|
A dossier of weekly information published by the
International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples
February 26-March 11, 2008
Issue 275-276
-----
SPECIAL ISSUE
European Workers' Conference
Paris
February 2 and 3, 2008
-----
Contact:
Informations internationales
Entente internationale des travailleurs et des peuples
87, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Denis -75010 Paris - France
Tel: (33 1) 48 01 88 28 Email: eit.ilc@fr.oleane.com
************************
Introduction
First steps towards the setting up of the European Workers Alliance
The European Workers Congress for a No vote on
the new European Treaty, for the abrogation of
the Maastricht Amsterdam Treaty and for regaining
rights and guarantees figuring in the national
legislation of each of our countries, was held in
Paris on the 2nd and 3rd February last.
More than 45 activists from all horizons, from 18
countries of Eastern and Western Europe, took the
floor, one after another, not only to testify to
the consequences of EU policies in their country,
but also to inform Congress members of the combat
engaged to break with these policies.
The manifesto adopted by the Congress (see page
51) raises the following question:
"On the basis of this, shouldn't we set up
together, with all respect for the positions and
traditions of each and everyone of us, a European
Workers Alliance; whose first act will be to
publish the discussion at this Workers Congress
in a number one liaison bulletin edition (S)?"
This bulletin, with complete recordings of
Congress activity, is therefore the first act,
the first step towards the setting up of a
European Workers Alliance.
The latest developments of the situation in
Europe confirm the part played by EU institutions
in the breaking up of States and Nations - with
that of the social gains pertaining to them.
For instance, the so called "independence" of the
Kosovo, decreed 17th February last, has nothing
to do with a people's right to self
determination, in this case, that of the Kosovo
Albanian population.
How can one speak of "independence", when NATO
troops continue to occupy the country, when 2000
policemen and magistrates are sent in by the EU?
How can one speak of "independence" when the
Kosovo Prime Minister declares that priority must
be given to implementing reforms (privatization,
liquidating social gains) that are necessary for
making "entry into the EU easier?"
In these conditions, as the delegate from Serbia
indicated, shouldn't the question be raised of
"re establishing the Yugoslav federation on the
basis of social ownership" and therefore of
breaking with NATO and the European Union?
The European Union that at the same time undermines Trade Union prerogatives.
During the Congress, a delegate from Sweden
explained how there was a European Community High
Court judgment against the Finnish Union in the
case where the Finnish company Viking Line had
registered one of its ships in Estonia in order
to lower labor costs.
Several days later the same High Court pronounced
the 2004 blockade organized by the Swedish
Construction and Electricity on the Letton Laval
company to be illegal.
These judgments do not concern just Sweden and Finland.
As the Appeal for a Workers Congress in Stockholm
(which is to be held the 25th May 2008), for
unity for the repeal of these two judgments
stipulates, they "constitute an all out attack on
the rights of unions to take measures to fight
back, organize and wage strikes."
Once again, this shows that the right to strike
and EU policies are irreconcilable.
This can also be testified to, by Rumanian mining
trade unionists, who have been imprisoned for
years for having organized the struggle against
lay offs in the mining industry, encouraged by
the EU.
The international campaign for the liberation of
these trade unionists has already resulted in the
liberation of one of them, who is actually
present at the European Congress. Delegates have
decided to pursue this combat.
Because internationalism is not an empty word,
because it is urgent to open up the road to a
Europe of peace and progress, of fraternal
co-operation between peoples, to a free union of
free peoples of Europe, a break has to be made
with the European Union!
Christel Keiser
-----
European Workers Conference
2nd and 3rd February 2008
120 activists and labor delegates from all
horizons have taken part in free debate where the
positions of each and everyone were totally
respected
The countries represented
Albania
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
Great Britain
Hungary
Italy
Moldavia
Portugal
Rumania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
-----
The Conference conclusions
Adoption of a manifesto endorsed by more than 100 labor activists
Publication of a bulletin with full recordings of Congress activity
Adoption of an Appeal for a European Workers
Congress in Stockholm for the repeal of the
European High Court judgment in the Laval factory
case at Vaxholm.
Adoption of an Appeal for the liberation of the
three mining trade unionists in prison in Rumania
with supporting delegations to be set up by the
National Conference convened on this issue next
March.
Adoption of a motion expressing solidarity with
Ford company workers and trade unionists in
Vsevolojsk, Avtovaz and Togliatti (Russia).
Decision to give a favorable answer to the
proposal of a World Conference, open to all
activists and labor organizations seeking to
preserve their independence, in order to help the
struggle against war and exploitation (in Berlin
in February 2009).
-----
European Conference February 2nd and 3rd 2008
Let me introduce myself. My name is Christel
Keiser, I am a member of the national bureau of
the Workers' Party in France and a member of the
Permanent Committee for a Working-Class Party.
The organizing committee of the present
conference gave me the mandate to introduce its
proceedings.
First, I should like to focus on the framework of
the European Liaison Committee of Workers. The
ELC, whose foundations were laid during the
February 2006 labor conference in Berlin acts
within the framework of the International Liaison
Committee of Workers, which itself was formed in
Barcelona in 1990; its founding document was a
manifesto against war and exploitation written by
two militants of the French labor movement, Roger
Sandri and Pierre Lambert. The latter has just
passed away and I am paying a tribute to him as I
introduce this report.
The International Liaison Committee of Workers
regroups activists and currents of the labor
movement on a common basis: the defense of class
and labor organizations independence. It does not
compete with any other existing organization.
Today we are in a situation where the IMF, the
World Bank, the WTO and all the institutions in
the service of the capitalist class cause wars,
famines, cause Nations and States to fragment.
But, at the same time, this situation arouses
resistance among workers, peoples and
organizations. It is against that backdrop that
efforts are being made to implement global
governance.
The problems we are faced with in Europe are
connected to the offensive on global governance,
in relation with the formation of the
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
International Newsletter, the ILC bulletin, gave
and in-depth analysis of those issues when the
ITUC was formed. Numerous activists explained the
menace that Global governance was fraught with.
Actually, it is a novel way of associating
capital with labor; it negates the existence of
social classes that have antagonistic interests
and, consequently, it negates the existence of
trade unions that defend the specific interests
of workers. The purpose is to endeavor to set up
a system in which governments, employers and
trade unions co-organize a prospective society
and, through that to undermine the very
foundations of democracy.
The connection with the European Union is this:
the Amsterdam Treaty clearly explains that trade
unions should become instrumental in establishing
corporatism.
Article 136bis of the Lisbon Treaty stipulates:
"The Union recognizes and promotes the role of
social partners at its level, taking into account
the various national systems (.) The tripartite
social summit for growth and employment
contribute to the social dialogue." The social
summit already exists. It comprises the ETUC,
European employers, the European Commission and
the chair of the E.U. Since the Maastricht and
Amsterdam Treaty, the ETUC has thus endorsed
several European agreements that have
automatically become European directives.
The Lisbon treaty would make that summit
institutional. It is useful to remember that the
social summit's most recent meetings have, among
others, adopted the common principles of
flexicurity that governments are attempting to
translate into each of our countries.
Because one of the objectives of the capitalist
class is to bring labor costs ever lower,
especially, the objective of the most powerful
capitalist class, the US capitalists which is
giving its orders everywhere and in every sector
of activity and the E.U is just an instrument to
enable it to achieve its purpose.
Besides, is it necessary to remember that the
present conference meets a few months after the
Cacak one in Serbia, which, last October convened
labor activists from Eastern Europe against the
consequences of the privatizing-plundering
policies implemented in those countries.
Our conference meets a few days after an Asian
conference organized in the framework of the
International Liaison Committee of Workers to
defend the sovereignty of nations. Both
conferences gave the opportunity to discuss the
issues that are similar to those we are facing in
Europe.
It may sound paradoxical to meet this European
conference a few days before the likely revision
of the French constitution by the senators and
deputies due to convene as a congress in
Versailles on February 4th. The revision is meant
to make the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty by the
Parliament possible.
Before analyzing that paradox, I should like
first to speak of an issue. In each one of our
countries we are facing a tragic situation: mass
redundancies, off-shoring, dismantlement of
social protection systems, of educational
systems, of all the public services,
fragmentation of nations and of States and so on.
What is the root cause of that situation?
Is it an exaggeration to say that the European
Union is dismantling industry in each one of our
countries?
In Germany, the workers of the Nokia Company in
Bochum have just learnt that the management of
their firm has decided to offshore production to
Romania with the excuse that labor costs are too
high in Germany. The company's CEO thus declared:
"In Bochum, we are turning out about 6% of our
cell phones. But our Bochum outlet represents
some 23% of our direct payroll costs". The upshot
is that 2,300 workers are directly threatened to
be made redundant; to that should be added about
2,000 more casual jobs and also among
subcontractors in the region!
In France, Arcelor-Mittal, world N° 1 steel
producer, has just announced a planned 600
redundancies out of the 1,100 jobs at the
Gandrange factory in Lorraine. In 2007, the
company increased its net profits by 38%.
Within a year, 42,000 industrial jobs have been
lost in France, 11% of that figure in Lorraine.
The situation is the direct aftermath of the
principle that the EU holds so dear that
competition must be unfettered and unbiased. It
is in the name of that principle that steel
industry has been privatized and that speculative
funds are off-shoring jobs and removing them.
More generally, who can deny that the tidal wave
of off-shoring, lay-offs, factory closures across
Europe is encouraged and organized by the
European Union? Did not the regional policy
European Commissioner Danuta Hübner, declare on
February 8th 2005: "What we have to do (.) is to
facilitate off-shoring within Europe in order to
lower the costs for enterprises"?
Is it an exaggeration to day that the European
Union is ruining fishing and agriculture?
Brussels demands an end to all subsidizing in
those sectors as they bias or threaten to bias
competition; the move spells the likely final end
for thousands of farms and jobs.
Is it an exaggeration to say that the E.U. is
dismantling the right to healthcare?
Last March, several of us attended the European
conference to defend the right to healthcare and
social protection systems. There, a Romanian
trade unionist explained that the government of
her country had decided to close down hospital
beds in Romania arguing that there were too many
hospital beds in Romania since the E.U averages
4.2 beds for 100 inhabitants against 7.2 in
Romania! The Brussels conference had mandated a
delegation to M. Brunet, E.U commissioner for
healthcare. His answer on healthcare spending
reduction is worth remembering: "States can do
what they want insofar as they keep their deficit
under control (.) the only thing that European
directives impose is fighting public deficits."
It does not matter that this rule should cause
the closure of thousands of hospital beds, the
loss of thousands of jobs, the privatization of
entire hospitals, should cause women to give
birth on parking lots and so on. That is the Rule
of Europe and it must be complied with everywhere!
Is it an exaggeration to say that the European
Union is dismantling nations and States, promotes
a policy of war and balkanization?
I imagine that the Belgian delegates with explain
in detail the current offensive going on in their
country purposing to end federal social gains,
especially Social Security and they will speak on
the fight waged by the Committee for unity for
the defense of the unified social gains, of the
trade union confederation and therefore of the
Belgian working class.
But the dismantling onslaught on the Republic in
France could also be mentioned or the
consequences of regionalization in Italy or in
Spain.
The case of Eastern Europe could also be
mentioned. The offensive to completely sever
Kosovo from what is left of former Yugoslavia is
directly encouraged by the European Union and the
United States. As is quite rightly said in the
declaration of the liaison committee set up
during the Cacak conference: "What is at stake is
not the right of peoples but rather making Kosovo
a protectorate under the tutelage of the European
Union and NATO and going against the aspirations
of the Balkan peoples to re-establish the
Yugoslav federation on the basis of social
ownership, the sovereignty of peoples and to
establish brotherly relationships."
Is it an exaggeration to say that the European
Union threatens all the trade union rights?
Last December 18th, the Court of Justice of the
European Community ruled as "illegal" the
blockade imposed in 2004 by Swedish building site
and electrical workers on the Latvian company
Laval that wanted to send 35 Latvian workers on a
Swedish building site without abiding by the
Swedish collective agreements regulating the
building sector.
That is not a Swedish problem. All the trade
unions, in every European country, are concerned
by that court ruling which means that a trade
union would no longer be able to demand
compliance with collective agreement in its
country. Can we accept that the EU should give
trade unions orders on what they have to do?
It is not by chance if all the actions in our
different countries have recently related with
the EU policies.
True, as a rule, the slogans put forth in those
strikes and demonstrations do not explicitly
demand breaking up with the EU. But who can deny
that all those actions are colliding head-on with
the reactionary political agenda of European
institutions?
In August 2007, the Polish government was ordered
to implement a programme to dismantle the Gdansk
shipyards where, some twenty years ago
Solidarnosc trade union first came into being.
The European Commission demands that the Polish
government which, in compliance with its orders,
has already cut the production capacities of the
Gdynia and Szczecin shipyards should now close
down two of the docks that are still active on
the Gdansk site as the first step towards the
final dismantlement.
Roman Galezewski, member of Gdansk Solidarnosc,
charged the European Commission with "doing all
they could to obtain the closure" of the shipyard
and explained that it was acting on behalf of US
interests: "Since they came to realize the huge
value of the land bought from the Gdansk city
council by American funds, everything has been
done to obtain the closure of the shipyards."
It is common knowledge that those American
pension funds aim at demolishing the shipyards in
order to build huge profit-making tourist resorts
on that place; that is why they want to put an
end to a production side that is also a historic
heritage of the labor movement. Is that not a
true crime that the European Union is lending a
hand to?
On August 31st, some hundred workers of the
Gdansk shipyard staged a march in Brussels; they
were asking a fundamental question: "Is Brussels
going to achieve what Moscow was unable to do?"
Solidarnosc slogan asks the same question in
another way: "The dictators of the East did not
demolish our shipyards but Brussels pen-pushers
are doing the job."
In such a situation, can one ignore the situation
of the Gdansk shipyards that sheds a crude light
on what the orders of the European Union in the
service of financial markets mean?
In November and December 2007, students by he
hundred of thousands - with their professors -
were on strike in Greece and in France.
They asked the repeal of the laws that force universities to be autonomous.
"Autonomy" has already been implemented in
Germany as French newspapers reported at the
time. For instance, since 2005 Mannheim
University has been implementing the rationale of
autonomy, as "an experiment". French newspapers
record that "the university resorts to company
sponsorship" for funds, "professors get merit pay
according to the efforts they make to secure
funds for research."
As for the dean of the faculty of philosophy, he
clearly expresses his fears that professors will
get different pays according to the subject they
teach, "some subjects being considered as useful
like for instance, insurance economy"
Greek and French students and professors demonstrated against that.
But what has brought about that "autonomy" - in
other words, the privatization- destruction of a
1 000 tradition in European universities?
The same question applies to LMD which "autonomy"
brings the finishing touch to; the answer is the
European Union.
LMD challenged national diplomas, it was the
Bologna strategy, set on its tracks back in 1999
by all the European Ministers of further
education.
"Autonomy", like LMD is demanded by the European
Union which, according to May 10th 2006 EU
communication, imposes to "set up new funding
systems for universities by giving universities
more accountability towards their long term
sustainability" and "to extend the autonomy and
accountability of universities"
In November 2007, in France, rail workers,
electrical, gas and underground railway workers
massively mobilized with their trade unions to
protest the threats on their specific retirement
pension systems.
Right at the same moment in Greece, trade unions
were calling a general strike in defense of
retirement pension systems.
And in November, transports workers were on
strike in Hungary on the same issue.
Is that a coincidence? It is not. In every
country, the government is trying to implement
the decisions of the 2002 Barcelona European
Summit advising Member States to postpone
retirement age an average 5 years.
On December 2007, in Hungary, there was a general
strike called by unions and farmers organizations
to defend social security and healthcare - our
Hungarian comrades who are attending this
conference will certainly give us details on it -
while in France, the government is hell-bent on
ruining Social Security.
In that case again, how can one fail to see that
the EU is responsible when at the 2003
Thessalonica summit, it urged France to "rein in
soaring expenses in the healthcare sector and to
bring their evolution down to a more sustainable
level".
I should also like to mention some of the
institutional mechanisms of the European Union
that are repeated or worsened in the Lisbon
Treaty.
Especially the part of the ECB (European Central
Bank) that has been much spoken of during the
recent period in connection with the subprime
crisis in the USA.
It is worth noting that article 108 of the
Maastricht-Amsterdam Treaty enshrines the
independence of the ECB. This independence should
be taken with a pinch of salt. True, it is
independent from the sovereignty of nations but
it is totally subordinated to the interests of
financial capital, especially North American
financial capital ruled by the Federal Reserve.
That is the reason why, while the Federal Reserve
repeatedly lowered its rates in the recent period
(and once again in the past week), the ECB kept
its rates at the same level, which made the euro
leap to an unprecedented high against the dollar,
thus favoring US exports, with all the well-
known consequences on European countries'
industrial sectors.
Article 105 of the Maastricht-Amsterdam treaty
also explains the part played by the European
system of central banks: "The objective is to
progressively reach a budget surplus in a period
of favorable conjuncture (.)The ESCB shall act in
accordance with the principle of an open market
economy with free competition". It is by virtue
of those principles that the European Commission
decrees hundreds of directives that Member States
are obliged to transpose and that, among others,
bring about the privatization of all the public
services.
One can go back to what Hans Tietmeyer (one of
the major figures of the ECB) was saying back in
1997: "With the euro, labor costs become the only
variable of adjustment". 11 years after, we are
right at the core of that scheme.
The Lisbon Treaty reaffirms the role of the ECB
by emphasizing the fact that the ECB guarantees
the stability of prices. What it actually means
for workers is: no wage raise and drastic public
budget cuts.
By the way, one should also shed some light on
the notion of budget surplus. Since the
Maastricht Treaty -1992 - the European Union has
ordered Member States not to have public deficits
exceeding 3% of GDP. That is well-known article
N° 104 of the Maastricht treaty, subsequently
complemented by the Amsterdam treaty stability
pact. The Lisbon treaty entirely repeats that
disposition and explains: "The objective is to
progressively reach a budget surplus in a period
of favorable conjuncture". Everyone has
experienced the brutal measures taken in the
recent period to reduce budget deficits by the
governments in order to comply with the Brussels
dictates. Today that is no longer sufficient.
They hit still harder and faster.
Three days ago, the European Commission ordered
France to speed up the audit of its accounts to
make sure its deficit did not exceed 3% of GDP.
It explained that "the measures on which the
ambitious reduction of the ratio of expenses
(against the GDP) should be better specified and
their efficiency should be tested".
The Commission explains that, true, efforts have
been made especially the decrease in Social
security expenses, which counter-reforms have
been started in numerous sectors, but all those
anti-labor measures are still not sufficient.
Still further measures must be taken.
