|
|
A dossier of weekly information published by the ----- SPECIAL ISSUE NUMBER THREE European Workers Alliance An appeal has been launched by 242 workers activists, unionists, and elected representatives from 15 countries of Europe: "No to the new European treaty! Abrogate all the pensions! Abrogate the Maastricht-Amsterdam treaty! Defend and win back all the rights and guarantees contained in the legislations of each of our countries!" The appeal concluded with the proposal to "establish the bases of a common campaign, in each of our countries and throughout Europe, for the 'No to the new treaty' and to prepare a joint conference." Due to the schedules of the different signers who have been consulted, it seems that the best date for such a conference would be the first weekend of February 2008, with the proposed location being Paris. On the eve of the summit of the heads of state, which is meeting on October 18, 2007, to adopt the new treaty, we are publishing in this special issue, European Bulletin number three published by the European Workers Alliance, the first contributions of the signers of the appeal from France, Germany, Belgium, Hungary and Moldavia. These are the first contributions aiming to fill out in each of our countries the survey of the consequences of the policies of the European Union. We invite all to enlarge the signature campaign around the appeal to send us your contributions. ----- Contact: Informations internationales ----- No to the new European treaty! In the last issue of the ILC International Newsletter No. 256 of October 9, we published the appeal, countersigned by 235 activists and trade unionists from 15 countries, titled: "No to the new treaty of the European Union" and "Abrogate all treaties! Abrogate de Maastricht-Amsterdam Treaty, Defense and Reconquest of the rights and guarantees contained in the legislation of each of our countries!" The appeal called for contributions and testimonies. Today we publish the following extensive excerpts from the contribution by H.W. Schuster (President of the AfA of Düsseldorf). Why I congratulate myself on the appeal "Down with the new European treaty-abolition of the European Union's treaties!" and their support. Why I am for the organization of a European conference? The two texts appeared almost simultaneously. The appeal of the EIT "Down with the new European treaty-abolition of the European Union's treaties!" The document "Limits on the right to strike" published by the scientific services of the German Bundestag. The alternative could not be clearer: On the one hand we have the fight for the abolition of the Maastricht-Amsterdam Treaty, for the defense and reconquest of the rights and guarantees anchored in the social legislation of the labor code of our countries. On the other hand, the 'scientific' justification for the radical overthrow of the right to strike. We stand before this alternative: We can be thrown back, deprived of rights and protection, stripped
of our trade unions and the right to strike. According to the European Union's law "liberty within the internal market" wherein the "free circulation of merchandise" breaks the right to strike. An excerpt from the debates of the European parliament on November 5, 1997 points out in an exemplary fashion the importance that the European Union's Commission attaches to the right to strike. Neil Kinnock, who was then the European Commissioner at the meeting and formerly president of the British Labor Party, stated the situation from the point of view of the Commission. The occasion was the strike of the truck drivers in France. Through the numerous roadblocks, in Calais among others, the truck drivers' strike (according to the version of the European Commission and various European governments) was detrimental to the "free circulation of merchandise". In a press release on the European parliament's debates of November 5, 1997 it was stated that, "Commissioner Neil Kinnock made a declaration on the truck drivers' strike in France. He said that on the eve of the strike he had spoken to the French government in order that measures could be taken to reduce to a minimum the consequences for international circulation." As of the second day, he had written to the French transport minister and trade union leaders in order to draw their attention to the international consequences of the strike. Kinnock said the Commission was also concerned about the question of the responsibility of the member states on the question of free circulation. According to legal advice it should continue to watch over what the member states did in order to ensure the free circulation of the internal market. The Commission naturally accepted the social rights of the workers, but free circulation should not be disrupted by measures taken by the strike. Unquestionably: the European Union's law the "free circulation of the internal market" and consequently the "free circulation of merchandise" breaks the right to strike. Following the studies undertaken the German presidency of the council, the Portuguese presidency must now pass the "reformed treaty." In