Lever union Hindustan Lever is the Indian affiliate of the big multinational corporation Unilever, which has signed an agreement on "corporate social responsibility." Frankly D'Souza worked for 20 years in the Sewree factory, one of the factories of the company near Mumbai. A trade unionist for a long time, he is leader in the Sewree branch and on a national level. The trade union of the workers of Hindustan Lever is what, in India, is called an "independent union", that is, it isn't affiliated to any of the existing national confederations. One year ago, Unilever imposed the closure of the Sewree factory. Franklyn D'Souza was one of the organizers of the resistance of the workers, who demanded the reopening of the factory. Franklyn D'Souza: I was in Europe for a meeting of Unilever investors, in front of which we protested, with the support of the unions in Holland of Unilever. We also received the support of the International Federation of Food Workers. Why did we protest? It was to protest the closing of our factory and demand it reopen. We are 1,000 workers who lost our jobs following the closure of the Unilever factory in Sewree. Twenty years ago, this factory -- one of the main producers from Unilever in India -- produced 100,000 of soap and 30,000 of detergent. Beginning in 1986, Hindustan Lever began to transfer its production in Mumbai (Bombay) to other regions of the country where taxes and wages were lower. In 2005, Hindustan Lever sold the factory to a company named Bo Limited. This company is only a name. Unilever advanced the necessary sums for the sale of the factory. The goal was to facilitate the closure of the factory, which -- due to Indian law -- would have been more difficult if Unilever had taken this decision itself. Two months later, the management announced a plan closing the factory. Out of the 1,000 workers that were employed, 900, in response to the appeal of their trade union, refuse to be voluntarily fired. They struck, demonstrated, and, one year later, they remain organized. Our trade union struggles on all fronts: workers' action and demonstrations, as well as through political and legal forms. What I said here in Europe is what we have affirmed in India for one year. We are not defeated, we will continue the struggle to reopen our factory, for the reintegration of our jobs, and for the payment of our wages. We addressed parliament to protest the fact that the factory closure was illegal -- because it was due to a fictitious transfer of a production unit to a firm that was nothing other than a cover for our employer. We also addressed the legal authorities -- which sometimes agreed with us, but whose decisions were not respected by Unilever. We intend to continue and to go to the Supreme Court. The workers are continuing the struggle, but they are in a difficult situation. They received a lay-off compensation and with this money we are able to give weekly contribution to each. But with each day that passes, the situation is more and more difficult. We now want to develop our campaign on an international level. Question: Is Hindustan Lever an isolated case? Franklyn D'Souza: It is an illustration of what is going on in India and throughout the world: the drive to have the lowest "labor costs" possible. Unilever "restructures" (i.e. lays off) in Europe (1) and in Holland, as we told the unionists in Holland. In India, Unilever transfers numerous of its activities to rural zones. This is a general phenomenon in the country, because in these regions taxes are lower and the workers are not organized into trade unions. This is part of the policy of "opening and new economic policies" aiming to accelerate the privatizations, the dismantling of the public sector, and encouraging foreign investments. This policy has been followed by different governments, including the current government -- a government of the Congress Party supported by the left in Parliament, that is through the MPs of the two Communist Parties. (2) This policy finds its highest expression in the constitution of free trade zones, that is, territories that are outside national sovereignty, where the corporations benefit from the particularly favorable conditions that I mentioned earlier. They are justified by creating new jobs. But in reality, these zones lead to the destruction of more agricultural jobs than are newly created. Moreover, these are part of a generalized precarity and the destruction of the rights -- the labor laws are not implemented in these zones. This is essentially a new system of "Zamindars" (3), which existed during the British colonial domination. Taking away land from the peasants to give them to the multinationals can only come up against resistance. Recently, in the state of West-Bengal, 21 peasants were killed when they opposed the seizure of their land. For us, these terrible events have a particularly tragic meaning because the state of West-Bengal is governed by the Communist Party (Marxist) of India and this government, which came to power through the votes of the peasants, has turned against its electorate, evoking the need for globalization and free trade. We've reached the conclusion that the trade unions should reject this machine and, thus, should affirm their independence in relation to the political parties. Question: Concerning the social and political developments, there is much talk of the NGOs. In your opinion, can the NGOs be compared to trade unions? Franklyn D'Souza: Not at all. The trade unions are the product of the organized action of the workers to defend their lives. This is not the case with NGOs. These cannot be completely independent because they depend on the donators who finance them. The trade unions must face their responsibilities in each country and throughout the world. That is why we call on them to support the struggle of workers at Unilever in India, a struggle which concerns all. Question: What kind of support would you like from the workers and workers' organization internationally? Franklyn D'Souza: We want the big bosses of Unilever to know that the workers, throughout the world, are in solidarity with their brothers and sisters in India, who refuse to see their rights ignored. Immediately, it is necessary to address the management of Unilever with messages from organizations, trade unions, and activists, with the following demands: -- Reopen the factory; It is also necessary to send solidarity messages to our trade union in Bombay. This would be a precious aide. We are counting on you. ----- Endnotes (1) Unilever France is preparing a new "social plan" for three years, concerning now 20% of the workers. (2) Two parties coming from the old Communist Party exist in India: the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party (Marxist), which is the main political force in the state of West-Bengal, where it controls the government. (3) The "zamindars" were the tax collectors in a region, designate by the British authorities. In exchange for their services, they received land ownership. ------ To express your solidarity with the laid-off workers of Unilever, support their demands in the name of your organization or in a personal capacity. Write your message to the ILC, which will transmit it to the management of Unilever and the Hindustan Lever Employees Union. Entente internationale des travailleurs et des peuples, C/° Parti des travailleurs, 87, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris, France.Tél. : (331) 48 01 88 28 Fax : (331) 48 01 88 36 E-mail : eit.ilc@fr.oleane.com ------ TRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL KATRINA Campagne de soutien au tribunal Katrina DECLARATION DE SOUTIEN DE Nous sommes membres d'organisations syndicales, politiques, d'organisations de jeunes et du monde associatif, de la République Dominicaine, d'Haïti, de Guadeloupe, de Martinique, de Sainte-Lucie, du Mexique, du Brésil, de France, des Etats-UniS. Nous nous sommes réunis les 11 et 12 Mai 2007 à Santo-Domingo, à l'initiative de l'Association des travailleurs et des peuples de la Caraïbe (ATPC), avec le soutien de l'Entente internationale des travailleurs et des peuples, dans le cadre d'une rencontre caribéenne de solidarité avec le peuple d'Haïti. Nous avons entendu à cette rencontre le rapport présenté
par les délégués des Etats-Unis sur les conséquences
de l'Ouragan Katrina en août 2005 : Nous, qui nous sommes réunis à Santo Domingo les 11 et
12 mai 2007 : Nous nous engageons à prendre toutes les initiatives nécessaires, dans nos organisations, dans nos pays respectifs pour assurer le succès du Tribunal et pour y envoyer des délégués. Santo-Domingo le 12 Mai 2007.
|
Open World Conference of Workers