In those conditions how can one understand that,
whereas the Lisbon treaty repeats and worsens the
entire European Constitution that was rejected in
May 2005, the French government should attempt to
force its way through just like the governments
of the other European countries?
It is common knowledge that the revision of the
constitution in France is going to start a
movement of speedy ratification of the Lisbon
treaty across Europe.
A question arises: can this framework that ruins
all the gains, privatizes public services, denies
peoples their right to sovereignty be reformed?
Can it be made to adjust the needs of the
population? Can it be given a social dimension?
Can a policy suited to workers' interests be
developed unless those institutions are undone?
Can public services be defended and reclaimed in
each one of our countries unless the issue of
breaking up with EU institutions is posed?
For my part, I think that this framework cannot
be amended or reformed and that if the peoples of
Europe are to survive, they have to get out of
those institutions that are antagonistic to
democracy to social advances and that undermine
all the rights and social gains that have been
wrested by several decade long class struggle in
each one of our countries.
We are faced with another question. In principle,
the entire labor movement should oppose that
destructive agenda. But what do we witness? All
the governments, including those headed by
socialist and communist parties, accept to
implement European directives.
The parties themselves are torn by those problems.
Thus the Party of the European Left, a European
political party founded in 2004, partly funded by
the European Union, voices some criticism on EU
policies. During its Prague congress, last
November, the PEL adopted a declaration to
conclude its proceedings; among others, it reads:
"We delegates from 29 Left wing parties of all
over Europe (.) affirm our full determination to
actively bring our contribution within the
European Union (.) to change the current European
political agenda to reach a more democratic and
fairer Europe". But how can this objective be
fulfilled in the framework of EU institutions,
which, we insist, are totally antagonistic to
democracy and to the preservation of social gains?
The European anti-capitalist Left, which, among
others, comprises the LCR [the French section of
the USec], the Left bloc in Portugal, the
Red-Green Alliance in Denmark, is about to have
an observer status in the Party of the European
left. That group considers convening a European
conference to "relaunch a coherent project
against the EU's social aggressiveness and
offering and alternative to the drift of the
social-democracy and of the European left". What
would the European Union means without social
aggressiveness? The very definition of the EU is
social aggression!
As for the European social party, it has always
supported the Lisbon treaty. Thus, its chairman
was declaring last October: "The treaty offers a
reliable basis to encourage the development of a
more social Europe (.) The Treaty gives the role
of social partners and social dialogue a legal
basis (.) It also provides a legal basis to all
that concerns services of general interest across
entire Europe, which will enable social-democrats
to protect public services". In a nutshell: the
Lisbon treaty is a breakthrough in every area!
That is not only a declaration. We have to
acknowledge that, on major issues, the
declaration comes along with actions. Thus, in
the framework of the European Parliament, the PEL
is part and parcel of a permanent grand coalition
scheme with the group of the European popular
party (which comprises right wing parties) and
issues common votes with that group on many of
the murderous directives we have mentioned.
Those issues also arise within the trade union movement.
Let us take the European Trade Union
Confederation for instance. In a communiqué
released on last December 13th, it explains: "The
ETUC acknowledges the signature of the Lisbon
treaty by Chiefs of States and governments of the
European Union; today the ETUC expresses
satisfaction over what should come as the
conclusion of a difficult period for the European
Union and urges European leaders to use that as a
stepping stone towards a more ambitious programme
of social progress." Therefore, the ETUC
considers the Lisbon Treaty as a point of
leverage for social advances. Let us continue.
The same communiqué reads further: "trade unions
particularly regret that the role of social
dialogue and social partners should only be
mentioned in the area of social policies."
Therefore, according to ETUC, trade unions should
be instrumental in the implementation of European
Union political agenda.
It is true that we are everywhere faced with
governments' attempts to bind trade unions to the
implementation of counter-reforms in every field
of activity, but resistance is also running high
within the trade union movement.
The policy of organization leaders is known but
it is also notorious that activists do not see
eye to eye with those orientations. That is true
within the Socialist Party in France, it is also
true in other countries. Thus, in Sweden, the
ruling by the Court of Justice of the European
communities on the Laval case aroused unanimous
protests among the leaders of Swedish trade
unions and parties.
Thus, after the ruling was known, the chairman of
the Left Party, Lars Ohly, declared: "Sweden must
leave the EU".
During a meeting of the social democrat party in
Lund, in the South of Sweden, a few weeks ago,
the party leaders and the chair of the building
workers union declared: "European Union laws must
change, otherwise, we shall re-examine the
affiliation of Sweden to the EU."
Anyway, regroupings are being operated around the
fact that it is not possible to accept that
governments should comply with the orders of the
EU.
Is it then paradoxical to approach those issues today? No!
Today, we must co-ordinate our efforts in view of
that fight. The present Conference is not the
conclusion of that fight but its starting point.
Because we cannot accept to witness the ruin of
everything, of all that has been gained in each
one of our countries by several decade long class
struggles without lifting a finger, the issue of
repealing the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties
and also the Lisbon treaty if it is ratified will
inevitably come up.
Inevitably, the issue of the free union of
Europe's free peoples will be the order of the
day. That is the meaning of the draft manifesto
that is submitted to the discussion of the
delegates attending the present Conference.
Thank you.
-----
Gotthard Krupp (Germany)
I am very happy to be able to greet the presence
of Miron Cozma at this Congress. In Germany we
have fought for his liberation as our colleagues
have all over the world. Now we see how
international solidarity can break through prison
walls as well as EU policies.
Yesterday, February 1, saw the start of the (BVG)
Berlin public transport strike. Colleagues are
asking for an increase of 12% and of at least 250
Euro a month for all.
The employer is only offering an increase of
between 3,5% and 4% applicable to only 1000
colleagues out of 125 000.
For years now, colleagues (and this is also true
for those in other branches) have had to accept
lower wages and for some of them, longer working
hours. In the BVG the collective bargaining
agreements signed since 1994 have lowered wages,
or else conceded just small 1% increases.
Why? In 1992 the Maastricht Treaty was ratified.
This Treaty, like the EU directives, orders that
local public transport be opened up to free
market competition. As a result, the Berlin
Senate pushed through a cut back in jobs and
wages, an increase in workload and outsourcing.
Workers are not ready to accept this any longer.
This policy must come to a halt. That is why
to-day's strike was started, right from the
beginning of wage negotiations. And for the first
time for years now, the big former state
companies, or those that still are, have come out
in favor of united, co-ordinated action.
This concerns the partially privatized water
services, public municipal cleaning services,
public transport and public administration
services. Even the Vattenfall completely
privatized electricity company had its first
strike action for years yesterday. What's more
there are strikes in the retail trade sector.
IG-Metall also called metalworkers out on a warning strike yesterday.
Millions of workers, the 108 000 steelworkers and
their IG Metall Union, with 1.8 million NGG Union
colleagues (from food preparation and
distribution and the restaurant sector) are
fighting with unions against the fall in wages
and purchasing power and for wage increases of up
to 8%. The same is true of the 1.3 million
employees of the Federal State and local public
services. They are fighting to defend their
collective bargaining agreements and as far as
some of them are concerned, to win them back.
And what about he European Union? With its
privatization and deregulation directives, its
pressure to bring in free competition everywhere,
it was the EU that started up the process of
destroying purchasing power and collective
bargaining agreements. Now the EU and the
European Central Bank (ECB) are coming across
with more tough measures, making workers
responsible for price increases, for undermining
stability and destroying jobs.
As for the ECB President, Trichet, representing
the interests of international finance capital,
"he is giving a warning to unions". Wage
increases cannot be the answer to the increase in
food prices and raw materials. The ECB will not
tolerate this.
Unions should "abide by the following rule in
wage negotiations: S.they should take into
account the situation of competition and jobs."
Trichet has no time for wage autonomy, free wage
negotiations, the fight put up by our colleagues.
He only has time for unions that help in
achieving his targets. And his threats are not
abstract - they are very concrete. If wage
increases get too high he threatens to put up
interest rates.
This would jeopardize hundreds of thousands of
industrial jobs and increase pressure on wages.
On the other hand Trichet and the ECB put up with
billions of dollars being pumped into the
financial market crisis, to fuel speculation.
There is one instance, that of the German public
bank, the Westdeutsche Landesbank. After billions
have been lost in speculation, it is now up to
the owners, the Land (county) and a lot of
districts in Rhineland in North Westphalia to
finance bankers' speculation with public funds.
But if bankers were able to speculate in this
way, it is only because EU deregulation
directives on financial markets made it possible:
as for example, with the authorizing of Hedge
funds in Germany. Costs will be met by workers
through even bigger cut backs in wages and social
advantages.
The ECB wants to dictate the rules of price
negotiations to our unions! In the European Union
there is no room for workers' rights to wage
negotiation, to free wage negotiations, to
collective bargaining agreements guaranteed by
the unions. But there is all the room in the
world for "free undistorted competition", wage
"dumping" and destroying collective bargaining
agreements.
For instance the ECB provocation strengthens the
position of public service employers, who in the
name of EU budget consolidation policies and the
stability pact "see no room for wage demands" and
threaten colleagues with cut backs in jobs and
privatization.
CDU representatives of the Grand Coalition are
the henchmen of the EU/ECB. For instance,
Schäuble, the Home Secretary, rejects the Ver.di
demand for an 8% increase as "non negotiable". He
shows once more, in this way, how he despises
union rights to free wage negotiations.
For our Ver.di union, for our union leaders,
there is to be no co-operation with government
and public service employers within the framework
of the stability pact and budget consolidation
policies.
For this reason, trade unionists and social
democrats have taken the initiative of launching
a political campaign with an open letter to SPD
representatives at federal and local level,
asking them not to submit to the stability pact
and budget adjustment restrictions, but to
respect workers' right to social demands, free
wage negotiation and a unified national
collective bargaining agreement. The fight for
maintaining or re-establishing a unified
collective bargaining agreement is the fight for
achieving the social unity of Germany that
workers sought when they brought down the Wall.
The Lisbon Treaty is designed to reinforce the
dictatorship of the ECB and the EU as well as
their tools (the European stability pact and
"free undistorted competition") against workers
and union rights.
The majority of the people, the great majority of
workers, of unions and members of the SPD refuse
the European Constitutional Treaty. The last
Ver.di Federal Congress adopted several motions
asking for a No vote on the Lisbon Treaty;
We, trade unionists and social democrats are
organizing the collection of signatures endorsing
a letter asking SPD members of the Bundestag to
vote against the ratification of the Lisbon
Treaty.
-----
Miron Cozma (Romania)
Dear friends,
I will start my speech with thousands of thanks.
Thanks from the depths of my heart to the
hundreds of activists from the labor and union
movement, of the ILC, and others, who conducted
an exemplary mobilization for my release and that
of my comrades still in jail. Many among you have
knocked many times at the doors of the Romanian
embassies in Paris, Berlin, Madrid or Istanbul, I
apologize if I have forgotten any capital city.
Many among you have endorsed petitions,
participated in conferences - some even held in
Romania - or given money to support our families
in these very difficult moments.
All my gratitude to all of the activists who have supported us.
I thank you in my name, in the name of Constantin
Cretan, in the name of Dorin Lois and Vasile
Lupu, trade union leaders and miners still
imprisoned by the Bucharest government, with the
knowledge and the agreement of the authorities in
Brussels and Washington.
I say "with the knowledge and the agreement" of
the European Union and the USA on good grounds. I
will give you a single example. In December 2004,
at the end of his mandate, President Iliescu
granted me a presidential free pardon, due to the
pressure from the international labor and union
movement, as he himself admitted. The very same
day, the US embassy officially declared: "We
fully acknowledge the prerogative of a head of
government to grant a free pardon. At the same
time we consider Miron Cozma's release as a
surprising and alarming decision". Less than 24
hours after my release, President Iliescu
repealed the free pardon. Not from his office,
but from Brussels. And he did it, as the news
agency France-Presse said, due to international
pressure.
Dear friends, I thank you not only for your
support, but especially because you were capable
of appraising the lack of truth in the charges
against us. I, Miron Cozma, was imprisoned for 10
years without being guilty of any crime. My only
"guilt" was to have fulfilled, quite legally, the
mandate given by my union's members.
On the same charges, my comrades Cretan, Lois and
Lupu have lain for 2 years and 4 months in jail
where they are expected to stay for almost 3 more
years.
For the same reason, Ionel Ciontu, a union leader
and miner, was sentenced and imprisoned. He was
sentenced to 5 years' confinement, which due to
his precarious health, was practically sentencing
him to death. I am not playing on words, I mean
it: Ionel Ciontu was indeed sentenced to death
and executed!
In Rumanian jails, the illness from which he
suffered could only worsen. Under the conditions
of criminal negligence shown by the Rumanian
penitentiary authorities, one crisis was enough
to kill him. And the autopsy conclusions have not
been published.
Today, Constantin Cretan, Dorin Lois and Vasile
Lupu also suffer from deteriorating health. I am
not the only one claiming this. So does the
international medical commission that visited
Rumania to consult them.
They are in great danger.
While I was confined, my life was endangered many
times. Once again, I am not the only one saying
so, it was the Rumanian press which reported
this, following the appearance, on a very popular
TV channel, of a former convict who was in charge
of killing me, at the demand of my jailers. I did
not know this, and was informed only 3 months
after the said TV program. The International
Labor Organization was also informed, after a
complaint lodged by the Union Federation
Meridian, and asked the Rumanian government to
clarify the case. Until now, the Rumanian
government has not lifted a finger to try to
learn and report the truth.
Constantin Cretan, Dorin Lois and Vasile Lupu
must be released without further delay. Fighting
for their freedom is fighting for their lives.
This is why I am asking you to hasten the
international campaign for their release. This is
why at the national level I have committed myself
to do my best to have them released. To this aim,
I have appealed for a national conference calling
for the release of Constantin Cretan, Dorin Lois
and Vasile Lupu. Such a conference will have a
serious impact only if there is important
international participation. This is why I ask
you to do everything possible to be in Rumania to
participate in this conference.
To finish, I want to thank you once again for the
opportunity to take the floor at this conference.
I would however like to add something. We have
dealt here with the ways in which the EU's
institutions ignore the rules of democracy and
enforce their will. We have dealt here with how
the EU is a weapon used to destroy workers'
rights, and how the very existence of nations is
endangered.
Against this onslaught, we, workers, trade
unionists and activists, have only one weapon,
unity.
-----
Evgueny Nazarenko (Moldova)
Dear comrades,
I bring you greetings from the "Popular
Resistance" Marxist organization in the Republic
of Moldova. First, I should like to depict the
situation in our country and the activity of the
organization that I represent today.
Our organization was formed at the end of 2003
and for 4 years we have helped to organize
workers and the poor to defend their class
interests.
The PCRM (Party of Communists of the Republic of
Moldova) won the 2001 legislative elections by a
huge margin, but unfortunately this does not mean
that the building of socialism in our country is
now underway, even though the PCRM had an
overwhelming majority in Parliament and was able
to form a government with its own forces and
elect its general secretary, Voronin, as
President. Moreover, as these phony communists
stepped into power, the liberal reforms continued
and were even increased and given more scope than
under the previous right wing government.
The PCRM has unfortunately inherited the worst
traditions of the CPSU (The Communist Party of
the Soviet Union) including complete
subordination to the will of the leadership, no
real party democracy, and political ignorance
among the majority of its members. This has
enabled Voronin and his cronies to lord it over
the party as well as the country.
When he stepped into power, Voronin reassured the
plunderers of social ownership (the new
capitalists) that the balance sheet of
privatization would be left unchanged.
In May 2001, Moldova joined the WTO, then, in
2002, Voronin announced that he had decided to
join the European Union. The Moldovan government
supported the USA's notorious "War on terror" and
the "Endless justice" operation against
Afghanistan.
During the same year, privatizations went on
apace. The more profitable firms, in the wine,
cognac and tobacco sectors were sold. An
attempted privatization was made on
"Moldtelecom"; but this was foiled when the
scandal involving kickbacks, paid to the
Transport and Telecommunications Minister by the
company that wanted to buy it, could not be
silenced.
When the USA attacked Iraq in 2003, the Moldovan
leaders did not in the least object and, during
the summer of the same year, the PCRM
Parliamentary group unanimously agreed to send
Moldovan troops to Iraq.
In 2004, health insurance payments were
introduced (which even those previously in power
had failed to do); with the result that the more
needy can no longer afford medical care, and that
the healthcare sector has been opened-up to
business and corruption.
As I do not have enough time, I shall only cite
what we consider to be the most notorious actions
of our country's leaders in the field of liberal
reforms, integration into the EU, and cooperation
with NATO.
In February 2005, a "Three year EU-Moldova plan"
was adopted; it is meant to make Moldovan
legislation conform to EU laws.
During the same year, a "Moldova-NATO action
program" was adopted; many of the items of the
plan violate the neutrality status enshrined in
our constitution; for example, joint military
maneuvers with NATO on Moldovan territory,
adjusting the radar- surveillance system to
NATO's corresponding system, giving information
on NATO activities in schools, setting up a NATO
permanent information centre, and affording NATO
extensive media coverage, all in order to soften
public opinion and make it ready to swallow the
idea that our country should join this
organization.
In early 2006, in order to pass-on to inhabitants
the responsibility for maintaining buildings but
also with a view to liberalizing the property
market, the government tried to set on the rails
the "condominium law" (the law on joint
ownership). Had the law actually come into
practice, it would have made it possible to turn
poor people out of their flats and to
considerably increase service charges.
The actions taken by our organization, in the
framework of the campaign "Popular Resistance to
housing reforms" compelled the government to
suspend the reform.
In September of the same year, the
"Longbow/Lancer-2006" joint maneuvers under NATO
command were staged in our country. One of the
tasks was to devise measures to stamp out a
people's rebellion.
One month prior to the maneuvers, we started
campaigning to inform citizens of the violations
of the constitution and of the determination of
our country's leaders to drag Moldova into NATO's
aggression bloc. The authorities denied us the
permission to hold a rally. We tried to organize
a meeting on this point, but they sent the police
and used administrative measures to prevent us
from having access to the hall that we had hired,
thus preventing us from holding the meeting.
Having foreseen this possibility, we had prepared
a draft resolution and we lodged a complaint with
the general prosecutor's department demanding
court action against those who were violating the
Constitution. The petition campaign on this
complaint is continuing, along with the campaign
to have the complaint listed with the courts of
justice.
Last year, 2007, was noteworthy because of the
initiative taken in April by the President to
liberalize the economy entirely, to introduce a
zero tax on profits, to exempt capital of past
charges and to privatize what is left of State
property.
The Parliament passed, exceptionally quickly, the
corresponding laws and, in August, the government
announced the forthcoming sale of 267 firms. We
reacted by starting a massive information
campaign "Popular Resistance against
privatizing-plundering".
We used our own and other countries' experiences
to explain the consequences to the workers and
trade union leaders of the firms that were
offered for sale and we proposed a program of
action to foil the privatizations.