the European Worker Alliance's appeal, the European Union's objectives are indicated: "For the European Union, it is about overturning all the labor relations in existence, they must accomplish of the "reforms" undertaken, urgently en with all labor codes, all the statutes and all systems of collective bargaining." As the European Commission advances progressively its "strategy of flexicurity," the pressure on the unions increases for them to submit, join and integrate into this objective, that they accept the right to strike be scrapped, etc. "There is no right to strike in the European Union!" The presidency of the European Union's council wants to pass the "reformed treaty" at all costs, that is to say the draft of the aborted European Constitution, the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, etc. The ratification should start in the different countries next January. What does the European Union say on the right to strike? According to article I-4, paragraph 1 of the constitution rejected by the French and the Dutch and therefore aborted, "the free circulation of persons, services, merchandise and capital as well the freedom of establishment" are central fundamental freedoms. This derives from the "objectives of the Union " (I-3), of the "internal market with unforced free competition." For the integral respect for ILO Conventions 87 and 98! How are the member states reacting in regard to the right to strike? In Germany, the right to strike is protected in the constitutional right by article 9 (3) of the Fundamental Law. However, in practice the elementary union rights are not available to civil servants. "The right to collective bargaining is still refused to teachers and teachers having the status of civil servants. Despite reiterated criticism by the ILO against the non-observance of Convention 98 nothing has changed in this situation. The rights of workers are restricted principally by the fact that the right to strike is refused to all public servants, including teachers. The ILO has on many occasions reminded the federal government since 1959 that this restriction is in contradiction to Convention 87 and has invited them to modify their legislation." (Annual report of the ICFTU on attempts against union rights, 2006). The annual report of the ICFTU cites in over 70 pages other examples of attempts against union rights in European Union countries, including those 'associated' members or the candidates to entry into the European Union in 2005: Belgium: the ministry of the interior issued and ordinance against the October 2005 strikes that allowed police action in the event "the right of free circulation to non-strikers and work was prejudiced" because of the strikes. Bulgaria: the right to strike was banned in the energy, communications and health care sectors. The law regarding civil servants banned their right to collective bargaining. Estonia: the personnel of public services of the state or communes do not have the right to strike. This ban applies to all personnel. Great Britain: "Strikes must be limited to personnel and their employers, the conflict must appertain uniquely or principally to questions related to employment." Croatia: The right to strike is restricted. "In order to maintain production a process of obligatory arbitration can be prescribed in all companies in order to provide minimum service." Lithuania: Strikes banned for numerous groups of workers, for example for those supplying gas and heating. Poland: "workers under individual contracts do not have the right to found a union nor to join a union, and cannot be represented by unions." A government commission questioned the right of unions to negotiate on their own, a right that is currently registered in the constitution. Romania: Health care workers, pharmacies, schools, communications branches of radio and television, transportation and essential services (supplying gas, electricity, etc.) must in the event of a strike ensure a minimum services, or a third of their normal activity. The strike in the Bucharest subway is illegal: the tribunal decided in favor of the employer since a third of the service-one line out of three-must operate normally. Serbia: the right to strike is banned for employees of essential services. The notion of 'essential service' is understood in a wide sense and covers almost 60% of the workers (teachers and postal service employees included.) Slovakia: Restriction in the right to strike for example,. in the case of oil and gas production workers. Spain: "Despite a wide legal framework on the rights of the CDD workers, that constitute almost a third of the group, were undermined, particularly their right to collective bargaining." Czech Republic: In public services, "collective bargaining on wages is not possible with rare exceptions. The same applies to other benefits which the public sector claims." Turkey: "The law on unions for employees of the state excludes over 450,000 persons in the public services from joining a union. Employees wanting to join a union or quitting one must have notarized proof (cost $50 US dollars). It is forbidden to impede the delivery of raw materials to a factory or that finished products are delivered. It is also forbidden to prevent no-unionists from working. Only four or five strikers can form a picket line at the entrance to the factory in order to oversee the strike, but they cannot put up a tent or other shelter. Only banners carrying the inscription that "this company is on strike" are authorized." Hungary: "After the foundation of a union, the employer and the union have the obligation to cooperate. In the framework of a special law, employees of the state are allowed to negotiate their labor conditions, but it is up to the parliament to definitively rule on increases in treatment within the public service. All countries have ratified ILO Conventions 87 and 98. Nevertheless their legislation over the past years is marked by a violation of these Conventions. As the examples show, this applies particularly to the public services, healthcare, electricity supply, gas and water, garbage collection services, local transport and long distance travel, etc. This applies to casual labor personnel who are forced to earn wages outside the norm and are victims of the reform of the labor market that have decided where the "directive lines on the policy of employment" are drawn. The Grand Coalition follows the policy of the Schroder Agenda by reinforcing it-on the "limits of the right to strike." The Nuremburg tribunal of August 8, 2007 prohibited the strike of the train conductors. The motives given were: "The tribunal has doubts on the legality of the strikes. The strike threatens to be prejudicial not only for the plaintiff (the DBAG) as well as for all the economy particularly at the time when there is an increase in trips." A day later Sommer, the president of the DGB declared: "The unions will defend the right to strike guaranteed by the Constitution by all means at their disposal against those who want to limit it. This concerns legal decisions as well as the confederation of employers or the Gesamtmetall who are asking for a regulation by the legislator. I expressly warn the legislator against any overturn of this elementary democratic right." Sommer categorically rejected resorting to "an argument for the common good." The right to work, the autonomy of negotiation, the free negotiations, the collective bargaining and the unions must be reduced. With this objective the Grand Coalition obtained the scientific services of the Bundestag. "The work of the scientific services must assist the deputies of the Bundestag to comply with their mandates." On September 14, 2007, P. Robbe presented the results of his work on "The limits of the right to strike." He defended the position in which "the right to strike is not protects of itself but as a means of achieving conventional agreements." Therefore strikes like the colleagues at Telekom would no longer be covered un the right to strike, since their strike not only concerned their wages, etc., but also relocation. Robbe also estimated that "strikes are not tolerable because of the consequences on priority rights such as life and health in sectors such as water, gas and electricity." Obviously the same applies to the transport of gas. It is not necessary to underline, that along with the above mentioned sectors, the healthcare colleagues, garbage collectors, local transport (OPNV) etc., only have the right to advertise strikes. In his assessment Robbe explained that "the right to strike as an expression of the right of coalition as outlined in Article 9, paragraph 3GG, sums up the regulation covering the collectivity. It is therefore permitted to subscribe to this regulation since the right to coalition without limits would mean the total absence of all other rights and would make judicial order absurd. There go our rights and democracy! Let us go back to Kinnock and the European Union. In SoPoDe No. 48 on November 7 , 1997, we published a declaration of the French committee for the annulment of the Maastricht Treaty. Ten years have passed but the position of the committee remains correct. "The national committee for the annulment of the Maastricht Treaty condemns the attempt by the European Union to break the truckers' strikes. Recently the European Union opposed the strike of the Spanish truckers. When it replaces the right to strike in question its attack takes on a new dimension. The truckers have their demands. It is their right to define, along with their national unions, their demands and the means of action without being subject to the intervention of Brussels, Maastricht or Amsterdam. To defend their demands through a strike, when faced by the refusal of the employers and the governments, there is no other alternative than democracy. Today, ten years later, we can still point to each phrase relative to the democratic right of workers to demand and dispose of their unions. But today it is no longer about the fact the European Union and its treaties are not compatible with democracy when the European Union wants to grab that right. The generalized attacks throughout Europe against the autonomy of negotiation, the