Unfortunately, only a small number of trade union
leaders responded, and all they retained of our
action program was to convene union meetings to
ask not to be on the list of firms due to be
privatized. They caved-in when the authorities
exerted pressure and told them that they would
not be part of the first cart-load. They refused
to carry things further or to organize meetings
and warning strikes. This came as no surprise to
us since we know that independent trade union
organizations, free from the power of
capitalists, do not exist in our country.
We are convinced that we can achieve our aims
only as a result of regular work among the
masses, encouraging rank and file to put up a
struggle and forming class trade unions.
I should like to note, however, that despite the
weak reaction of trade unions, our campaign did
matter. We managed to pass through information
and to force the government to argue against our
brochure on the national radio. They claimed that
we were "influenced by foreign powers" while
cautiously avoiding to mention our "Popular
Resistance" name.
The first batch of privatized firms included only
27 out of the 267 marked-up to be privatized, and
only seven in the capital city. This also shows
that our efforts were not in vain.
All of these liberal reforms are carried out by
the pseudo-communist government of our country in
accordance with EU and IMF demands in the name of
"joining the European Union" and of an "efficient
market economy", and in the interests of Moldovan
and foreign capitalists.
In order to bring our laws into line with those
of the EU, a "Law Harmonization Centre" has been
created and is funded by the State budget. If the
Moldovan authorities are trying to bypass our
neutrality status and do everything in their
power to drag our country into NATO, it is
because, otherwise, it will be virtually
impossible to join the EU.
So the new European treaty directly bears on the
interests of our country's working class. As a
potential candidate to join the EU, all EU
demands would be more strictly enforced than in
the "older"EU countries.
The treaty poses a threat to what remains of
Soviet labor laws, and to what remains of State
ownership in the healthcare, education and
welfare sectors. It is no coincidence that
governmental media is full of laudatory comments
on the outcome of the Lisbon Summit.
"Flexibility", "lower labor costs", devising laws
to co-opt trade unions into the system: all of
these help to transform the existing situation
into the required European Union framework. Large
sectors of the workforce are already compelled to
work outside the legal framework, without labor
contracts; they are denied paid holidays and sick
leave and so onS even though they are normally
legally entitled to all of these. It is the same
for the retirement age, which has been extended,
in accordance with EU directives (so that, in our
country, working life now extends beyond the
average life span)
Our organization is highly aware of all the
threats; it expresses solidarity with our
comrades from EU countries and joins their call:
"No to the new European treaty", "No to the
offensive against workers' rights", "No to the
dictatorship of capital".
Claude Jenet (France)
I bring you the fraternal greetings of the French
delegation. I have to add that I am speaking on
this platform as a trade unionist.
For twenty years I was a member of the governing
body of a trade union confederation. I am also
speaking here as a member of the permanent
committee for a working-class party whose
founding congress will be held in Paris on June
13th-15th this year.
So we now know who we all are and you understand the reasons for my
being here.
As you may have gathered I am not yet very old
but I am not very young either and as I have been
engaged in trade union activity forty-five years
I think I am entitled to make a devastating
assessment of the situation workers are
confronted with. Every aspect of their condition
is the target of brutal attacks: work contracts,
collective bargaining, working hours, pension
systems, social security, unemployment benefits,
not to mention wages and purchasing power.
Essentially those measures of social regression
are said to be necessary to the economy and
inevitable if the competitiveness of enterprises
is to be improved.
Let us notice that at the same time those
enterprises are still making huge profits, which
are in fact reaching record highs. And yet, we
are told, those enterprises must be given even
more flexibility and therefore - it is added -
the organization of work must be adapted and the
rigidity imposed by regulation must be done away
with.
But what is regulation? Is it not the product of
decades during which workers and their
organizations have acted and fought in order hat
that their rights should be recognized.
Today everything that looks like a collective
framework, whether a code, a status or a
collective agreement, is regarded as too
restrictive and unbearable by the enterprises
that become increasingly determined to deregulate
and individualize the relationships between
employers and workers.
Of course this deeply reactionary offensive is
not taking place smoothly and workers resist this
attack as best they can. They try to counter that
assault, which now affects all categories of
workers in all spheres of activity.
Let me illustrate this point with something that
has been in the news recently. Yesterday there
was a massive strike in what we call in France
"la grande distribution", in other words the
supermarkets. The strike was very popular with
checkout assistants, most of them women, who have
small wages because their contract specifies that
they work an average of 28 hours a month.
I am not talking about this because it is in the
news but because it is typical of what is
happening today. Strikes are taking place in
sectors where so far they had been difficult and
uncommon, where it was very hard to mobilize
workers.
I therefore consider such events as positive
aspects of a rising class struggle.
At this point I cannot help mentioning that the
all-out attack against the workers' collective
rights does have some effect on the role and the
attitude of trade unions, which -let's face it -
are placed under considerable pressure.
The State and the employers are joining forces
and striving to introduce what they call "a new
system of social relations". They are now talking
about "social dialogue": a "social dialogue"
between "social partners". However words do have
meaning and content so that I have to point out
that dialogue and negotiation are not the same
things.
Let me refer to an example, to what has been
happening in France. The President of the
Republic himself (you no doubt have heard of
Sarkozy, even of his indiscretions, but we are
not interested in this subject here) last
December convened a tripartite conference
including the State, the employers and the unions
to set up what he calls "the 2008 social agenda."
This is a decision - and I am speaking to my
German comrades in particular because it must
remind them of something -, which is strangely
similar to what Schroeder did just before he left
and which achieved the results we all know,
especially with regard to the problem of
joblessness and unemployment benefits.
In fact, the reason why the State sets the agenda
and the content of the negotiation is that the
line the European Union has decided on must be
upheld, not only with regard to budget deficit,
which a comrade dealt with this morning, but also
for example with regard to the question of a
longer working life: in other words raising the
retirement age. As far as I know, and you will
realize how serious the situation is, it is the
first time since 1958 that such a thing has
happened. Never before has a president of the
Republic resorted to such a device to implement
European policy. That method says a lot about the
looming dangers.
Can we still refer to free collective bargaining,
i.e. the freedom to defend your demands, when it
is the State that decides on the framework in
which the negotiation is to take place?
And yet such a situation which, let me repeat,
was unbelievable only a few years ago, is
possible today for at least two reasons. The
first reason has to do with the constraints
imposed by the European Union on anything that
more or less would infringe "free and undistorted
competition." Secondly, the main political
groupings, in the majority as well as in the
opposition, have all been won over to Europe and
the market economy.
Under such conditions, the major threat for the
trade union movement is really that it should
become integrated into a corporatist process that
transcends class conflicts.
The danger is all the more serious since the
European model also enforces another type of
trade unionism that undermines the independence
of trade unions by making them co-deciders of the
measures that are taken.
What on earth is the ETUC except an organization
that has been co-opted into the workings of the
European Union and backs Brussels' directives and
instructions?
How long are we going to be able to claim that we
defend demands, social gains and act at the same
time within an organization that co-decides the
measures and arrangements that destroy the social
gains and collective guarantees that it has taken
decades to win?
An unambiguous answer is absolutely necessary. It
is not possible to defend the workers' individual
and collective rights by adhering to the
orientations decreed by the European Union, which
attack their collective guarantees.
That is the reason why I propose the conference
debate the slogan we could decide on together and
would materialize the necessity to break with the
European Union and all the successive treaties
that since Maastricht have imposed the
destruction of the advances made by the
working-class.
I am not unaware of the fact that of course we
may not all be of one mind about everything. But
I also know that time is short and that our most
urgent task is, together with the workers, to
begin to win back all our rights
The European question is wrapped in a sort of
mythology, to such an extent that it is extremely
difficult to call into question the orientations
of the European Union and not be violently taken
to task.
We all remember the vicious attacks that were
unleashed on those who opposed the draft European
constitution. They did not stop the people from
rejecting that treaty on May 29th, 2005. This
year, the Lisbon treaty is being ratified thanks
to a consensus between the majority and the
opposition or we might say between the right and
the left. The parliamentary procedure was used
rather than another referendum. As has always
been the case in the history of European
construction, the people are dismissed when
decisions are taken, although they have direct
implications for them and this is simply
intolerable.
Thanks to the arrangements this conference will
be able to make, it should provide the peoples of
Europe with the opportunity to make their voices
heard against a European Union that is
increasingly overbearing, coercive and submitted
to the interests of capitalism and finance, not
to mention, as has been said earlier, the
interests of NATO, in other words, of the USA.
Let us offer all those who put up resistance and
think that society is made up of social classes
that have conflicting interests the opportunity
to say No to submission, No the European Union's
diktats, No the destruction of the social
conquests won over decades, Yes to the
re-conquest of all our rights.
To conclude, let me tell you that I put many
hopes in the initiative you have taken, in the
decision to convene in this European Conference.
Each and every one of you must be perfectly aware
that the European Union's policy is a dead end
for millions of workers who were hoping that
Europe would improve their situation and their
conditions of life.
Could we remain silent? Should we turn a blind
eye to the destruction of the social fabric that
protected workers from the ups and downs of life
and the employers' arbitrary decisions? To remain
silent when we know what is happening would
amount to accepting complicity. We shall not be
accomplices and you will not keep silent. Neither
shall I agree to keep silent about the disastrous
effects of the European Union's decisions on the
lives of millions of workers and their families.
I do not accept the idea that the society
awaiting our children and -personally may I add -
even our grandchildren, is being built on the
ruins of the advances won by the working-class.
It is our right, it is even our duty to defend
what several generations of workers have
conquered through their struggle. Don't let us be
fooled by the dangerous illusions of a European
construction dedicated, since its origins, to the
market, to "free and undistorted competition", to
financial interests and profit. It is still time
to react.
Let us be bold enough to demand a break a with
the European Union; and to all the forces that
share this determination let us suggest that they
all come together and mount the much needed
counterattack against the European Union's
steamroller.
-----
Intervention of Pablo Garcia-Cano, Spain.
Delegate of the Labor Commission at the John Deere Ibérica Works
Council
Federation of the Metal Workers of the Madrid Labor Commission.
I am greeting you in the name of the Spanish
delegation to this European Labor Conference to
say NO to the European treaty.
The situation of industrial workers is worrying.
As has been said in the introduction, we are
faced with a steady string of announced
redundancies, factory closures, off-shoring, wage
cuts and blackmail to worsen our working
conditions. Those announcements never stop.
I should like to speak about the aircraft-making
industry, the most technologically advanced in
Europe. The EADS-AIRBUS conglomerate, formed by
the merging of old public aircraft- construction
companies from various countries, is now mainly
owned by private capital and pension funds.
Last year, EADS announced an expenditure cutting
program going under the name of Power-8 to remedy
the delays in the turning out of the A380. The
program proposes to lay-off 10,000 workers and to
close down several factories before the 2010
deadline. What the program means for Spain is the
loss of 400 jobs; it also means that the same
number of temporary job contracts will not be
made permanent. All this was announced after the
top management had sold their shares, enabling
them to rake in profits by the million.
Several weeks ago, EADS management announced that
after implementing the Power-8 program, and
because of the losses caused by the steady
devaluation of the dollar against the euro, it
was going to off-shore the production of all its
aircraft to the dollar zone, as of 2010.
It also considered off-shoring the production to
Alabama USA. The latest sale agreements with
China were passed on the condition that a large
part of the assembly process should be performed
in China. This is planned dismantlement, pure and
simple.
It should be said that this situation is not
inevitable. Workers are determined to resist and
to reject these plans. They prove this at each
opportunity. However, we also need our trade
unions to oppose these plans and to organize the
resistance. On the other hand, the governments
are also responsible when they give the green
light to off-shoring, in compliance with European
Union policies that actually organize this in the
name of free competition. For example, when EADS
made their off -shoring announcement, Pedro
Solbes, the economy vice- president of the
Spanish government, and a former EU commissioner,
said that the firm's decisions could not be
countermanded as it was a private company.
I should like to give another example. A few
months ago, Delphi, a US Multinational company
that makes auto spare-parts, announced that it
was closing down its Puerto Real (Cadiz) factory
and laying-off all the employees. Workers at
Delphi and in the entire Cadiz-bay area massively
mobilized and the entire city went on strike with
the slogan "Delphi must not close". Well, Delphi
did close. The workers amply proved their
determination to fight to keep their jobs. But
what did the government of the autonomous region
and the central government do? They continued
discussions with the firm management, they were
used as go-betweens but failed to produce a
positive solution to defend the jobs. In order to
defend the factory, they could have demanded the
refunding of millions and millions of public
money that served to subsidize Delphi and, above
all, they could have forbidden the off-shoring
move, decreed the nationalization of Delphi and
the other outlets that the company owns across
the country, and which are also threatened with
closure and redundancies. They did not. They
complied with the political agenda of the
European Union that permits and promotes the
unrestrained movement of enterprises and their
capital and this is why, in the end, Delphi
closed down.
But the mobilizations of the Delphi and Cadiz-bay
workers were not completely in vain. The
situation that was created by these mobilizations
influenced the decision by EADS to defer closing
down the Puerto Real Airbus factory that was to
be a consequence of the Power-8 plan
implementation.
In March 2007, I was part of a delegation
mandated by EADS and other firms' workers to go
to Nantes and attend a meeting of trade unionists
and workers of all the EADS-Airbus factories of
France. During the meeting we decided to reject
the Power-8 plan and came to the conclusion that,
in order to defend all the jobs and the working
conditions in those factories slated to close
down, the aircraft-construction industry must be
returned entirely to the public sector.
Therefore, the renationalization of EADS-Airbus
must be consistently demanded in each country.
Nationalizing is the only step that can guarantee
that the industry will be saved.
We know that it is the European Union that is
answerable for the dismantlement of industry, as
the Maastricht treaty strictly bans any
nationalization.
During the meeting of workers and youth for the
Republic, that convened in Madrid last January
19th and that mandated the present delegation to
this Conference, the decision was taken to
address a letter to socialist candidates and
those who claim to speak on behalf of workers,
asking them to take support from the forces of
the labor majority, and to point out that it is
an utmost urgency, in order to defend the
industrial sector, to call for the
nationalization of all factories and industries
under threat.
It is necessary to break with the European Union;
we must organize the fight to defend jobs and
factories through nationalization; and to that
end we must also organize the fight against the
European treaty.
Finally, I wish to say that we have brought here
to the Conference a written contribution on the
situation of education in our country.
------
Lothar Hesse (Germany)
My name is Lothar Hesse. I am a German trade
unionist in contact with comrades who publish the
Social Policy and Democracy journal.
In about 45 years of my belonging to the trade
union movement and in almost as many years
fighting for labor rights, it has become clear to
me - to me and to many of my colleagues - that
social gains, social rights, a decent living
wage, protection against redundancy, job
security, paid holidays, the 8 hour working day,
working hour regulations, retirement pensions,
sickness and unemployment benefits, which have
reached a very high level S., cannot be defended
or won back within the present framework.
In Germany, fundamental gains, social rights that
we considered we could count on and of which many
of us were proud, are being undermined to-day,
they're being reduced to nothing ever since the
1982 "Bonn turning point". This situation has
been made worse by EU policy; through the
Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties, through the
Common market and to-day through threatening
pressure from the EU.
Governments in Germany are breaking with the
solidarity principle between generations,
collective bargaining agreements and laws.
Employers are getting rid of collective
bargaining agreements, either getting round them
or simply refusing to ratify them. Human beings,
men, women and children are being plunged into a
situation of uncertainty, even into poverty and
despair.
The result is 6 million unemployed.
Resistance is being organized but it is not often successful and many
ask: why?
In Bochum, Nokia wants to close down an extremely
profitable company making mobile phones.
More than 4 000 men are suddenly under threat of
redundancy and social disaster in a town whose
infrastructure and finances have been weakened by
years of job destruction and the closing down of
companies and which is no longer in a situation
where it can help its citizens.
Nokia workers produced last year a 15% profit
yield. Each employee contributed on average 90
000 Euros towards these profits. But the company
says: this is not enough. We want more. We are
closing down the Bochum factory and building a
new one in Rumania. There we can find workers who
are ready to work for half the wages demanded in
Bochum.
What's more, the Nokia management conceals the
fact that the move to Rumania is profitable in
many ways: low wages, poverty line wages;
subsidies from the EU for the new infrastructure
without which it would not be possible to produce
mobiles and finally they will benefit from tax
exemptions guaranteed by the Rumanian State.
That is how the European Union system works.
Those who suffer are colleagues in the Bochum
mobile company and perhaps to-morrow, it will be
colleagues from Madrid, Paris or Copenhagen. I am
sure that everyone in this room could give other
examples. Our colleagues in Bochum are ready to
fight; they want to defend their workplace and
their existence. They cannot accept their
employer's logic, even less that of EU
bureaucrats and they turn to their union for
helpS. But they find the help they expect is
refused. The heads of unions criticize the
bosses' appetite for gain and profit, they even
criticize EU bureaucracy but they go no further.
No union leader says: it is the EU that is bad.
Not one of them says: we should give up the EU,
otherwise with the Lisbon Treaty there will be no
coming back from the state of "no rights" and
social destruction. Not one of them says: it must
be rejected or we'll start organizing resistance
S. No, nothing of what's happening at local or
regional level must go on like this.
We need solidarity among all colleagues
concerned, including the heads of unions within
companies, at regional, national and
international level.
We need independent unions with the sole task -
including those at leadership level - of
defending only the interests of the workers and
their members!
We can achieve this with the help of the
International Liaison Committee of Workers. Along
with many others who think like me I'm saying:
Down with the EU! Down with all its institutions!
Long live international solidarity! Long live
Europe S Long live the International Liaison
Committee of Workers!
-----
Gérard Schivardi (France)
Dear friends, dear comrades,
I would like to contribute to this conference on
Europe in several capacities: as a mayor, as a
district councilor, as a Socialist and eventually
as a co-founder, along with activists and elected
representatives of all trends, of an independent
working-class party.
As a mayor I will say that France numbers 36500
local councils, the "communes" and 500 000 local
councilors elected by way of universal suffrage.
This organizational framework stems from the
great 1789 French revolution which set up the
"commune", the town or village, as the basic unit
of democracy, thus allowing citizens to check
their elected representatives' mandates within
the framework of the secular, one- and
-indivisible Republic that guarantees each
citizen equality of rights.
The EU is destroying the one-and-indivisible
Republic through the process of devolution that
transfers responsibilities from the State to the
Regions. It is destroying equality of rights
because each region uses fund capacities,
transferred by the State, in different ways
according to their own resources.
The EU destroys secularity when it acknowledges
religion as the base of European civilization. In
France, since the implementation of separation
between the Church and the State, religion has
been a private matter and the State cannot
acknowledge or subsidize any of the churches.
As a village mayor I am attached to public services:
In my village there is a state school and a
post-office. Applying the treaties of Maastricht
and Amsterdam, the government cuts down on public
expenditure. Schools are grouped together so that
many village schools are being closed down. Since
he knows that teachers are against this, the
minister for Education wants to break the
teachers' strikes.
He proposes that we give the striking teachers'
pay to local government workers so that they look
after the children. The local council unanimously
refused to do so.
The EU directives on postal services have done
away with the postal monopoly. So the government
is closing down those post-offices which are
deemed non profitable! How can a public service
be judged on profitability?
This is what we are saying in the lead-up to
local council elections, for which we are
attempting to run for election in as many
"communes" as possible. We have a campaign that
says: "The role of the local council is not to
implement the attacks of the European Union on
the population and public services but, on the
contrary, to protect the population."
In 17 large towns we have joined with activists
of the Socialist Party and of the French
Communist Party on this platform. On this
platform we hope to rally round even more
activists by the March 9th elections.
As the mayor of a wine-growing village I can see
that the Common Agricultural Policy has led to
turning hundreds of thousands of farmers out of
their jobs. There were 2 million farmers in 1958.
Only between 500 000 and 600 000 are left today,
according to statistics.
Today the European Commission, through its
mouthpiece European commissioner Mariann Fisher
Boel, announces that 200 000 hectares of
vineyards are to be uprooted in Europe.
The same goes for industry: there have been
thousands of lay-offs at Arcelor. And the Central
European Bank itself organizes the offshoring of
these jobs by setting its interest rates with
total independence, as Mr Trichet claims. This is
the price they would have us pay to save the
"free and undistorted competition" of the
Maastricht treaty.
As district councilors, we run secondary schools,
income support (which is the only money the
long-term unemployed can get), local roads, old
age care allowance, health care for disabled
children and a range of public services which we
have set up.
The European Union thinks that this availability
is a luxury which capital cannot afford.
It advocates the transfer of services-management
to the Regions. The Attali report proposes to do
away with the districts, our "départements". This
would mean that people without a source of income
would stop getting income support and disabled
children getting health care.
They have lost billions of euros to the subprime
crisis and they want to make up for this by
fleecing the poorer sections of the population
because they are the most numerous.
There will be elections to appoint district
councilors. As I disagree and have run for
President to get out of the Maastricht treaty,
the EU supporters are endorsing 6 candidates. We
are going to fight and shall not let them have
their way.
As a Socialist I will say that I share the
internationalism taught by Jaurès, who was
assassinated because he refused to send the
workers of Europe to their graves for the benefit
and profit of weapons manufacturers.
Internationalism requires defending the existence
of sovereign nations that cooperate freely on the
basis of common projects.
We must work towards building this free Europe of the free peoples
of Europe.
I think that it requires breaking away from the Europe of Maastricht.
As a Socialist I will say that this Europe cannot
be based on "free and undistorted competition",
but on the contrary, on the basis of
nationalizations and renationalizations, on the
basis of the socialization of the major means of
production and exchange, starting with the banks!
Eventually as a co-founder with my Socialist,
Communist, Trotskyist and anarcho-syndicalist
comrades of the national committee for a
working-class party I will say this:
Dear comrades from the other countries of Europe...
Because our governments know that the citizens of
our countries would vote NO to the Lisbon Treaty,
they refuse to have a referendum on the issue and
want to pass the treaty without resorting to a
vote.
This denial of democracy is an admission of weakness...
This confirms our analysis that political
democracy cannot be reclaimed unless we break
away from the European Union.
The conditions required to build a
socially-oriented Europe involve the repealing of
all the treaties which are based on the reduction
of labor costs and on expenditure cuts in health,
education and welfare.
With my comrades on the committee for an
independent working-class party, with the 8026
activists, elected representatives and citizens
who have bought sponsor-cards to prepare our
conference, with all those who are currently
subscribing as founding members, with those who
take part with us in the run-up to the local
council elections, we are going to found a real
working-class party based on this platform on
June 14th and 15th.
During our conference last November we drafted a
manifesto that outlines this party: we said it
would be an internationalist party based on class
struggle.
We are building the bases of this internationalism with you.
We must work together, organize together, to
build together this brotherly Europe unfettered
by the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, and
I'll say by the exploitation of Man by Man.
Thank you for your attention. I invite you to
take part in the founding conference of the
independent working-class party on June 14th and
15th in Paris.
Klaus Schüller (Germany)
Dear comrades, dear colleagues.
My name is Klaus Schüller. I am the DGB secretary
in Thuringia and a Deputy Chairman of the
workers' commission Afa (SPD) for this Land.
I am proud to be able to speak to you today on the platform at this
conference.
The Federal Government's subservience to the EU's
diktats means that for example our welfare
system, our health service and our pensions are
increasingly deteriorating. The same is true of
the industrial sector, of our public services. In
connection with those destructions, free
collective bargaining and collective agreements
are being attacked.
We are told that the Lisbon Treaty brings about
positive changes with regard to "democracy and
social questions."
Who is the Federal Government afraid of today?
Why is it that our constitution could not be
changed so that our fellow citizens might decide
in a referendum whether they want the Lisbon
Treaty to be ratified?
I have to say very clearly here that the Lisbon
Treaty covers up the greatest plunder of all
times, the transfer of State property or people's
property into the hands of speculators, a shift
to private ownership.
The whole public infrastructure is to be
sacrificed on the altar of neoliberalism and this
process is to be approved by the law.
I wan to give you two examples first of what it
means to carry out privatizations to the very end
and secondly of the way we can stop them.
In 2006 the German constitutional court told the
local councils to get rid of their social remit,
in order to cut their debts, and to sell the
whole of their public assets, all the public
infrastructure.
What does it mean for local councils?
I will describe what happened in Dresden when council houses were sold.
An American investor offered ¤1.6 billion to the
parliament of the city for the council houses.
The sale found favour especially with Die Linke and the SPD.
If only the MPs had worked out what it meant if
you divided ¤1.6 billion by the number of flats,
they would have found the following result: ¤29
000, which is ridiculous compared with
present-day prices.
But there is something worse: the American buyer
set up a bogus firm in Belgium, invested ¤400
million and eventually borrowed ¤1 billion to
take over the company that was in charge of
administering the houses in Dresden; the ¤1
billion loan was taken out in the name of the
company in charge of the houses. In order to cut
its debts, the company sacked most of the staff
and as a result the tenants now have no one to
talk to.
Die Linke had proudly announced that it had
succeeded in introducing a social clause into the
sales contract, which gave the tenants the
guarantee that rents would not increase by more
than 3% in the next few years.
In no time at all the buyer increased the rents
of 6000 flats by more than 30%. In consequence
the councilors intended to sue the buyer for
abuse of power on the ground that he had not
abided by the social clause.
The buyer then pointed out that they had not read
the contract carefully enough because it
specified that rents could not increase by more
than 3% on the housing stock as a whole. But the
rents of only 6000 flats had increased by 30%,
which meant a 3% increase if you take the whole
housing stock into account. Therefore the clause
had been respected. What a disgrace for the city
officials! How foolish of them!
This example, dear comrades, shows that the sale
of social housing has only had negative effects
for the city. And I must add that next time the
rents go up in those flats, where tenants are
most often Hartz IV benefit claimants, the city
will have to pay the rent increase and the
heating charges. To put it simply, social housing
has gone, the administering company is now in
debt and the city has to pay the rent increases.
Now I would like to give you a positive example concerning the city
of Leipzig.
In that town the council factories were to be closed.
A wave of resistance rose against Die Linke but
also against the SPD and in consequence the
planned privatization was rejected by a
referendum.
Another positive consequence is that now the city
is no longer allowed to sell any public assets
and services.
This is a success won against privatizations and
the plans of the EU and we must spread the word
loud and clear.
We are told that the Lisbon Treaty means "a
change because it has a more social content".
When the Grand Coalition introduced retirement
age at 67 it was only transposing the decision
taken at the Barcelona summit in March 2002,
where all EU member States decided that an
increase of 5 years in the average age at which
people stop working in the European Union should
be sought as of 2010.
As a good obedient pupil, the Grand Coalition
brought before parliament a bill that raised the
retirement age to 67.
I have to say very clearly that this raise of the
retirement age to 67 means a cut in pensions for
our fellow citizens.
I know that in fact in our part of Germany, in
the east, 29% of pensioners between the age of 60
and 65 live in destitution and that in the next
few years an increasing number of old people are
going to be thrown into extreme poverty.
And I know what I am talking about. I can tell
you that anyone having worked for 35 years in
Germany earning ¤1900 and having paid
contributions to the superannuation fund finally
gets a pension of ¤700, which is below the
minimum living wage.
And I only have to consider the average wages
especially in the eastern part of Germany - but
the same levels are becoming common in the west -
and I know how many million workers earn less
than ¤1900.
And the situation is even worse for Hartz IV
claimants. Hartz IV claimants accumulate a right
to pension of ¤1.28 per year. In other words if
they do not get out of that social trap, they
will be entitled to a pension of ¤21.80 after ten
years
I think this is a shame for a social State when
it already knows at the moment that those people
are never going to get out of their present
social trap.
What is even more serious is that young people
are losing confidence in the pension system and
put the social contract in danger. Why should
they contribute to a system that in the end will
plunge them into extreme poverty?
Once again that is a product of the EU that of
course is profitable to private insurers.
Finally let me say a few words about the Cacak
Conference in Serbia, which I was able to attend.
At the Conference we were informed of what is
happening to our colleagues of Eastern Europe.
Once more we heard of the way State property and
the people's property are sold off to dubious
capital providers.
I think it is particularly important for us to
have such an exchange in order to defend
ourselves together in our common fight against
the destructive policies carried out by the EU
and its associates.
The liaison committee we founded at the Cacak
Conference is of the utmost importance.
Dear comrades,
Let us fight together!
Down with the Maastricht Treaty! Down with the Lisbon Treaty!
Warm thanks to all of you.
-----
Asztalos Laszlo (Hungary)
I should like to quickly depict the situation in
Hungary after the country joined the European
Union.
The economy is a disaster. We used to rank first
of the Visegrád (1) countries; now we are on the
lowest rung. It is utter collapse.
People are steadily getting poorer and are
obliged to take ever new loans to be able to pay
back the interests of their old loans. 30% of the
cars bought on the leasing system had to be
returned.
Worse still, State ownership now amounts to 9%,
much less than in capitalist countries.
That is not the end of privatizations. They are
selling power utilities and the national grid and
also the water distribution system as well as the
most important strategic asset: steelworks.
The amalgamation of schools is continuing,
allegedly because of the low birth rate. This
mostly hits the smaller communes. As post offices
and schools close down, villages are deserted.
Municipalities get shorter and shorter subsidies;
over 200 are virtually bankrupt. They do not have
the money to pay staff wages, power or heating.
For cattle, hog and poultry breeders, the price
of electricity has taken a 50% raise, cattle, hog
and poultry breeding farms close down one after
the other; very soon nobody will raise hogs or
poultry and we are soon going to have to import
meat with all the problems of guarantee on the
country of origin that are already with us.
I personally had to take a loan from the bank for
some repairs in my home. When I signed the
contract, I had to reimburse 19,800 Forints a
month. Today, two years on, the sum has grown to
23,600 and the balance of my debt shows that not
only I have paid nothing back but that I owe more
than I did two years ago!
For this year, price increases are planned: 15%
to 20% for energy, the same for bread. From 19%
to 50% for meat, 15% to 20%; for heating, 15% to
20%. for water. Besides, we must reckon that
public services prices will increase: post office
charges, all transport fares, from 8 to 15%.
Regarding healthcare insurance, several hospitals
have been regrouped, others closed down. Scores
of thousands of beds have been closed down.
Several billion Forints have been cut from
healthcare budgets and many hospitals are nearly
bankrupt.
Many operations are being delayed; there are
waiting lists not only for several months but for
a whole yearS Thousands of GPs and nurses have
been fired. Others had to leave the country.
In the city of Györ, surgery had to be cancelled for lack of medical
staff.
It is easy to imagine that tens of thousands are
going to find themselves totally destitute.
We are on the brink of collapse. Cases of sleaze,
corruption, embezzlement spring up everyday in
the MSZP-SZDSZ coalition in government or among
some of its members. All that is growing to
unbearable proportions.
The trade union I am affiliated to is siding with
others on the European level. So I hope we will
be able to fight together with trade unions of
the various European countries.
After the strike called by all the united trade
union confederations that brought Hungary to a
standstill last December 15th, essentially
against the privatization of healthcare and the
introduction of private insurance instead of
public health insurance, but also the
privatization of education and transportsS a
petition addressed to the President of the
Republic asking him not to okay that
privatization of public health insurance has
already been endorsed by some 400,000 people.
It is an individual initiative against a "health
insurance system that compels everyone to
subscribe to a private insurance working along
market guidelines"; but the trade unions, at
least "Munkás Tanácsok" and "Liga"
have decided
to take it up and widely circulate it for
endorsements.
It takes 200,000 endorsements to be given
attention. The trade unions have already
collected 400,000 but their objective is to
collect 1,500,000.
Right now, though the government is perfectly
aware that this initiative is intensely popular,
it has just dared confirm its decision.
The trade unions have organized pickets in
Budapest in front of the transport stations, as
well as neighborhood canvassing.
"Not one in ten refuses to sign; people either
know what it is about and sign on the spot or
they wait for us to explain and then they sign
their namesS "
(1) Visegrád or V4 is a group of 4 countries
comprising Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia
and Hungary
------
Jan-Erik Gustafsson (Sweden) GB
The movement against European treaties is quite
divided and not well co-ordinated in Europe.
Against that backdrop, the 2005 NO votes in
France and in the Netherlands against the
European Constitution were very important and
brought the European Union into a sort of
constitutional crisis. Despite that, EU
institutions and national governments negotiated
in secret and managed to sign what goes under the
name of Lisbon Treaty, which is 96% similar to
the European constitution.
It is not a "mini-treaty", as Nicolas Sarkozy
would the French and European people believe. For
those reasons, it is important and meaningful
that the European Conference should convene in
Paris, France, one of the countries that
initially founded the European Union.
I am taking part in this Conference to show my
solidarity with the workers who cast a NO vote in
2005 and to support all the European peoples who
are demanding referendums in their countries. I
consider that this event in Paris is the most
political awareness arousing step taken to give a
further impetus to the resistance to the E.U.
agenda and the treaty for all European workers.
In Sweden, the outcome of the September 2006
elections was a bourgeois government made up of
four parties, the "Alliance" that leads a
neo-liberal policy of deregulation, privatization
and tax reduction for the wealthy, a policy very
similar to the one led by Nicolas Sarkozy.
During the election, 52% of the votes went to the
Alliance but today, opinion polls show that
favorable views have dropped to 38%. During the
run up to the 2006 election, the European Union
issue did not come up. Politicians and media
avoided the topic. For those reasons, the Swedish
Parliament has no legitimacy to ratify the Lisbon
treaty.
"The Alliance" has declared it wants to be active
inside the European Union. But, in governmental
circles, mum's the word. Only Fredrick Reinfeldt,
the head of government will infrequently mention
the E.U and Cecilia Malmström, the foreign
affairs Minister said that the discussion on the
treaty had already taken place before the
referendums in France and in the Netherlands!
The social-democratic party has elected Mona
Sahlin, as Chairperson succeeding to Göran
Persson; she too remains silent and will not
speak of the European Union. The Reinfeldt
government is so unpopular that, in opinion
polls, social-democrats go up but they do not
form an opposition party. Also, there is an
implicit agreement between the "Alliance", the
social-democrat party and the media not to
mention the new treaty while the Greens and Left
(former CP) are too few to take the initiative of
a debate.
In this difficult situation we have set up a
national and informal co-ordination to demand a
referendum: "folkomrostning.nu". All the
organizations that participate in it campaign in
their own groups.
On December 11th, two days before the signature
of the Treaty in Lisbon, a demonstration-rally of
ten organizations was organized in the centre of
Stockholm to demand a referendum. The appeal
issued by the rally is also being circulated
among some trade unions such as the municipal
workers union and civil servant union to mobilize
the members.
The appeal can be proposed as a resolution in
union meetings. For instance, a major branch of
the municipal workers' union has approved the
resolution. This method can help put up pressure,
call on the trade union national officials to
make them demand a referendum.
Right when the Lisbon Treaty was being signed,
Cecilia Malmström, Minister in charge of European
affairs, unexpectedly declared that the Lisbon
Treaty, together with the Swedish government's
comments was going to be circulated among 214
organizations to ask their opinion.
For instance, LO, TCO and SACO national trade
unions received the document. They are to give
their answers before March 25th. But alterations
to the document may not be proposed.
In practice, the only point is whether to ratify
the treaty or not. This however, gives us some
scope to intensify the campaign, to use the
appeal in the organizations and meetings to
demand a referendum. The government also provided
an email address to forward the answers.
We ask everyone to use the email address to push
for a referendum. If we manage to secure a
referendum, the Swedish people are likely to vote
NO as they did in 2003 at the referendum about
the currency when entering the euro zone was
rejected.
The European Court of Justice has just ruled in
favor of Latvian firm Laval about Vaxholm.
The EU court of Justice ruling is a devastating
attack on all the trade unions in Sweden and the
shock wave will be felt across the European
Union. It can be said that the Court of Justice
has imposed minimal standards for foreign workers
transferred to a member State. That runs against
the Swedish tradition of negotiating collective
agreements between employers and trade unions
without the participation of the State. It paves
the way to social dumping, driving wages down and
weakening trade unions.
For "free exchange of services" and "free
circulation", a Latvian collective agreement is
more important than a Swedish collective
agreement. The Court ruled that collective rights
exist in Europe but it ruled that the blockade
imposed by building sector workers was not
justified regarding the public protection of
workers. With this ruling the Court of Justice
cancelled "Lex Britannica" law that permits a
trade union to strike or organize a blockade in
order to safeguard Swedish Collective agreements.
Right after the Court ruling, Lars Ohly, the
chairman of the former CP, called Sweden to exit
the European Union. But the party does not have
many members in trade unions and is unable to
have much influence over the debate. The other
politicians and the media on the national level
were very cautious in their declarations or
remained silent. As with the Treaty, they
apparently do not want to speak.
The trade union national leaders have not yet
recognized the meaning of the ruling. In an
editorial of the major newspaper -"DN" - trade
union leaders were advised to make very cautious
declarations and not to arouse the awareness of
their members on the issue of the referendum or
of leaving the E.U.
But Wanja Lundby Wedin, LO chairperson who also
chairs the ETUC, may find it awkward to put the
lid on the debate. LO and the other national
trade unions, TCO and SACO, whose leaders lean
towards the European Union, all received
guarantees, before the 2003 referendum, that they
would be bound only to the 1994 European Union,
that the Swedish labor laws would not be altered.