independence of unions and in particular against the right to strike that are the conditions for the brutal destruction of public services and their privatization, prove that the European Union and its treaties are incompatible with democracy. That is why the treaties must be annulled in the name of democracy, in the name of the defense and the reconquest of our gains, our rights and our organizations. "It is absolutely essential that the charter of fundamental rights be clearly restrictive in all the member states of the European Union." What is the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Last September 27, during the preparation of the new treaty, John Monks, secretary general of the ETUC, in an address to an assembly of parlamentarians and trade unionists of the European parliament in Strasburg declared: "It is absolutely essential that the Charter of Fundamental Rights be clearly restrictive in all the member states of the European Union." The recent urgent declaration of the ETUC congress went further indicating: "It is the most progressive Charter in the world obtained by a union movement . It guarantees the right to information and consultation, and the rights to negotiate and undertake collective actions, including strikes." What about this affirmation? Will the Charter guarantee union rights? Three articles in the Charter are dedicated to union rights: article 12 on "the freedom of meeting and association," article 27 on "the right to information and consultation of the workers within their company," and article 28 on "the right of negotiation and collective actions." These are the articles supported by all the partisans of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is in fact a weapon against the right of unions. What does it say? "The workers and their employers or their respective organizations have, in accordance with the right of the Union and national legislation and practices, the right to negotiate and undertake collective bargaining on an appropriate level and to have recourse, in the event of conflicts of interests, to collective actions for the defense of their interests including to strike." Apparently there is nothing further to say. But European jurists in an article titled, "The European Labor Right and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union," made the following remarks that are disturbing: "The right to conclude collective conventions could presage an obligation to conclude these conventions, which would go against the fundamental right of freedom of unions in national legislation. The right to free collective negotiation implies the freedom to launch or not to launch negotiations and to conclude or not conclude a convention." The European jurists point out the dangers of this formula: "The right to conclude collective conventions means that the two parties-the workers and their employees or their respective organizations-must abstain once their negotiations have begun, from any harmful behavior such as delaying tactics or a block rejection and repeat the positions that limit the effective use of the law." These European jurists bring up a major point: in the name of the right of employers to conclude a collective convention, any action (including a strike) by union organizations wanting to oppose employer demands could be denounced as 'harmful' and delay the 'conclusion' of the negotiation. These same jurists pose another problem: "Article 28 is written in the form of al alternative: "The workers and the employers or their respective organizations." The word 'or' means that when the workers or this employers are not organized in good and due form, they nevertheless have the right to negotiate collectively, even without the structure of an organization." The wording of Article 28 opens the possibility to negotiations outside of union organizations, which could be totally divested of their prerogatives. As we see it, article 28, far from constituting a 'guarantee' for union organizations, could be seized as a weapon against the national rights to negotiation conquered by union organizations and the class war. Complementary explanations of the Presidium After the Charter of Fundamental Rights was published, at the time of the European summit in Nice in December 2000, a continual passing-of-the-buck was organized on the subject. In fact, while the Charter was written, each of the articles was accompanied by explanations written by the presidium of the European Convention that had written it. These explanations are the basis for the interpretation of each of the articles of the Charter. Article 52, paragraph 7, is quite explicit: "The explanations written are in the view of guiding the interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, are duly taken into consideration by the jurisdictions of the Union and the member states." Why camouflage this major factor? Why not indicate that the articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in omitting the fact that each is followed by explanations that constitute the sole judicial base in the case of a conflict in interpretation?