In a 2005 supplement of LO newspaper
(LO-tidningen) and in a 2006 interview, General
Secretary Erland Olausson had quite clearly
declared that if the Court of Justice ruled
against trade unions, "the conditions for our
affiliation to the European Union would be
obsolete".
Olausson also declared that the Lisbon Treaty and
the topical "Charter of Fundamental Rights" would
boost the importance of trade unions. But, as we
can easily observe, the argument is false as the
EU Court took its ruling on the basis of existing
treaties that already included taking the Charter
into consideration.
During a meeting of the social-democrat Party in
Lund, south of Sweden, on January 12th and 13th
the participants asked the leaders to "publicly
declare that the treaty could not be ratified
unless collective agreements and the right to
strike were guaranteed in Sweden".
The social-democrats and Tord Persson, chairman
of the Lund building sector workers trade union
declared "European Union laws are to change,
otherwise, we shall have to re-examine the
affiliation of Sweden to the European Union."
The Movement for a Referendum believes it is
important to encourage discussions within trade
unions and within the Social Democrat Party. It
is a priority for the Movement NO to the European
Union that I chair. We are going to show what
connects the Lisbon Treaty and the Vaxholm case
and use the fact that the government circulated
the Treaty to the organizations in Sweden.
We are going through a major international
financial slump, entailing serious economic
consequences. We are nowhere near the end of it,
on the contrary.
Under such circumstances, what other conclusion
can we draw but that the current capitalist
system is bankrupt? What conclusion, other than
that it is necessary to take socialist measures,
to march towards socialism?
Yet we must take one thing into account: since
the Treaty of Maastricht, socialism has been
banned in the European Union. This founding
treaty of the European Union imposes free and not
distorted competition as the only lawful policy.
Can we accept this for ever? Certainly not.
The attacks on all public services (energy,
education, water, telecom etc.) and their partial
or total privatization originate from this
treaty. As does the decrease of state control
over economic activities in each country, which
entails layoffs and offshorings in previously
unheard-of numbers.
In Belgium the dogma of competition leads to the
introduction of what is called notional interest,
which is a way of attracting foreign investors.
Any company that invests its own capital can put
this down on its books as a bank loan and
therefore deduct fictitious interests from its
tax declaration, although it has really paid
none. This goes for any kind of investment, be it
productive or not. In all it means 2,400 million
euros fail to get into the coffers of the State
while the European Union demands a budget surplus
from the self-same State. Who will foot the bill?
Workers, of course. We cannot accept this.
As you know Belgium has been undergoing a deep
political crisis over the past six months. It is
described as a "conflict between communities" but
it is really the form of an unprecedented attack
by capital, seeking to dismantle anything that
can hinder profit-making.
After these six months a so-called "interim"
government has been set up by the liberal Prime
Minister Guy Verhofstadt. He is also a candidate
to the presidency of the European Union.
He has handed in a report to the King advocating
an institutional reform that he claims would
solve Belgium's problems. The backbone of the
report simply consists in applying to Belgium the
European method of subsidiarity and convergence
criteria. While he swears that there is
absolutely no question of changing Belgium's
solidarity mechanisms, Verhofsatdt wants to
introduce competition between Flemish and French
speakers just as the European Union, now
comprising 27 countries, has sought to induce
ruthless competition everywhere, leading to the
degradation of social gains.
I shall take but one example: until now wages
used to be negotiated at an interprofessional
federal level, then within each industrial
sector, still at a federal level, with a possible
final negotiation at company level.
Verhofstadt would like the interprofessional
federal level negotiations to deal with only the
setting of maximum and minimum wages for the
whole country. This would set a negotiation
framework on wages for the regional level. The
aim is obvious. The maximum wage limit would make
it impossible to claim pay rises in Flanders,
where unemployment is half that of Walloons
(French-speaking Belgium). The minimum wage would
first draw down wages in Walloons and then,
because of competition between the regional
workforces, in the other two regions (Flanders
and Brussels). It means destroying the social
model.
Verhofstadt wants to apply the same process to
unemployment benefits, family allowances and many
other aspects of our social life.
It is therefore easy to see the bosses' vested
interests in the so-called conflict "between
communities". The bosses who play a pseudo
nationalist hand do not do so out of love for
their people. The only thing they love is their
purse, and to be able to find labor at one euro
per hour less, they are ready to offshore their
companies anywhere. They are trying to divide
people, to do away with social gains, and they
would start in Flanders. The manifesto of the In
De Warande group entitled "For an independent
Flanders in Europe" clearly asserts this.
There is no struggle between Flemish and
Walloons. There is a struggle between the bosses
and the workers.
Young people do not want to stay put in their
region. They are open to the world, not to
nationalism. They are yearning to change the
world.
Things get changed in the street. We are both
members of Eenheidscomite: the committee for
unity. We fought for months to persuade the FGTB
to act responsibly and call for a large
demonstration in Brussels to preserve federal
social gains.
That demonstration eventually took place on
December 15th, 2007, gathering 25,000 people,
supported by three trade-unions in defense of
purchasing power and of a unified federal social
security system.
We are respectively Flemish and French, both FGTB
union shop-stewards. We prepared this speech
together and speak as one.
You may think there are several peoples in
Belgium but in any case there is only one working
class, united from Antwerp to Liege within its
trade-unions. This is the strength of the Belgian
working class and accounts for the importance of
its social gains.
These gains, the European Union wants to destroy
on behalf of the employers. If you wonder who
stands to gain from the crime, seeing the current
political crisis in Belgium, there lies your
answer.
As for us, along with the whole working class and
the FGTB, we are fighting to preserve our federal
social gains and we are demanding that the
Socialist Party and the Socialistische Partij
take up the claims expressed by the 25,000
demonstrators of December 15th.
------
Lucien Gauthier (France)
Before the opening of the Conference, I was
having a discussion with a comrade and we were
remembering, when the two of us were in Sarajevo,
in September 1991, on the eve of the war that
tore Bosnia apart. The war was already creating
havoc in Croatia, it was starting in Bosnia, but
it was the time when hundreds of thousands of the
Bosnian populations were demonstrating in the
streets of Sarajevo, from 5 to 6, to 700 000, all
shouting:
"Serbs, Bosnians, Muslims, Croats, all united ".
Nobody could have imagined that a war was going
to ravage and tear the country apart. And yet the
war had already begun way before. It had begun,
when under fire from IMF demands and debt policy,
the Yugoslav economy was subjected to
unprecedented liquidation affecting all the
populations and aimed at dividing workers who
were united in this country and who, whatever
their nationality, were out on strike together,
fighting structural adjustment plans.
That is a picture of 16 years ago. You just have
to see the state of Europe today. Belgium under
threat, threats to Italian unity that has been so
recently achieved, the situation within the
Spanish State, the situation in the whole of
Europe where each country sees its sovereignty
under threat, its peoples threatened with being
torn asunder.
And even in France, in the Jacobin Republic as it
emerged form the French Revolution, they want to
break up everything that has been achieved by
democracy, everything that has been achieved on
the grounds of "communal" (local) democracy,
based on 36 000 communes, on "departments"
(counties) that emerged from the French
Revolution which got rid of the reactionary fiefs
of nobility and the monarchy.
This war is waged by the European Union, which is
not a bad manager of Europe, which is not a
capitalist manager of Europe. The European Union
is the negation of Europe.
Europe is industry that develops. Europe is
agriculture that provides self sufficiency for
all the peoples of Europe and even at world
level. Old Europe is the Europe of labor and
industry, of farming; it is the Europe that saw
the development of public services, the right to
a health system in its different forms, being won
in every country. The EU is precisely the
opposite; it is the destruction of all these
rights. The European Union is the liquidation of
industry, it is off-shoring, it is the
undermining of all that has been achieved, for
instance in our countries, the right to health,
to a health system, to Social Security and
Welfare.
"Free and not distorted competition" is nothing
but capitalist anarchy that benefits those that
make enormous speculative profit.
In a country like France, in the North and East
that are still the most industrialized areas,
industry no longer supplies more than 30% of the
economic activity. Every day, companies are
closing down, with 20, 50, 100, 1 000 workers
sacked from work, tens and tens of thousands
losing their jobs every day, people thrown out on
the streets.
Official figures today show that in France,
hundreds of people live in shacks, tents and
cars; among them there are 150,000 people with
jobs, earning more than the minimum wage, but who
cannot afford to get a home. That is the reality
of the war waged by the EU, through
de-industrialization, destruction of industry, of
agriculture, through milk quotas that have
resulted in a considerable increase in dairy
product prices.
The European Union is an anti-democratic yoke, a
yoke destroying the rights and guarantees of the
working class. And at the same time in France as
well as at European level, workers are resisting.
This is manifest in strikes, in mobilization in
different sectors, it is manifest in what Belgian
comrades have said before me, that the working
class is clinging to its trade unions which
constitute the workers as a class.
Because, of course, there is the ETUC which wants
to shackle the trade unions to the EU
institutions, but there are dozens and dozens of
union activists at every level, from top to
bottom, wanting to defend their unions that are
under threat. In France as well as in the other
European countries, they want to get trade unions
integrated in order to enforce the plans demanded
by the EU. They need to wipe out the existence of
the trade unions because the working class is
there and it is resisting and fighting.
Today in a situation of crisis for all European
governments, the only way, the only means of
trying to implement what world speculation
demands, is to get trade unions involved in the
implementation of these plans.
Today, by our gathering here together, against
the EU, which is anti-Europe, we are asserting
that it is the working class that indicates a way
out, because it defends itself as a class and in
order to defend democracy and its rights, it is
seeking to defend its organizations.
The comrades in France who are already committed
today, in building an Independent Workers Party
with the perspective of its Founding Congress,
would like to announce from the start, that this
party clearly stands on the grounds of the fight
for international solidarity, for labor
internationalism. I mentioned Sarajevo. The First
World War began with the assassination of the
heir to the Austrian Empire at Sarajevo, seized
on as a pretext to start the war.
At that time, the Serbian Social Democrat party
took a stand against the war and in favour of
international unity of workers.
Gerard Schivardi spoke of Jaurès, indeed, we are
part of that continuity that links up Jean
Jaurès, the Serbian Social Democrat Party, but
also Karl Liebnecht and the Russian
Internationalists, Lenin and Trotsky, who,
whatever their differences, whatever their
disagreements or nuances on such or such a point,
worked together to assert that, faced with
capitalist barbarism, there is a way out and it
is the working class that holds the key to it.
------
Carmelinda Pereira (Portugal)
Dear friends and comrades.
Last Tuesday, Correia de Campos, the Health
minister of the Portuguese government announced
he was resigning.
Correia de Campos tried to carry through the
realization of a programme of healthcare service
closures from maternity hospitals to hospital
emergency wards, resulting in total insecurity
and lack of protection for the population. His
plan is a brutal attack against one of the major
gains of the April 25th 1974 Revolution; it is
based on an inescapable demand of the European
Union: to decrease healthcare spending in order
to bring State deficit to zero.
The population cannot accept that; people are
steadily and systematically mobilizing against
the closure of healthcare services.
So, on the eve of a demonstration in front of the
Parliament - the Assembly of the Republic - where
people from various regions of the country
gathered, the minister announced he was stepping
down.
Social P.A. could not conceal the fact that the
resignation was the direct result of the people's
mobilization; that, ultimately, the government's
foundations are rocked by the people's resistance
and it is giving ground.
What does the event mean?
It means that implementing the programme dictated
by the European Union comes head-on with the
resistance of the people, of representatives of
all the political parties, of numerous Socialist
MPs and leaders such as the former Minister for
Health.
That is how the concrete movement of workers and
people to defend their right to a National
Healthcare Service puts onto the agenda breaking
away from E.U. directives.
Just as in the case of healthcare, workers and
people are seeking a way of starting to solve the
increasingly serious problems of a nation that,
day after day, is becoming a colony for
multinational corporate business.
This quest for a solution demands that the
working people should be able to discuss, to be
informed, express their views, make decisions to
organize and act, just as happened during the
Portuguese Revolution.
Such movement requests leverage such as afforded
by political parties, trade unions, the
democratic structures of the State rebuilt after
the Revolution comprising various forms of
democracy that were the result of the people's
action.
To prevent the people from finding the means to
reach a solution, the government is giving the
State a general overhaul that puts an end to the
democracy of local power, of the organs of
democratic school board management, it attempts
to get rid of political parties and to co-opt
trade union leaderships.
Because he dreads democracy, Prime Minister José
Socrates refuses to hold a referendum on the
Lisbon Treaty, thus turning his back on one of
his own electoral promises and even coming at
odds with Socialist Party leaders.
During the discussion on that point at the
Assembly of the Republic, the leader of the
Communist Party asked him if he considered
himself accountable to the Portuguese people when
he was turning his back on his electoral
promises. Socrates answered that he was committed
to Europe.
So, Portugal's Prime Minister, though taking
support from a majority of SP MPs, has committed
himself to the E.U. promoted by Durao Barroso, to
act on a political agenda concerning healthcare,
education, all the economic, social, political
and cultural measures, rather than to the people
who voted for the Socialist Party and turned
Durao Barroso down.
The Portuguese people are seeking a positive way
out. This solution requires a government that
treads again the path mapped by the April
Revolution; it requires a government that seeks
the way to co-operate in solidarity with other
governments and thus lay the basis of a free
union of sovereign nations, free from the
straightjacket of the European Union and of its
treaties.
-----
Per Sörensen (Denmark) GB
Once again those politicians that stick to the
European Union show their disregard for
democracy. Six E.U countries called referendums
on the enlargements of the EU reformed treaty.
Two voted "Yes" and four voted "No". Denmark
first voted "No" to the Maastricht Treaty in
1992. When a new referendum was called, eleven
months later, those who wanted to join the EU won
a winning "Yes" margin by incorporating 4
exemptions concerning laws, the army, citizenship
and the Euro.
The scam was repeated in 1999, when the Irish
voted "No" against the Nice Treaty. They
"secured" a few exemptions. And, during the
second round, the top people in power in Ireland
managed to get the "Yes" vote through. Besides,
that treaty was the first one that they did not
have enough courage to submit to the Danish
people's decision.
In 2000, the Danish "E.U. unionists" tried to
have the Danish Crown replaced by the Euro. But
the voters, who had heard of the high price paid
by the citizens of countries who had changed to
the Euro, gave a winning "No" vote to the common
currency. For years, we had said that the true
purpose of European politicians was to set up a
European State; this was at last revealed when
they contrived the Constitutional Treaty.
In 2005, five EU countries: Spain, Luxemburg,
France, the Netherlands and Denmark organized
referendums.
Spain and Luxemburg voted "Yes" while France and
the Netherlands said "No". That defeated the
draft constitution as each country had the right
to veto the enlargements of the Treaty.
The Danish government cancelled the referendum
that was to be held in the autumn of 2005. The
fact that two Member-States had turned down the
Treaty went against the will of the elites in
power.
EU politicians did not have the peoples they
wanted. Therefore, they set to the well-know
unpopular and insane task of rewording the
substance, subtracting 10 items out of 250 in the
new Lisbon Treaty. But the substance essentially
remains the same in the new Treaty. The British
government, who masterminded the new Treaty and
several chiefs of government themselves,
confirmed that the new Treaty is the same as the
2005 Constitutional Treaty.
To deny France and the Netherlands the right to a
referendum is a disgrace, it means being
dishonest to democracy. Permitting one country
only, Ireland, to have a vote on the new European
Treaty, shows contempt to voters.
The European Summit's attitude may arouse the EU
citizens' mistrust as they are kept at arms'
length by the governing elites and hit by
worsening living conditions, which may stir
trouble in European Union countries.
What then will be our mission as opponents to the
European Union? First, we must own that we failed
to convince voters of the importance to elect MPs
opposed to the Union's project.
In this struggle we are pitted against all the
written and electronic media. The consequences of
our adhesion to the EU, the fact that 80% of the
laws voted in our countries are dictated either
by the European Commission top bureaucrats or by
the European MPs who have not received any
mandate from the people, is concealed by the
media subordinated to the will of the elites in
power.
The more recent examples date back to autumn
2007. Though over 50% of Danish and French voters
wished the new draft treaty to be submitted to a
referendum and though they were very vocal
against the EU project, the constituents of both
countries elected two far-right "EU unionists" as
heads of government. That is the case in most EU
countries. Mr Fogh, Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel, the
top trio of bourgeois liberals, are the enemies
of the people and quite ready to brand those
parties and organizations that object to the
union's project as lefties.
That is no novelty and will not stop us in our
tracks against the European Union. We can still
hope that the Irish will be able to sabotage the
EU contrivances at the coming referendum. Danish
constituents will also have their say at the
referendum on the four exemptions. If those were
to be confirmed, Denmark will not be able to
approve the Lisbon Treaty as it is. If both
Ireland and Denmark vote "No", the EU top
people's last resort will be to trample the veto
right under foot, which they have steadily done
up to now. The referendum on Denmark's
"exemptions" is due next autumn.
Let us commit ourselves to stand hand in hand and
to seize any opportunity to fight the EU project.
Let us pass on information on the anti-democratic
EU project to the citizens.
We, the members of the Popular Movement against
the European Union represented here by its Trade
Union committee, are ready to wage the electoral
battle due for coming autumn in order to preserve
the "exemptions" that protect us from thorough
subordination to the European Union policy's
framework regarding laws, the army and currency.
If we secure those exemptions we will shackle the
European Union's determination to build the
United States of the Europe that we reject.
------
H.W. Schuster (Germany)
Chair of the Düsseldrof AfA, affiliated to Ver.di union.
I agree with the introductory report and with the
proposed Manifesto of the European Liaison
Committee. Here is why.
On December 12th, Angelica Schwall-Düren,
vice-chairperson of the SPD Parliamentary Group
at the Bundestag made the following declaration
about the Lisbon Treaty: "I bring the support of
the SPD Parliamentary Group to the speedy
ratification by the German Parliament. We wish to
act with you all and with the government to
incite the other Member States to hasten the
ratification."
In the "protocol on domestic market and
competition" that is part of the Lisbon Treaty,
the "high contracting parties" agree so "the
domestic market S include a system that protects
competition from alterations".
We wrote at length on that point in an Open
Letter that, in our capacity as social-democrats
and trade unionists, we sent to the SPD MPs at
the Bundestag asking them to "Vote No to the
Lisbon Treaty."
On the 25th Of January, Angelika. Schwall-Düren
declared in a two and a half page long letter to
SPD MPs: "All those accusations are false."
The introductory report raised the issue of the
root-causes of the tragic situation prevailing in
every one of our countries: massive lay-offs,
off-shoring, scrapping social protection systems,
fragmentation of nations and States, of public
services and so on. The question is: is it an
exaggeration to say that in every one of our
countries, the European Union is destroying
industry?