Let us return to the so-called union rights given by the Charter. Article 12 on the right to assembly and association The formulation of the article is generous: "Every person has the right to peaceful assembly and the right to association on all levels, particularly in the political, union, and civic domains, which means that all have the right to found unions with others and to join them in order to defend their interests." Apparently, all is well. But in the case of a conflict over interpretation, what is the explanation of the presidium? "The current article does not prohibit legitimate restrictions on these rights by members of the armed forces, the police, or the state administration." What duplicity! The right to association and assembly is recognized, but the complementary explanation specifies that the governments have a green light to undermine this right arbitrarily. Article 27 on the right to information and consultation on workers inside the enterprise The article states: "The workers or their representatives should see guaranteed, on the appropriate levels, useful information and consultation, in the cases foreseen by the right of the EU and the national legislations and practices." But what does the complementary explanation say? "The advances of the Union in this domain is important: Š Directives 2002/14/CE (general framework relative to the information and consultation of the workers in the European Community), 98/59/CE (collective layoffs), 2001/23/CE (company transfers), and 94/45/CE (European company committees)." Thus, this article is nothing other than the implementation of several European directives. Let's take the last one that was cited, concerning European company committees." The explanation of the motives of this directive of 1994 is informative: "The rise in competiveness of the European companies, which has become a vital factor for a positive response to be found for the current difficulties, demands the rise in the productivity and a greater engagement by workers in the market and the functioning of the enterprise in which they work." And, later, speaking of "restructuring," the explanation states: "The information and consultation of the workers is a minimal condition for the decisions to be adopted and implemented in a acceptable social context." The objective affirmed by this 1994 directive, the legal basis of Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, is thus to make the unions preside over the layoff-restructuring plans, in order give them the appearance of being "socially-acceptable." These are the so-called rights of the Charter put forward by the ETUC. Correspondent ************************
Pensions, Social Security, Public SectorŠ Labor News reveals the plans laid out by Sarkozy to the Brussels Commission This document was deliberately covered up by the media. Why? Excerpts from Informations Ouvrières (Labor News) Issue 813 The preamble says it all: "The president of the Republic Š has come to the Eurogroup on July 9 Š to underline the strength of the project of the new French government in support of reforms and the rationalization of public financing. Only two months later, the present documents constitutes a first concrete translation of this plan, in the form of a stages plan before the preparation of the next Stability Program in December." It is clear. Behind the discourse of "equality" it is necessary to hold to the "engagements" with the European Union. And what in particular has Sarkozy promised to do for the Brussels Commission? "Cut in half the evolution of public spending" "The strategy of public financing is unambiguously places under a unprecedented control of public spending. The president of the Republic promised this on July 9. Š The control of public spending aims to cut in half the evolution of public spending." "22,800 functionary posts will be suppressed in 2008" "For the state: Š the reduction of the number of functionaries will be one element: 22,800 functionary posts will be suppressed in 2008, thanks in particular to the non-replacement of one out of three functionaries (then 1 out of 2 in 2009). This will be much stronger effort that in the past." "The social spending, the growth of the National Objective for Medical Insurance spending in 2008, will be set at 2.8% - that is, less than 2% in volume per year, a clear drop in relation to previous budgets." "A clear drop in social spending" But this is not enough for Brussels. The document continues: "The government will not stop there. The President of the Republic and the Prime Minister launched at the beginning of the summer a General Revision of Public Policy. Š The general revue will contribute to modernizing the organization of administrations (fusion of the General Management of Taxes and the General Management Public Accounting Š and the reform of legal framework). It will contribute toward reaching the objective of the non-replacement of one out of three retirees in the public state sector." Thus, all the measures foreseen by Nicholas Sarkozy stem from this project at the behest of the institutions of the European Union. Correspondent ----- One of the essential projects of Sarkozy: Pensions Concerning pensions, the document demonstrates that the offensive the special regimes is only a forerunner of an offensive against all pensions. The engagement taken with Brussels is clear: "For social spending, the reform of pensions to come aims to control the dynamic of elderly insurance spending and to favor an extension of the period of contribution, which is needed to obtain a complete pension." And, later, it states: "the reform of the pensions in 2008 has a priority the augmentation of the activity rates of seniors, the reform of the special regimes, and the rise in length of necessary insurance to obtain a full pension." Even further down, the document that the scheduled extension from 40 to 41 years of contributions to have a full pension is only one step in the unending extension of contribution time. The document notes: "In the framework of the reform of the pensions, the number of years of necessary activity to obtain a full pension should rise beginning in 2009 at the same rate as life expectancy." This is what Sarkozy has promised to the European Union. This is what is hidden by all the partisans of the European Union, whatever be their political appearance. Brussels responds: Insufficient, "France should strengthen its effort" On September 14, at the Council of European Ministers of Economy, this plan was judged to be insufficient. The president of Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, declared: "We think that the goals set forward by France do not reach the level we desire. France should strengthen its efforts to reduce its deficit." The European Central Bank threatens France again Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the ECB, said on September 23
(TV5 Monde-Le Parisien): "French public finances are a big difficulty.
This is a fact. Š And the Prime Minister was probably correct to underline
this," and added, "The French, like the Europeans, have given
the ECB the mandate to assure price stability." And it is the name of this objective reaffirmed by Trichet and inscribed into the goals of a new European treaty that Sarkozy announced his will to put an ax to all public budgets. ----- The major measures put forward by the President of the Republic in the last two weeks: - Redo the labor contract and modify the Labor Code. Over 300 collective bargaining contracts should be thrown away. - Get rid of the special pension regimes, to go from 41 or 42 years
of contributions in 2008
- Maintain the special regimes and all the existing pension regimes! These are the urgent demands around which we must regroup. Aren't these questions at the heart of the discussion on the construction of a real workers' party? Let's meet to discuss this. *********************
To the workers, youth, and trade unionists: The hour is grave. Our The moment is serious. What is at stake in the current political crisis are our social rights! What force can end this march to dislocation and the destruction of our rights? From the north to the south of the country, they are in the process of conditioning the people for the break-up of Belgium. What is the goal of all this? All of the declarations of the bosses call for a radical undermining of the rights of workers. Since the beginning of the "negotiations" following the June 10 elections, there have only been violently anti-social projects on the table. These projects come as much from the partisans of the regionalization and separatism as from those who claim to want to maintain an important federal power. The president of the FGTB, Rudy De Leeuw, was right to say: "Who will benefit from a big communitarian reform? I am still waiting for somebody to show me how such a reform would serve the interests of the workers. If they break up Social Security, poverty will increase in Walloons; but in Flanders, too, the gap between the rich and the poor will rise. I do not see any advantage for the Flemish economy. Most of the Flemish proposals for a state reform come from the Flemish employers. These folks rarely mobilize for social improvements. When the VOKA calls for regionalization of unemployment benefits and pre-pensions, you can well imagine what it is going to collect." (September 4, 2007) Careful, we're in danger! Wages, collective bargaining contracts, the right to work, and Social Security are threatened. That is why it is the duty of the leaders of the SP and the SP.A to refuse to associate with a "reform of the State" that would go against the objectives of the FGTB. The union would benefit greatly from bringing together the leaders of these two parties to demand that they pronounce together, clearly and publicly, this perspective. Neither the plague nor cholera Today, those who prepare for the break-up of Belgium want to make us choose between the plague and cholera: Either a governmental agreement to break up our social rights, while pretending to "save Belgium" (for a short period: the country would not survive a long time if the federal social rights are dismantled) or the immediate break-up of Belgium, with the effect of directly getting rid of our social rights guaranteed nationally. That we have reached this point is the result of the policies of social regression dictated by the European Union and the European Central Bank, which is subordinate to the American financial markets in crisis, as the recent news demonstrates. All the parties willing to "negotiate" are situated on the respect of the demands of the European Union. Already, the essence of the laws voted on in Belgium are only the transcription of European directives. For years, we have seen a serious social retreat in Belgium, as in all of Europe. Today, the European Union, as a relay for the financial markets, wants the governments to go even further and get rid of all the social conquests. But this objective comes up against the Belgian working class. Of course, the workers have suffered blows, but they have not lost their strength - close to 3 million workers are unionized in our country. That is why the current political offensive aims to dismantle the working class to more effectively dismantle its rights. In our opinion, the same people who want to break up the unity of the Belgian working-class and its conquests are the same people who, throughout Europe, threaten the existence of nations, which are the framework in which all the collective and social conquests have been won. Are we exaggerating? Asked by Le Soir (August 14), a researcher of the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Paris) responds to the question: "Why does the European Union not react against these separatist drives?" The researcher responded: "The European Union has a rather ambiguous attitude. This movement of ethnic secession does not really handicap a liberal Europe, which is nothing other than a big market. It does not see this as an important obstacle. At the end of the day, the result will be the break-up of social and national cohesion." Bart de Wever, of the NVA, confirms this analysis by responding to a question of the Telemoustique weekly (September 5), which asked him: "Do you want to see Belgium disappear?" De Wever responded: "In my opinion, it