"All those accusations are false", says the vice
chairperson of the SPD Parliamentary Group. On
the 8th of February 2008, Danuta Hubner who
currently serves as EU Commissioner for regional
policy declared, as was quoted in the
introductory report: "What we have to do will
make off-shoring inside Europe easier, in order
to lower payroll costs for firms".
Nokia: that is what the EU domestic market is;
that is what implementing the Lisbon Treaty leads
to!
How that "off-shoring simplification" "system"
works is what the Swedish Building sector
workers' union learnt last December when the
European Court of Justice ruled that the
industrial action against Laval was incompatible
with EU rule of the law.
That is what the Nokia metal workers are learning
now with their factory due to close down after
the company has squirreled away some 60 million ¤
worth of "public production subsidizing aids" in
N R W (North Rhineland-Westphalia) between 1995
and 1999 handed out by the Land - not to mention
EU subsidies. In 2007, the federal state funneled
28 millions "to subsidize research". Bochum city
devoted huge sums to extending infrastructures,
there was co-operation with the university and so
on.
Nokia merely benefited from the fact that the EU
makes competition an intangible principle of
action in the domestic market. Competition to
drive wages ever lower, the same for social
standards, company taxation and so on. One week
after announcing the closure that hits 4,500
colleagues (including temporary contracts), Nokia
publicized its profit increases: for 2007, 7.2
billion ¤, a 67% increase of profits.
The Lisbon Treaty strengthens the bases on which
companies rest to continue -in the name of
competitiveness -lowering the value of labor
force-commodity.
With unrivalled cynicism, Nokia has proposed to
the Bochum colleagues to go to work in Romania
(RP/PRO January 25th 2008)
Can that be accepted? Certainly not!
During the 15,000 strong march in Bochum on
January 22nd, the orators constantly emphasized
the fact that the closure was "incorrect,
brutally insensitive and unfair". The word
"bastardly deed" was used; anger and frustration
run high. But moral disapproval does not help
Nokia workers.
During the march, a colleague declared: "What
they did at Nokia, we will not accept it at our
workplace". He is right and says what the
majority of people think! Berthold Huber
(chairman of IG metal) declared: "Planned
closures are a war declaration for the whole IG
Metall".
The speeches were constantly interrupted by calls
to expropriate Nokia. It is fact that powerless
rage and indignation cannot save one single job.
When as the North Rhineland Westphalia SPD
correctly did, one declares that the workers'
council and the trade union can rely on the
solidarity of the SPD in the struggle for all the
jobs, it follows that the only acceptable
consequence is to put everything into motion to
put the entire firm under the protection of the
State, to commandeer the production, buildings,
machines, warehouses, financial means as the SPD
demanded in Düsseldorf.
This must be speedily connected to the SPD's
political initiative against the CDU Minister NRW
president and regional government. Because they
purpose to align working conditions and pays in
Bochum on those of Hungary. We know it: it is not
only a new vicious attempt to make the Ruhr
region a Special Export Zone. It is an attempt to
subordinate all the workers of entire Europe to
the regime of the domestic market, according to
the orders of the Lisbon Treaty. Siding with
Trichet, the European Central Bank president, the
CDU instigates war on wages and guarantees
enshrined in collective agreements. Today, it is
the Nokia workers who are being targeted,
to-morrow it will be workers of other firms and,
always, all the workers across Europe. Meanwhile
it is a massive attempt to pressure workers in
Hungary, Romania and other such countries. It is
an attempt to help Nokia - and all the other
companies - to organize a new wage dumping
operation in Romania.
Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: "According to the
media, the Finnish company pays wages from 170 to
240¤ - way below the median wages in Romania
which is 320¤". The company therefore organizes
massive wage dumping in Romania itself.
Besides, the Romanian government has freely
offered a 33million¤ to Nokia plus a total 30
year property tax exemption in Jucu near Cluj.
This gives a fair idea of the price that the
working masses will have to pay in Romania and
also in Hungary and Bulgaria and so on and so
forth.
What other blows are to be expected? That is very
well illustrated by the FDP in Bundestag. On the
day when Nokia let out that it was closing down
the factory, the FDP asked the government 42
questions on the right to strike that it would
like to bring restrictions to; the argument it
that "in its decree on strikes over social
adjustment plans settled through collective
agreement, the Federal Labor Court has
acknowledged that trade unions are entitled to
demanding a social plan settled by collective
agreement which must compensate for the economic
drawbacks of a firm relocation or closure. On the
opposite of Workers' councils, trade union may
even call strikes for their demands. The
consequence for the enterprises concerned will be
that materializing the decisions concerning
setting up factories or firms will, in the
future, be more costly and time-consuming. (.)
A question on principles comes up: should the
German law concerning collective agreements be
completely overhauled?"
What the FDP liberals are getting at is that
Nokia and the other companies which make use of
the EU enlargement to offshore their factories
have already put it to use: the result is brutal
restrictions on the right to strike in Romania.
We know that; in their address to the Bochum
Nokia factory, the Köln colleagues and
social-democrats mentioned it: Miron Cozma has
only quite recently been released from prison and
three of his comrades, Constantin Cretan, Dorin
Lois and Vasili Lupu are still jailed.
Nokia is no isolated case. 70 million ¤ from the
EU budget were used to help DHL freight transport
branch of La Poste to off-shore their activities
from Brussels to the Leipzig/Halle airport. As of
2008, 1,500 workers will find themselves laid-off
in Belgium (Welt on Line January 20th 2008).
The German-Finnish joint company Nokia Siemens
Networks considers immediately shedding 250 jobs
in Finland (Kölner Stadt Anzeiger January 31st
2008). A total 1,700 jobs should go (Welt January
31st 2008); others could be cited.
What about the ETUC?
A call for a Europe-wide strike came from several
Nokia factories. It melted into hot air during
the gathering of Nokia workers' councils that
convened at the ETUC headquarters in Brussels on
January 29th.
Instead of calling for strike, the ETUC made a
great show of its indignation over the fact that
the Finnish management had announced 4,000
redundancies in Bochum without having previously
given information or consultation; that is why
the EU should undertake a revision of its
directive on European workers' councils. That is
what Reiner Hoffman, deputy general secretary of
the ETUC said. The idea would be to obtain the
guarantee that no lay-off or transfer could be
decided unless the concerned workers' council or
trade union could seriously discuss about it
beforehand. The management should be under the
obligation to consult the Euro-workers' council -
and to come to an agreement on a procedure. The
ETUC rejoices over the announcement by the
Commission that it will shortly present the
revised directive. Hoffman asks that, if it is
possible, new directives be published as of the
present year to strengthen workers' rights. Sture
Fjäder of the Akava trade union: "Politicians and
trade unions" must "respect the fact that firms
are obliged to take such decisions and that they
cannot make the wheels turn backwards". (Spiegel
on line January 31st 2008)
Lay-offs and factory closures are therefore
acceptable provided the worker's council has been
consulted before. That is what the ETUC calls
"strengthening workers' rights". Can one say more
clearly, in the ETUC's own words, that the ETUC
is not a trade union? That is the way the ETUC
tries to totally subordinate European workers to
the regime of the domestic market as prescribed
by the Lisbon Treaty. On the opposite, the
workers defend the value of their work,
collective agreements and production, their firms
and all the jobs.
That is the place of your Conference!
In the ELC Manifesto we say:
"The labor movement in Europe is facing an
alternative: Either to accompany this destructive
policy (in the name of so-called "social Europe",
an accompaniment that would spell the end of the
labor movement defending its own specific
interests, or to break up with European
institutions by getting out of the European
Union, opening the way to a free union of
Europe's free peoples, a Europe of peace and
progress, of brotherly co-operation between
people on the basis to reclaiming all the rights
and gains that are being challenged from the East
to the West of the continent. And especially, the
right to nationalize and re-nationalize the
sectors of industry and economy that today face
immediate destruction."
The January 22nd demonstration in Bochum and also
the resolutions adopted in AfA show that the
slogan and the demand to nationalize is - in
every country - the only answer against the
destruction of industry.
As a conclusion, I should like to make a remark:
the Lisbon Treaty establishes the so-called EU
policies on climate. On January 21st, the
Arcelor-Mital steel workers staged a strike
against that policy to defend their smelting
furnaces.
In the framework of the ILC, we should tackle
this "climate agenda" that actually is nothing
else than a giant industry destruction and
off-shoring programme.
------
Albert Anor (Switzerland)
Financial pundits consider that global losses
resulting from the so-called subprime crisis
(high-risk mortgage loans) that erupted last
summer in the USA, will amount to hundreds of
billions dollars.
Against this backdrop, one of the banks most
seriously hit worldwide happens to be the USB,
top of the chart asset management bank in the
world, with losses amounting to 16 billion francs
and a 4.4 net loss on the 2007 balance sheet.
Switzerland has not been spared in the financial
crisis.
In this situation, the message given out by the
Swiss Coalition government (Socialist Party +
bourgeois parties) is unambiguous. Workers must
pay! Immediately after the general elections last
autumn, the government actually issued a volley
of measures against democratic and social gains
that it had, up to then, cautiously kept on the
back burner
It announced a quick succession of measures
allegedly to "restore" unemployment benefit
insurance, which actually mean higher
contributions and lower benefits. It dealt the
final blow to the Post Office and announced a
plan reforming VAT to level out the rates (which
brings about the end of the most favorable rate
at 2.7% for staples and healthcare insurance),
and it increased VAT rates to fund Disablement
Insurance (whereas the dispositions of revision
that were passed last year sharply limiting
unemployment rights to benefits are now being
implemented). All of these within the lapse of a
few weeks.
Apparently nothing is safe from the Federal
Council's eagerness to deregulate. Hans Rudof
Merz, the Budget Minister let-out that he wants
to speed up the reform of the State, which will
mean a further several billion of economies.
On their side, employers in the building sector
first denounced the national Collective
Agreement, but were forced to negotiate because
of industrial action. After signing the renewal
of the collective agreement, they have just
refused it again, which has triggered renewed
struggle in that sector.
The new law that divides financial expenses
between the federal (national) level and cantons
and communes is now being implemented, which from
now on lays most of the huge burden on cantons
and communesS
In this situation, the Swiss Socialist Party is
going to convene an extraordinary Congress next
March 1st. One of the tasks of the Congress is to
find a replacement for the current chairman who,
realizing the disastrous results of the federal
elections has fittingly acknowledged that the
orientation he had outlined for the Party has led
to defeats. Indeed, the SSP sustained its worst
electoral defeat since the end of World War II,
with a loss of 9 seats out of 52 and a minus 4.2%
of the votes.
During the recent period, the SSP has advocated
speeding up the process of joining the EU. Acting
on this guideline, it has accompanied demands for
liberalization, undermined social welfare and
increased casual labor
Many rank and file activists and officials
consider that joining the EU is antagonistic to
what socialists have always fought for: the
defense of social and democratic gains,
especially the rights of popular initiative
referendum in Switzerland.
At the same time, it has promoted ultra-liberal
policies - the EU agenda - and affirmed the
values of social democracy, which has resulted in
arousing misgivings among its constituents.
Because of this contradiction, workers have
increasingly held the SSP at arm's length; that
also arouses increased mistrust for EU
institutions.
Today, there is no room for wavering. In front of
the repeated attacks schemed by the federal
government - that comprises two socialists - and
the entire bourgeois majority of the Federal
Council, the SP should resolutely resume its
traditional course and defend social and
democratic gains. In that sense, delegates at the
Congress of elected and rank and file are
addressing the candidate to the chair of the
party via an open letter that ends on the
following:
"It is on the basis of workers' demands and not
on the basis of joining the EU which is
antagonistic to those demands, that thousands of
workers voted-in the SP candidates on October
21st 2007.
Can one possibly believe that, should the country
join the EU, the SSP would really have enough
weight to influence the political agenda of a
supra-national institution? The issues we propose
to discuss with you run much deeper than the
electoral campaign.
Should we not revive an orientation grounded on
the popular and democratic rights that have been
won in this country, which should systematically
defend the more needy members of the population?
Should we not break with a rationale, advocated
by the EU that systematically focuses on the
interests of the "markets"?
We therefore think that the discussion should
continue within our Party. Workers and the needy
population as well as the middle classes that are
getting poorer and poorer every year, expect our
party to respond concretely to their problems.
As for now, should there not be a discussion
within the Socialist Party to find ways to
mobilize against the concrete consequences of the
Federal Council's policies: against the new
offensive on the monopoly of the Post Office,
against the undermining of social insurances
(AVS, AI, LPP [insurance for the elderly, the
disabled and elderly professionals]S), for the
defense of working conditions, against social and
pay dumping, for the defense of public servicesS?
Yes, if the SSP wants more people to join its
ranks, it must remind all of its voters of
everything that it was able to secure in the way
of better living conditions, but also to defend
them jointly with trade unions when they are
attacked.
We are convinced that it is on such a basis that
the party will be able to win the trust of broad
strata of workers, active and retired, of youth
that abstained during the recent elections.
Dear comrade, to conclude: we consider that the
next chair will have to examine again the case of
joining the EU to really weigh the advantages and
the drawbacks of the adhesion for this country's
workers."
For our own part, we strongly object to joining.
To conclude on what might sound like mere trivia:
in Geneva, trade unions with, in the front line,
the workers of the energy sector, called for
action to enshrine the monopoly of power and
water distribution into the canton's
constitution. They gathered the required number
of signatures, secured the people's votes and
won. This victory concretely expresses the
resistance against EU-imposed liberalizing
policies and it stands out as a stepping-stone
for the working class in Europe.
-----
Daniel Gluckstein (France)
Comrades, yesterday 1st February, 200 000
responded to the call of farm workers',
teachers', Social Welfare and electricians'
unions and took to the streets of Mexico
demonstrating on the following central issue: put
a stop to NAFTA (the North America Free Trade
Agreement).
One of the main slogans in the demonstration was:
"Without corn, there's no nation". As you know,
the Free Trade Agreement with North America wipes
out corn production in Mexico, although it is the
main component of basic diet. The demonstrators
ended the day by setting up "a national, social
and economic council to contest the whole food
and agricultural chapter of the Free Trade
Agreement of the North Americas, to stop the
privatization process of the energy sector, to
contest the labor legislation reform and counter
the undermining of the Social Welfare law."
They declared that the Free Trade Agreement
brings nothing but death and poverty and have
announced an agenda for mobilization to put a
stop to this Free Trade Agreement.
Of course, Comrades, this is happening outside
Europe, but since, as the President said, I am
not only "from France", but am also partly
responsible for the Workers and Peoples Liaison
Committee, I feel it my duty to inform you of
this. This information shows that the issues we
are discussing here, on the situation in Europe,
are not dissimilar to the issues the workers and
peoples, on the American continent are confronted
with and which have led the comrades of the
Liaison Committee to convene a whole American
continental conference with this objective: put
an end to Free Trade Agreements, NAFTA, MERCOSUL
and all Free Trade Agreements that pillage
peoples.
Why?
Quite simply, because the nations of the American
continent, in the throttle hold of these Free
Trade Treaties cannot survive. Putting an end to
them is a question of survival;
In some other way these are the issues we are
discussing here. There is a dimension in the
discussion that must be generalized.
Christel referred, in her introductory report, to
those Swedish social democrat leaders who said:
what is happening now with our labor legislation,
our social laws, should perhaps lead us to re
examine our belonging to the European Union -
they were in favour of it up till now, but it
appears to them today, to be more and more
difficult to justify.
They are not the only ones to bring up this problem.
It is a much more general problem.
The damaging attacks wielded by the EU are such,
that of course, there are all those that go along
with them, all those that capitulate, all those
that accept being a tool in the hands of the EU,
it's true; but there are also all those who say:
it's no longer possible, it's gone too far.
Our German comrades have published in their
newspaper, an excerpt from a Swedish newspaper,
on the recent elections in Hesse and which, as
you know, witnessed a large unexpected victory of
the Social-Democrat party in this Christian
Democrat fief. And this Swedish newspaper writes:
"How much longer is this great coalition
government in Germany going to go on for?"
Because, they say, this vote means, whatever the
policies of the Social Democrat leaders are, that
the majority of German proletariat of Hesse voted
SPD against the Coalition, i.e. against Europe.
They voted against the Great Coalition, which is
the government that applies European directives.
And they said it in their way: the SPD, is the
party that speaks in the name of workers, it must
take its place as the party that speaks in the
name of workers.
Then, in another way, there is what comrades have
explained to us about what is going on in
Belgium. Of course dislocation is on the march,
but at a certain point, the FGTB Union Congress,
assumed its responsibilities and became a factor
preserving Belgian working class unity class
against what appeared to be an unbridled attempt
at division.
So, Comrades, I think discussion at our
conference should be related to this reflection.
It is not just a question of explaining, of
criticizing: this has to be done, but it is a
question of understanding what we are discussing:
it is a question of helping our class, of helping
the working class in our different countries,
open up a solution, a solution in keeping with
its interests.
Because advancing dislocation is not inevitable.
There are social classes on the scene.
Advancing barbarism is not necessarily the only
future. Yes, there has been Yugoslavia, the
Kosovo and we know the high price workers of that
area have had to pay. But it is not written in
stone that this must necessarily become general.
What is at stake with our discussion is: how can
we help to resist this.
From this point of view, I think there is a
question we cannot avoid. We are
internationalists. We are for the free union of
free peoples all over Europe.
But, being internationalists, we are therefore
for the unconditional defense of all rights and
guarantees, from the point of view of the working
class and democracy, which each nation has
won over in its centuries old combats.
And there is no contradiction here.
Those who evoke internationalism and are the most
ready to undermine the rights won in the
framework of the nation are nothing more than
instruments of the EU, the WTO, the IMF and the
World Bank. I say this, because in the problem
Swedish comrades have put to us, there is an
issue which concerns us all: can the European
Union, in any manner whatsoever, has it the
legitimacy to undermine social legislation that
has been won over in Sweden or in any other
country?
Is it legitimate for the EU to say: Swedish labor
legislation must be revised because it does not
conform to European legislation? We have to
answer that question clearly;
The EU has no legitimacy, nor does any
international or continental institution, whether
it be called the European Trade Union Congress or
the International Trade Union Congress, to
undermine the rights and guarantees won over by
labor and democratic struggles within each nation.
We are for the sovereignty of nations, the
sovereignty of working classes, the sovereignty
of labor and democratic rights in each country.
In this way, the proposal put forward by Swedish
comrades concerning the particular case of Sweden
and which is also raised in Finland and Denmark,
if I understand it rightly, concerns us all. We
are all concerned by the fact that Swedish
workers and their organization have the right to
say: no, we do not accept that the EU interferes
in our affairs: no, we do not accept that our
social laws be undermined.
This concerns us all. And the proposal put to
this conference of a common initiative, deserves,
from my point of view the full support of this
conference.