has become superfluous in our European context, without which I would not support the autonomy of Flanders. Belgium will dissolve very slowly, like a pill in water, because the era of borders is past and because it is wedged between the power of regions calling for autonomy and the supranational structures in Europe. Now that the Euro has replaced the Belgian franc, there is no more natural barrier to this natural evolution." What force can end this drive to dislocation, the destruction of our most essential social rights? We note that the leadership of the FGTB clearly has taken a position in defense of the federal social rights. The leadership of the CSC has been led to do the same. The very existence of the FGTB as a national union federation, bringing together into one organization the workers of Flanders, Walloons, and Brussels, incarnating the unity of the working class of Belgium, is a conquest. In these conditions and because the moment is extremely serious, we feel that the leadership of the FGTB has a major responsibility. It is up to it call for a mass mobilization to prevent a disaster. We address all the leaders of the FGTB to say: Call on the workers to take to the streets, call for a huge national demonstration in Brussels, uniting the workers of Flanders, Walloons, and Brussels (and propose that the CSC join), around the demands: - No to the break-up of our social rights and the country! As the FGTB demands in its May 2007 memorandum: There can be no doubt the workers and youth would respond massively to such an appeal. This is the only path to stop this march to dislocation and the destruction of our social rights. *********************
"Two-thirds of the state's assets have been sold since the change in regime" In issue 254 of the ILC International Newsletter we published excerpts of the first issue of the Informacio es Vita bulletin, published by the Hungarian activists who constituted a delegation of four (political, trade union, and metallurgic) activists to go to the workers' conference in Caçak, Serbia, on October 27 and 28. In this issue we are publishing a contribution from correspondents who give their analysis of the situation in Hungary. We would like to add a few things to the Informacio es Vita bulletin. Š Though the current government calls itself socialist (and even social-democratic), its policies are completely liberal. It is 100% for a private society. It is for the market economy and the privatization of the state's goods. It liquidates state property and pockets the money. According to the statistics, two-thirds of the state goods were sold since the regime change. Despite this, the state has enormous debts. Day after day, we see unlimited corruption from those close to the government. In health care, after the privatizations and services changeups, two-thirds of the hospitals are on the verge of bankruptcy. And the pharmaceutical companies are not providing them medications. Certain hospitals that were modernized two or three years ago (which cost billions of dollars) are now being privatized. And those that remain open do not have access to the billions necessary for them to function or for improvements. And at the same time, the social coverage is completely emptied, in an unprecedented manner. Doctors and nurses are thrown into the streets and those who keep their job are swamped. Often, doctors are told to move to other parts of the country, without being offered any compensation, and with no thought for their families. According to Gyurcsany and his minister of health, Horvath Agnes, it is a good thing to leave abroad for a few years and to come back a few years later, with experience. And in the interim, they are replaced with specialists from the Far East. Gyurcsany wants millions of Chinese workers to come in for labor. The country is on the verge of economic bankruptcy. We are even behind the countries of the countries of "Visegrad," while a few a years ago we were first. Two out of three young medical students want to leave the country. Continuity is threatened. In the villages, the peasantry is put in an impossible situation. The conditions to receive aid make is virtually impossible to receive help. The damage done by the freeze of the springtime, estimated to be more than 10 billion Forints, still has not been compensated for to the peasants. The drought of this summer has destroyed fruit, corn, sunflowersŠ and, again, the peasants have received nothing in compensation. Many small peasants cannot continue. This year, there will be a shortage of agricultural products and the peasants have called for the products in the reserves of Hungary to be freed up and sold, but because of the European Union, the government was forced to refuse. The reserve products are cheaper. At the whims of the European Union, the population is forced to pay more. This has resulted in a 10-15% rise in the cost of bread and a 26% rise for meat. Numerous peasants have been forced to leave their land and the country is obliged to by products from abroad, which are of lesser quality and even suspect, because it is impossible to know where they are from. Already today we must note that many products have already expired and numerous small markets in the countryside are on the verge of bankruptcy. Who is responsible? The villages are losing their citizens. Many have lost their post office, their pharmacy, and their station. Many buses no longer stop there. Without transportation, it is harder and harder for people to get to work. It is necessary to travel dozens of kilometers to find a pharmacy or doctor. The youth are leaving the villages and soon the older folks will do the same. Due to the reform of education, the village schools are being sucked up by the bigger schools. The children must travel to school, to the detriment of their sleep schedule and they must leave school early. In this way, numerous villages are dying. The mess is even worse with transportation and the railways. You arrive at the stop and your train has already left. We are pushed to drive. There are less passengers on public transportation and many routes are closed, under the pretext that they are not profitable. The schools, which now must be paid for, have become an unbearable burden on families. I have discussed with parents. They are faced with a terrible dilemma because many of them must choose which of their children will continue with their studies. Currently, the high school students are preparing national demonstrations for the government to make the schools free again. If the current situation continues, only the children of rich parents will be able to go to school. The state scholarships only help if a child is particularly intelligent. Over 50% of Hungarian families live at or below the poverty line. The state is losing resources, but it refuses to raise the minimum wage, which is currently 65,000 ft. (260 Euros). This year, the average wage has dropped dramatically. The privatizations, the entry into the European Union, the prices of the world Markey, have made the price of electricity and gas jump by 30-35% and, already this year, the price of food has risen by 10 to 25%. This means that families have to cut into their savings just to eat. When we hear what is happening in England and the United States concerning lending, we know that the same thing will be happening in Hungary. Already, people are taking out loans to pay back other loans. Those who bought houses thanks to these apparently good buying conditions are now seeing their houses seized by the banks. There are more evictions and more people getting their electricity cut off. In the towns, the administrative services, schools, and municipalities must borrow to pay for their expenses. More and more are going into debt. And the new taxes by the government do nothing to diminish the debt. For example, the elderly homes have lost their financial aid and the price for living at one is too high to be covered by the pensions. The children must pay the difference; otherwise the parents are thrown into the streets after having worked their whole lives. At the job, we face constant pressure: "Outside, everybody wants your job." Moral is low among the workers. They do not cease to work overtime. We work more and more and we make less and less. The average wage is between 300 and 600 Euros (75,000 and 150,000 Ft.). With all that we have to pay for housing, food, and clothes, there is no more question of free time and leisure. Everywhere I go, I see that the movie theaters are empty. When there is time, we are with our friends and family. According to the political forecast, health care insurance is foreseeing new fees for us. Everybody is against this, but the MSZP-SZDSZ government goes all the way. **********************
Unity in action and solidarity with the comrades of the countries of the European Union is a vital need As a contribution to the discussion on the new European treaty (see Issue 256 of the ILC International Newsletter), we are publishing correspondence from Georgui Codreanu, President of the Marxist movement "Popular Resistance" of the Republic of Moldavia. Dear Comrades, We, Marxists of Moldavia, learned of your appeal against the new "simplified" draft European treaty, which in reality maintains the text of the constitutional draft rejected in 2005 by the peoples of France and Holland. We express our full support for our initiative and we associate with it. The leaders of our countries aim at all prices to "integrate" into the EU, without the least worry for the opinion of the people. In the name of the people, they speak of "the European choice of Moldavia" as if the question were decided on and not up for discussion. But there is no basis for these assertions because there has not been any referendum on this question. Considering that the new European treaty aims to strengthen the union of states, in the interests of their capitalists, with the goal of attacking in an unprecedented drive all the social gains won by the preceding generations, we consider it to be a threat not only for the member countries of the EU, but also for the candidate countries, like the Republic of Moldavia, because the leaders of these countries do everything to align their legislation with that of the EU. That is why the struggle against this treaty is an urgent need for the Moldavian left. Unity in action and solidarity with the comrades of the countries of the European Union is a vital need. We hope that the joint efforts of the workers and the truly left movements in Europe will succeeded in defeating these new attacks against our rights. Georgui Codreanu President of the Marxist movement "Popular Resistance," from
the Republic of Moldavia
|
Open World Conference of Workers