We must be quite clear about this.. You know
there are a lot of political labels. There are
people who call themselves revolutionaries, there
are those who call themselves reformists.
Sometimes a good reformist is worth more than a
false revolutionary. It can vary a lot.
In our country, we have the privilege of having
someone who is on television and in the press
every day, ten times a day and claims he wants to
build an anti capitalist party.
And when he is asked to describe this anti
capitalist party, he declares the following: "I
am not anti capitalist out of nostalgia, it is
not primarily in the name of the glorious labor
movement struggles of the past that I relate to
anti capitalism."
But, comrades, what are these "glorious labor
movement struggles of the past"? Here in France,
they are those that won us the Social Welfare
system of 1945. And can one be anti capitalist
without first of all saying, we do not accept
that a single aspect of the 1945 Social Welfare
system be questioned?
What are these " glorious struggles of the past"
in Sweden. They are the collective bargaining
agreements that the EU wants to trample under
foot.
And that is true in each of our countries.
I consider that nobody can claim to defend the
independence of the labor movement if he or she
does not assert being engaged in the defense of
each and every labor and democratic conquest.
If this is not the case, one adapts to the
European Union. You can cover it up with great
revolutionary phrases, but nobody can defend the
working class if he or she does not defend every
single labor and democratic conquest that has
been won over.
So comrades, this raises the problem of what one
could call, no only defense but re conquest.
Pablo from Spain, raised the question of EADS. This is a European issue.
Are we right in France, in launching the slogan
for the re nationalization of Airbus? And more
generally, for the re nationalization of the key
industrial sectors, of which many were
nationalized before being privatized Re
nationalization, which tallies with the question
raised by one of the German comrades, who spoke
before me, on State responsibility.
Are we right to raise these issues?
Are we right to raise the question of re
conquering the 1945 Social Welfare system, union
laws, laws on the separation of Church and State,
That is all that has been gained by the class
struggle.
And raising these issues leads us to the crucial
question of the independence of the labor
movement.
Lots of comrades before have referred to the
problems that exist in the labor movement. Nobody
can minimize them. They exist in France, comrade
Claude Jenet, in particular, referred to them, as
they exist in every country.
There is considerable pressure, increasing every
day, one might say, to try and get the leaders of
organizations claiming to speak for the working
class, involved in policies of accompanying the
EU. This is undeniable.
But isn't there also, in all sectors of the
working class, and not only at grass roots level
I would say. A comrade said: " At grass roots
level there is a desire to resist". Not only at
this level.
At grass roots level, of course, but in different
ways too, at more or less higher level up the
leadership ladder.
Because the attacks are so brutal, because of the
contradictions, at every level of labor
organizations, aren't there people striving
towards unity, quite simply in order to save the
country?
In relation to this, I would like to bring up one
aspect of the situation we are experiencing here
in France.
It has already been mentioned that a certain
number of us here are taking part in the
initiative of setting up committees for an
independent workers party. Activists from all
horizons who are taking a stand,
in particular for a break with the European Union.
Comrades, when we held our Convention we said:
this new party we want to build is not a party
for war with other parties. It is not a party for
division but a party for assembling together.
But assembling together on a basis for unity, and
the basis for unity is workers' demands. And
workers' demands cannot be satisfied if the
question of breaking with Europe is not raised.
We have tried to implement this political orientation.
Here in France, local elections are due in a few
weeks. There is an interesting element and to be
quite truthful, quite unprecedented in our
country. Already in 18 important communes, as we
call them, in big towns, the comrades setting up
committees for a workers party are not candidates
on lists presented by committees for a workers'
party but on joint lists, with sections of the
Socialist Party, or sections of the Communist
Party or with other groups on the basis of
agreements drawn up, explicitly stipulating the
following: we are presenting a list candidates
for municipal election that undertakes to refuse
to apply EU directives, that is committed to no
privatization, and undertakes to bring public
services back under municipal control, to re open
crèches, hospitals and Social Security centers.
Comrades, this policy is contrary to the national
political orientation of the Communist and
Socialist Party leaderships. But the fact that in
18 important towns, this method has resulted in
these agreements, means that within these parties
- and I am talking of towns of 100 000 or 200 000
inhabitants, with even agreements being signed
sometimes, with the outgoing Mayor - within these
parties, the situation has such a stranglehold
that leaders are beginning to say: it's true, we
cannot continue implementing EU policy; we must
get together to put an end to this policy
otherwise everything in the country will
disappear.
I am inclined to think that this policy in favour
of unity in capable of opening up a solution;
A German comrade has spoken of Arcelor-Mittal,
Christel too. The committee for a workers' party
from the Hayange-Gandrange area, where the
Arcelor -Mittal factories are situated, launched
an appeal last Monday. It recalls the whole
history of the Lorraine steel industry, a
dramatic history of liquidation and says: to-day
it is impossible for this to continue, we are in
favour of breaking with the EU. We do not make a
pre conditions of this, but we put forward a
proposal for unity on four points to all those in
electoral office, municipal councilors, mayors
and trade unionists: the plan be dropped, no
redundancies, all jobs maintained on the site, re
nationalization of Arcelor-Mittal.
In four days, more than 1 000 workers in the area have signed the appeal.
A meeting is to be held next Friday, the 8th
February. Initially it was a meeting against the
Lisbon Treaty and for a break with the EU. They
said: we'll invite all those who like us want
save jobs and re nationalize Arcelor-Mittal. Even
if they do not agree with us on Europe, we'll
invite them to this meeting so as to forge
together links for unity to save jobs.
They went to see the Socialist MP for the area
who is in favour of the EU. This Socialist MP, a
partisan of the Lisbon Treaty told them: re
nationalize the steel industry, it's true, the
situation is so terrible, why not? We are in the
crux of the problem. If we want to save the
country, we have to save industry. If we want to
save industry, then at some point the State has
to take its responsibilities and re nationalize.
And this is a line of cleavage.
Those who, because they relay EU directives,
refuse to put forward this slogan, are taking a
hand in the destruction of industry and the
country, whether they want to or not. But with
those who accept taking up this slogan, whether
they share our point of view or not on Europe, we
can work together for unity and for gaining
ground.
Comrades, whether it be Arcelor-Mittal, or
collective bargaining agreements in Sweden or all
the rights won over by the working class, the
question is this: to get those that want to
destroy workers' rights to step down.
The significance of our conference, is not to
imagine that in itself it can get them to step
down. But it strengthens the conviction we all
share, that, using clear slogans and with clear
explanations of the role of the EU, we have the
means, in every one of our countries, of
strengthening the movement that is searching to
resist and that sooner or later will do away with
the EU and its destructive policies.
-----
Segundo Jacho (Spain)
Good evening comrades,
I would like to extend my fraternal greetings to
all the comrades present and express my
solidarity with them. We are attending a great
event where we have gathered to discuss the
problems workers have to face in Europe. I am
Ecuadorian but I have been working in Spain, in
Madrid, for 5 years. It is also my fight as a
trade unionist in my country - Ecuador - for more
than 30 or 40 years that leads me to speak to you
today.
Comrades, I am only a builder, a construction
worker. I have realized that in Spain there is a
lot of casual work, especially among migrant
workers in the construction industry. They not
only have to suffer a lack of job security but
also xenophobia and racism. That is what led the
comrades from Madrid to invite me to this
conference and I am very honored.
Few participants have spoken about migrant
workers so far. In Spain there are over 4 million
immigrants, men, women, and also a lot of young
people. They are the workers that helped the
development of present- day Spain. Spain has
employed a lot of immigrant labor and it is still
doing so today. We pay our taxes; we abide by the
law in each country. And what do we get in
return? Women have given a lot of children to
this country. I have three Spanish grandchildren
who will be part of the working-class and I would
like them to be free workers. Immigrant workers
should enjoy full rights.
The government of the Socialist parry has started
a regularization process. But only 600 000
immigrants have had their position regularized,
although this regularization has helped the
development of Social Security and the creation
of jobs. And our taxes fund the health service
and the education system. It is said that
immigrants take houses that are subsidized by the
government, but we do have our identity documents
SThe real problem is that there are a lot of
administrative procedures to go through. A lot is
said about "Undocumented immigrants". I was able
to get a residence permit and a work permit after
more than 4 years: that is what has made it
possible for me to be present here today.
But if you want to settle in a country there are
still difficult procedures - even if rumor has it
that the time you need to spend in the country
before you can have your position regularized is
going to be reduced. When the residence permit is
no longer valid we have to produce a work
contract if we want to be allowed to stay 2 or 3
more years, but the employer will not give it to
us and then we are undocumented again.
The repression which the immigrant population has
to suffer should stop. Immigrants should get
guarantees to face abuses from the police. The
police are hostile to us. Any minor problem can
send you to a detention centre for foreigners and
it is in those centers that human rights are
violated.
I send my greetings to the Rumanian comrade who
had to spend 10 years in jail to defend trade
union rights. I happened to be in Santiago de
Chile when democracy was restored. Trade union
leaders and comrades were imprisoned in an island
south of Chile and trade union organizations from
Ecuador and Latin America intervened to secure
their release.
Some comrades talked about equality and
solidarity. We too have several social and trade
union organizations in Spain and we are fighting
to oppose the new European Treaty. We are saying
that we need full equal rights.
I don't want to keep you long, so let me be
brief. It is the first time I have taken part in
such a great event and I am rather nervous. My
job is in construction and being here is worse
than being at the top of a high building. I send
my greetings to the comrades and hope our fight
will be successful.
Pierre Jeanneney (France)
I am Mayor of a small commune in the depths of
France and member of the Permanent Committee for
an Independent Workers Party.
I have asked to take to the floor in order to
raise before you a certain number of questions. I
have no questions to raise concerning everything
our comrades have said about the social
catastrophes perpetrated by the different liberal
treaties. It is so obvious, and one can see that
the same mechanism is at work in every country,
with the same aim, that of setting up an enormous
machine that generates profits for a minority to
the detriment of the majority of European
countries.
So no problem here.
As for the little inconveniences caused by
Europe: as an elected official I can tell you a
few stories; For instance, my secretary at the
Mairie needs some pencils, but I cannot go and
buy them in the only shop in the commune because
that would be a heinous crime, a crime against
sacred free competition. This is strictly
forbidden.
On the other hand, if I do not renew the contract
of a municipal employee, who is in charge of the
upkeep of roads, pavements, green areas, I am
congratulated by all my superior officers, the
Préfet and others because I am getting the
municipal budget out of the red.
True the lawns will no longer be mowed, but
municipal finances will be straightened out and
as it is a subsidized contract most of the time,
State finances too. There too, I have no
questions to put.
The only solution is to get out from all these
liberal treaties. On the other hand, when I see
the answer we come up with, that is the free
union of the free peoples of Europe, there I have
questions to raise and I would like more precise
details.
These precise details, I think we must work on them together.
That is: what does this mean, How do we organize
it, or even should it be organized? How do we
achieve a Europe of peace and progress? How do we
reach fraternal co-operation between peoples?
Knowing that we've seen football matches in
France degenerate into battles between
"southerners" and "northerners". How do we win
back our right? I think we must be a bit more
precise about this. And how do we win them over
in certain countries that have never had the
chance of benefiting by them.
I think it vital we answer all these questions if we want to be understood.
We have to admit that the period is not
favorable, the media are controlled by political
and financial powers and the information relayed
is often xenophobic and racist in character. It
is well known that globalization is the fault of
the Chinese; off shoring is the fault of the
Tunisians, Turks and RumaniansS.
These are the important lies to get across to the population;
Answering all these questions means a lot of
work, but it is indispensable that we get down to
it, because it is a question of survival for our
populations.
Peter Polke Germany
I am honored to speak here in the presence of
Miron Cozma who was jailed for years for no other
cause than because he fulfilled his commitment as
a trade unionist. I find awful that colleagues
are sent to prison because they have carried out
their commitments to trade union rights.
At the same moment, across Europe, such gains as
collective agreements that were conquered through
trade union fights are being dropped by our own
trade union leaderships.
For us, S Bahn (urban transports) workers, 2007
has been a troubled year. Our Transport trade
union leadership, the Transnet rail workers
union, a branch of DGB headed by Norbert Hansen
wanted our union to get out of the DGB federation
as a consequence of its policy of accompaniment
of the Deutsche Bahn privatizing.
He wanted our public company to evolve into an
enterprise complying with the standards dictated
by private economy. He would repeat his motto: we
need the "ready cash" from the banks.
We S-Bahn Transnet workers stood up with our
declarations, campaign, demonstrations at that
incredible trade union congress that was to take
the decision to exit the DGB; we put up so much
pressure that Hansen and his friends were
deterred from submitting that motion. So we are
sure to stay with the DGB till the next congress.
That was a mighty step forward against the
privatization of railways. The people are opposed
to privatizing railways and squandering what
belongs to the people. The same goes for trade
unions and, last Autumn, at the SPD congress
itself, it was obvious that a majority of
social-democrats are opposed to any form of
privatization.
But privatization is an ever present threat.
Every day, jobs are off-shored, restructured.
Skilled jobs go and are replaced by
"occupations". "English" standards are applied
such as "Technical reliability" and "security".
Ailments directly caused by profit-dictated
work-loads hit our colleagues. What is being
contrived is pseudo-competitiveness that
anticipates on privatization.
Transnet Union too is trying to adjust its
structure to this new structure of the
enterprise. Thus our S-Bahn is to be carved into
4 parts, four pillars, in their own words. This
would also spell the ruin of our united body of
shop stewards and also, of course, of our trade
union fighting force. We union delegates simply
refused.
We can wage a winning fight against privatization
only if we also defend our trade unions whose
independent existence is menaced.
-----
Isabelle Serratrice (France)
Good evening, I thank the organizers of the
Conference for giving me the opportunity to speak
when, in France, the grievances not only of
academics but more generally of public sector
workers who oppose the government's dismantling
policies of public services are met with total
disregard. The government's political agenda is
neither "a right wing" nor a "left wing" one:
actually, it is the consensus of political elites
that all agree to dismantle public services, to
implement European Union directives which all
focus on market laws and competition principles.
In all the administrative bodies, the Sarkozy
government is unearthing the functionaries'
infamous "duty to preserve secrecy" to punish
those who raise their voices against some of the
government's moves.
Here I am speaking as a trade union activist. I
teach history and I must say that something
really harmful is going on in the French
University and much is kept from you.
I shall start with what I think is essential;
right in the calm of summer, when we were all
sunbathing on beaches, the so-called "LRU"
(Liberty, Responsibility of Universities) law was
adopted on August 10th 2007. Today, the opium of
the people is not religion, it is the political
P.A. of top people in government as every speech
is biased, every word is deceitful.
"Liberty" means to submit or step down.
"Responsibility" means the reverse: to be
irresponsible and give up on traditions going
back to the Middle Ages, and "Autonomy" means to
be crushed under the budget ministry's iron heel
since now we would have to comply with audits,
quantitative realization and use of funds.
So what is that LRU driving to? First to transfer
the payroll of all the university staff who would
no longer be paid by the State and no longer
enjoy public sector worker status but who would
be under the management of their respective
university; that is an all-out attack on what all
our university missions stand for; a
dismantlement drive on all the statuses of public
sector workers; essentially university courses
are being drained of their substance in order to
adjust and submit them to the laws of market.
I should like to give you a sample of the new
courses. I am not joking, they can be found on
university's websites. In the framework of
"passing the BA", there comes a system that bans
lectures during the two first years, shrinks
specialty course to less than 15% of the teaching
time resulting in a sort of magic potion blend of
"airport English crash course", data processing
and unpaid training sessions in enterprises.
So here are some of the titles of courses -
already existing ones since they have already
been adopted by some universities - you can have
your pick from "B.A. for Shop assistant at
Decathlon [sports equipment branch store]" or
"B.A. for Crédit Mutuel [a bank] teller" which is
not even valid on the entire territory but only
in the department where that university,
Paris-Nanterre, renamed "West Paris" is located.
This emulates what is taking place across Europe
with, for instance, a "Mac Donald baccalauréat
(graduation)" springing up. In the United States
"Mac Donald universities" are already in
existence.
LRU can therefore be said to be a rogue law. You
have been told it had been validated with the
blessing of the university community. That is a
lie. It was validated on the basis of proposals
made by the CPU (the Conference of University
Deans, 86 unelected university deans allegedly
representing us; they gave the government its
road map with 23 proposals that provided the
foundation of that law.
Actually, we just had the short lapse of time,
between February 15th and May 22nd, to mobilize.
Nobody listened to us at that time.
On May 22nd the Prime Minister floated what was
to pass for consultation and the law was adopted
on August 10th.
That law is simply the Europe-wide implementation
not of the 1989 Bologna Declaration, which was
the European Charter of knowledge and skills
endorsed by 400 university deans; but the Bologna
Strategy which was set on its tracks in 1999 by
the ministers of countries who wished to join the
European community; it purposes to create a
European space where diplomas will be thoroughly
marketable and where university is made to crawl
at the feet of almighty market.
I should like to conclude on this warning: the
countdown has started; the law is so vicious that
it has set February 11th as a deadline for all
the University administrative boards all over
France to give up their present status. They have
to step from 40 to 60 strong administrative board
members down to 20 to 30.
Actually the problem is not the number of members
but what powers those administrative boards will
exercise as they will entirely manage the careers
of researcher-teachers and administrative staff,
they will have full powers over their wages; such
practice as granting bonuses tied to fulfilling
the unit's project will be encouraged; they will
hire their staff, make them geographically mobile
and define their services at will.
On that specific point, in their soul and
conscientiousness - one may have a soul or not
but one must have conscientiousness - the members
of the board should give up on the independence
of those researcher-teachers, and that is the
most harmful blow. But, before the Constitution,
university teachers are responsible for
guaranteeing the continuity of the institution
and its independence from any religious, state
and political power.
What you are not told is the massive mobilization
of students who rose up against that law, last
Autumn; it went totally unpublicized and it was
brought down.
Thousands of students were active, spoke up and
mobilized. It lasted some six weeks.
My university was blockaded during six weeks.
Police intervened on several campuses; in some,
it was not only the riot police; some of the
lectures were delivered with vigilantes pacing
the corridors. That was the case in Lyon and
Montpellier and elsewhere.
Students were arrested. Yesterday, on the campus
where I teach, where we had organized a poll for
the staff and students, one third of the staff
voted with a huge margin against the law, for
immediate suspension of the law.
Here is what is done in front of this resistance
that cannot be silenced: the administration board
of my university interrupted its meeting at 10
a.m. because students had massively entered the
place; the meeting was summoned again at 2 p.m.
on the education authority premises with police
forces surveillance and some, like me, were not
warned. The dean went so far as to ask some
people unconnected to the university to come with
proxy votes.
That is what is happening in France.
To conclude, I will say that this really is a
rogue law. We must get it repealed. We must
thwart the too often heard legitimist speech to
the effect that once a law is implemented,
nothing can be done against it.
Political destruction is not written in the
stars. As a history reader, I shall recall that
if that sort of argument had been complied with,
the Black Americans whose part was underlined by
Pierre Lambert, would never have undertaken to
withstand segregation.
In the same way, we can create a balance of forces to get the law repealed.
------
Lorenzo Varaldo (Italy)
Dear comrades,
I wish to make a remark based on the situation in
Italy: Where does the implementation of the
European Union Political agenda actually lead us?
A few days ago, the Prodi government - a
government that enjoyed support from all the left
wing parties: Communist Refoundation, the PdCI
(Party of Italian Communists), the "Sinistra
Critica" association which is part of the USec
(United Secretariat) - was defeated, and now new
elections are on the agenda.
Two years ago, during the April 9th 2006
elections, the people had kicked-out Berlusconi
and the right wing.
People never enthused over Prodi who had chaired
the European Union and who had, between 2001 and
2004, dictated to Berlusconi all of their harmful
policies leading to the destruction of workers'
gains. Prodi had already been in government from
1996 to 1998 and he had already savagely attacked
workers in the name of "joining the European
Union".
So there was no enthusiasm, but the people had
voted to kick out Berlusconi, to put an end to
his policies, to change. Voting for Prodi was the
only way to get Berlusconi out.
But during these two years, Prodi has simply
carried on the same policy - a policy dictated by
the European Union - which imposed reform of the
retirement pension system, introduced the
worst-ever cuts in healthcare and education
budgets, and reformed national collective
agreements and wagesS.
During the very TV news programme in which the
governmental crisis was announced, the journalist
added that, for one third of households, wages
were now too low and did not enable people to
make both ends meet. The government has been
toppled in a situation where, because of reduced
controls, because of indecent working conditions,
because of blackmail and threats causing workers
to fear for their jobs, more than 1.200 deaths in
the workplace are reported every year.
And now, because of the "subprime" crisis, scores
of thousands of households cannot pay back their
debts which have risen by 30 - 40 - 50%.
So today, the Prodi government, which has
steadfastly stuck to the policies that have
driven us to this point, which has implemented
all the EU directives and which has never lifted
a finger to meet the people's demands, has been
defeated.
And now opinion polls show Berlusconi winning by a 15% margin.
This is where the implementation of EU policies has lead us.
Who is responsible for this situation?
Communist Refoundation, the PdCI, the Social
Democrats (who merged with the other part of
Christian Democrats) and the "Sinistra Critica"
(association which belongs to the same
international organization as Besancenot); are
all responsible for this situation. They gave
their support to Prodi, they voted, they
implemented his policies, including the sending
of troops to Afghanistan and Lebanon.
Now it is the European Union which gives the
orders: irrespective of which government is
elected, and which after Prodi, will continue the
same policies.. Indeed, two years ago, the
European Union openly announced that whatever
government was elected, it would have to continue
the same policies as Berlusconi. This was exactly
what happened and here are the results.
During these 2 years, official data shows that
capitalist profits have increased by 90% while
wages only rose by 5%. Scores of thousand of
families cannot afford healthcare, cannot pay for
the dentist, for medicine S Here in Italy,
poverty is spreading.
We have come here to speak on behalf of those who
signed the appeal against the new treaty and who
convened last Saturday in Turin. At that meeting,
were workers from Turin, Bologna, and Milan, and
messages of support were received from other
cities. We are here with a precise mandate which,
on the basis of facts observed in every sector of
activity, establishes the link between the
destruction of workers' gains and EU directives
and treaties.
It is true that all of the governments have
implemented the same policies, but it is also
true that, in Italy too, resistance has sprung up
and has grown to huge proportions.
One example is the metal-workers' agreement that
was countersigned two weeks ago. True, it was not
really the ideal agreement for metal-workers. But
it is also true that the employers, Cofindustria,
were openly saying that national agreements,
valid across the entire country from North to
South, were to be a thing of the past. The
bosses' goal was to pass specific,
workplace-tailored agreements, in each company,
in each region. But strikes were staged, - many -
in unity from the North to the South, in unity
with all the trade unions, and the FIOM, the
federation of the CGIL metal-workers took the
lead in this resistance movement. In the end, the
national agreement was signed and defended. A
delegate of the Turin metal-workers at Fiat made
things clear. She said: "Yes, it is true, we have
been compelled to accept points that are not
positiveS But we have kept the national agreement
and this cannot to be disregarded."
So it is true that resistance exists and that things are not settled.
This will be my conclusion. I believe, as has
been said, that this Conference will be a
stepping stone; it will serve to encourage all of
those who want to resist, to fight, and who seek
a solution.
It will give us leverage and we will go back to
Italy to publicize more widely the results of
this conference to trade unions, workers and
activists. And with our National Committee
against the European Union, with all those who
supported this Conference, we will write an open
letter to MPs, for the NO vote to the new treaty;
we will request them to call for a popular
consultation - this is feasible in Italy - and
even if we do not get a true referendum, this
will have an important impact.
------
Kamel Dalga (Turkey)
In recent years, many trade-union leaders in
Turkey believe that the European Union will
promote workers' rights in Turkey, and they
express this false belief on various platforms.
Turning a blind eye on concrete developments,
these friends of ours live in a dream world.
Across the EU, the main trend is towards a
regression in workers' and social rights, and
this trend is indisputably clear. Equally
indisputable is the conclusion to be drawn from
this fact: The trade-union movement in Turkey
must get rid of this illusion about the EU as
soon as possible.
Since 1998, i.e. for nearly a decade, Turkey has
been under the regimentation of economic programs
forged by the IMF and sponsored by the World
Bank. Within this decade, the working class and
other toiling masses have been at the receiving
end of an extensive and heavy offensive. Union
membership is on a fast decline. Even today, this
offensive is continuing unabated. Collate the
economic program entailed by Turkey's EU
accession and those of the IMF, and you can
easily see that they are identical twins, the
only difference being related to their duration.
Whereas the EU defines a 10-year neo-liberal
course, the IMF focuses on more short-term
three-year programs. As to their class essence,
however, there is no difference whatsoever
between them. After all, the EU has always
recommended the Turkish governments to follow in
the footsteps of the IMF in the field of economic
harmonization. The class character of the EU is
that clear and distinct.
Within the EU system, advantages won by our
European class brothers and sisters in long and
hard battles are in a swift process of erosion.
In these circumstances, it will be a deadly
mistake to give the impression to workers and
laborers, both unionized and not, that Turkey as
an EU member-state will be a part of the European
welfare state of the 1960's and 1970's. Today,
the new Labor Law lamented by all the unions as
rendering trade-union activity impossible is in
fact part and parcel of Turkey's EU membership
process. This example alone makes the nature of
the process crystal-clear.
Let me underline once again: Trade-unions that
straddle the question by lending full-heart
support to Turkey's EU membership are committing
a serious mistake. What is needed is not a
passive observation of negotiations with the EU
or lobbying attempts to partially reshape it, but
to see to it that workers and laboring people as
a whole wage a struggle based on their own class
interests. As mentioned in your conference call
we are at a highly critical turning point, and
time is pressing upon us.
With these thoughts in mind, I wish you a successful conference.
-----
Marc Gauquelin (France)
First I should like to say that I fully agree
with the draft manifesto that is submitted to us.
But I think the information given during the
present Conference should be incorporated. Beside
the balance sheet that we draw of the disastrous
situation, the determination of the working class
in every country should especially be underlined.
Determination to resist, organize the struggle to
withstand the European Union pressure; the fact
that the apparatuses sometimes, and even often,
cave in, but also the organized fight in trade
unions, class struggle and strikes against that
policy.
I think that incorporating those on the basis of
the text that is proposed is not difficult. Our
purpose should be to make this Manifesto a call
for a daring policy to realize unity to defend
all the gains; that of course implies challenging
the social order that is imposed on us and that
the E.U has wanted to impose with ever more
brutality during the recent period.
I should like to come to another point. Comrade
Jeanneney asked what the free union of Europe's
free peoples - the end slogan of our appeal -
effectively means.
I think it is right to give some explanations.
First and foremost it must be said that it means
sovereignty, the sovereignty of peoples,
democracy.
In France, it is the liberty of communes that no
institution whatever should question, whether the
E.U. or the 5th Republic; restoring the power to
the people materialized in the commune; we should
refer to what Marx said as a conclusion of "The
Paris Commune": the republic that we want is
federating the communes at the level of the
départements and then at the level of the nation
so it is the people who are totally empowered
with their communes, their power institutions.
I believe that, in a certain way, this brings us
to the Constituent Assembly, to proposing the
Constituent Assembly as a goal. Reclaiming rights
is democracy. Democracy rests on the mandate, on
delegates that are elected and can be removed.
Saying "that can be removed" is a huge idea. It
challenges all the institutions, till the 5th
Republic, the very model of bonapartist republic,
that have worn democracy out of shape and are its
permanent negation.
I believe that this fight for sovereignty, this
movement from the grassroots, is the fight for
the sovereignty of peoples, of all the peoples of
Europe. Because the fight for the Constituent
Assembly in France in a way echoes the problem of
the Constituent assembly that never came into
being in 1889 when Germany was reunited. German
history shows some harsh facts, the Constituent
Assembly was constantly denied.
I think that at some point, the right of the
German people to declare that they are a
sovereign people was taken from them by an
alliance between the imperialist troops and the
former East German Stalinist bureaucracy. Where
was the agreement to privatize what was produced
by the German people's social ownership signed?
The issue we have to tackle in France is the same
in Germany, under another form. It also rises in
Spain: a monarchy in the 21st century, in Europe,
in the country which experienced a powerful
uprising of the masses, a revolutionary tidal
wave, defeated by Hitler and Franco's armiesS A
country where "democratization" after the death
of Franco boiled down to restoring monarchy. The
question is posed in the same way: the free union
of the peoples of Spain on the basis of
full-fledged democracy that would re-establish
the Republic and the capacity of all the peoples
of Spain to co-operate in brotherhood.
I believe we can go further: Belgium. There is no
strife between the Flemish and the Walloons. Here
again the problem of monarchy is crucial. The
structure that has been set up to exploit,
over-exploit the peoples that compose Belgium,
instead of setting them free to undertake a
struggle in fraternity to conquer their
emancipation from the dictatorship of capital. I
will not speak of Great Britain, a vast issue,
but I do not think that the peoples of Great
Britain have much liking for the monarchy and it
is true that when the 1848 "Spring of Peoples" is
mentioned, a long parenthesis came in but, for
all the peoples of Europe, it raises again the
yearnings of 1848 and the desire for free
co-operation in a free union of Europe's free
peoples.
Obviously we cannot imagine aircraft making
industry exclusively composed of various segments
of enterprises in various European countries.
Obviously the re-nationalization of
aircraft-making industries should be the
preliminary part of something more important,
i.e. building a true aircraft-making industry on
the European scale and under the control of a
power that would regroup the various
sovereignties of the peoples; it would topple the
system of exploitation of man by man and would
permit the re-organization of production on a
scale far out-sizing what we have experienced.
That is obvious but that is not how the European
Union works; the EU does the reverse: in the name
of harmonization, it destroys, privatizes, sows
the seeds of capitalist disorder.
Let us just examine the aircraft-making example
set by Boeing; three quarters are assembled in
Japan, travel on ships or cargo-planes monitored
by computers to drive production costs down with
the lowest labor cost availableS with all the
hazards that such practices imply. The comrades
of??? told us that ever seeking capitalist
profits pushed safety rules ever farther out of
the picture.
I believe that the free union of free peoples
means just this: reclaiming, freeing the trade
unions from the control of EU demands, releasing
the pressure to make them cave in; restoring
Social Security, labor laws and all the labor
rights.
I believe that this is the form that we can choose.
Now, Europe wide, we hear phony humanists
quavering over chauvinism and racial intolerance.
What causes this racial intolerance? It is the
disaster that is coming upon us. Today, promoting
equal rights for workers whatever their origin is
the condition to get rid of any chauvinism or
racial intolerance. When social dumping can no
longer be used to pit workers against workers,
the very basis of chauvinism vanishes into thin
air. All those worthy speeches on parity, ethnic
diversity, all that is just hot air. A worker on
an assembly line cannot care less about the
origin of the man who works next to him provided
they are in the same framework, they are linked
in the same fight to improve their working
conditions, their wages, defend their rights.
From that point of view, Europe could take a step
forward now, immediately.
The idea of a free union of Europe's free peoples
should be explained by all the comrades of our
different countries as a convergence towards the
sovereignty of peoples, of the right to
self-determination to impose their own choice to
control, to make sure power is wielded in their
own name for everyone's well-being. In those
conditions, lasting peace and fraternity can
prevail over the entire European continent as a
stepping stone for the movement on the
international level.
-----
Udo Eisner (Germany)
"War must never again be waged from the German
territory" that was the oath taken 65 years ago
by all the German democrats after the criminal
fascist war. Today a huge majority of Germans are
still firmly opposed to any war or any
participation in war. But the political caste in
power holds quite different views and, with the
Lisbon Treaty, another policy is to prevail.
Germany serves as a US aircraft-carrier and has
to be the constant starting point of military air
mission and missions of invasion outside European
borders, not to mention the CIA's secret
activities and the abduction of people.
Secret treaties impose an endless U.S occupation
regime on Germany and, in this way, indirectly on
Europe. When, in 2003, Chancellor Schröder
refused German participation in the war in Iraq,
he forgot to include logistic support and the
right for US military troop transport and combat
mission aircrafts to use the territory's air
space as well in this refusal. German sovereignty
did not stretch that far.
What would the situation be if, for instance, the
United States waged nuclear war on Iran, if they
used German air space or if they used Germany as
their launching airstrip?
Now, - and we must verify in what measure the
German Constitution, the founding law is being
foiled - with the ratification of the Lisbon
Treaty, Germany will be under compulsion to take
a part in those military interventions. A quote
of Art. 43 (item 17): "It ensures operating
capacity supported by military and civilian
means" and Art. 28 (item 14) makes the following
provision: "If an international situation demands
operative engagement from the Union, the Council
permits the necessary decisions."
Besides, NATO treaties are included into the
Lisbon Treaty and thus grant the United States
the capacity to directly influence the European
Union's foreign and security policy. A quote from
article 42 (item 17) 7 - it stipulates:
"Obligations and collaboration in that area
(military) are in-keeping with the obligations in
the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO)".
Under the excuse of "preventing conflicts" Member
States are under compulsion to engage the
improvement of their military capacities and the
reinforcement of the technological and industrial
basis of the industrial military complex. Article
42, item 17 3II demands that the country avail
itself of an armament capable of fulfilling "the
purposes of the council". That treaty which is
essentially based on the European Union
Constitution which was rejected, places its
stakes on militarizing the European Union and its
foreign policy. That is not surprising as the
European Union presents itself as a financial and
industrial competitor on the international level,
determined to protect its spheres of influence,
its market prospects and its access to
commodities. The peoples of Europe cannot
possibly agree to such policy that will only lead
to further military escalation.
We should consider the wars in Yugoslavia and now
in Iraq and Afghanistan as a caution.
If the treaty had existed back in 2003,
Schröder's decision "The Bunderswehr will not
take part in the war in Iraq" could, in all
probability, not have been taken.
-----
Jean-Charles Marquiset (France)
Dear comrades,
Is there a solution? From the time of the ECSC
(European Community of Steel and Coal) to the
Treaty of Rome, from Maastricht to Amsterdam, not
forgetting the single currency and all the EU
directives, everything is done to undo the
sovereignty of peoples and workers, political and
social democracy. And yet, there is resistance.
In 1957, the Treaty of Rome came into being. It's
article 110 explains: "By instituting a customs
union among them, the Member States, in
conformity with common interests, wish to
contribute to the harmonious development of
global trade, to the gradual lifting of
limitations to international exchanges and to the
reduction of customs barriers." So, it is obvious
that the European Union, from this time on, was
to be in the service of US imperialism. Since
then, 1,453 directives, 1,191 among them still
enforceable, concerning industry, with the
objective to destroy industry. Not to mention the
5,661 EU regulations. This is exactly what is at
stake today with the announced 600 lay-offs in
Gandrange, Moselle. All of these European
directives and regulations are designed to be of
service to off-shoring, mergers, restructuring,
redundancies, wage cuts, longer working hours and
worsening working conditions. All the minutiae of
conditions in the workplace and of workers'
conditions are ruled by European Union advice,
communications, recommendations, regulations or
directives. Europe is concrete and tangible. For
example on January 10th, on the issue of spending
power, Trichet, Governor of the ECB forcefully
explained: "Any plan to peg wage-levels to prices
must be eliminated." And he added: "In the euro
zone, the insufficiency of productivity gains and
the rigidness of the labor market forbid the
under-estimation of inflationary risks to the
degree that the effects of the second round could
trigger a price-wage spiral". There is no
ambiguity, a call for wage freeze and
"flexicurity", actually the destruction of jobs,
while shareholders' profits leap from 1.7
billions in 1991 to 38 billions in 2007.
Our European Conference meets at a time when,
three days from now, the French Congress of MPs
and Senators will vote on whether to challenge
the May 29th 2005 NO vote on the European
constitution.
This does not mean that the fight to break with
the European Union is coming to an end. Since the
time of the ECSC, the Treaty of Rome, and all of
the treaties that followed; especially the
Maastricht Treaty, the working class struggle has
steadily run deeper and deeper against this
Europe of destruction, loyal to US imperialism. A
subsidiary Europe, who's purpose is to destroy
all of the collective gains of the working
classes in each country, who's purpose is to
destroy political democracy and the collective
rights of workers to have their own independent
political organizations and trade unions.
The European Union has one major problem: in many
countries; independent trade union confederations
are still up and kicking. To achieve its aims,
the European Union needs trade unions that accept
to be co-opted into counter-reforms. This is the
role which the European Trade Union Confederation
is to play, just like the pan-European sector of
the International Trade Union Confederation, the
ITUC. But nothing is settled yet.
In its time, the ETUC had taken a position in
favour of the Maastricht Treaty, and of the
treaties that came after (single currency, a
number of directives opening up competition) It
expressed approval of the European Constitution
which was rejected by workers in France and in
the Netherlands. A tool used by the European
Union, it now advocates the Lisbon Treaty. But,
in its role of integration into tri-partite
institutions, the ETUC also spearheads immediate
destruction.
On January 31st of this year, just when the
European Central Bank was again demanding a wage
freeze across Europe, the ETUC declared that: "It
will express its opposition to the present
excessive wage settlements". Unless we are
mistaken, this means that the downward trend on
wages that has been forced on workers across
Europe for decades should be accepted? In a
memorandum published on January 2nd, the ETUC
explains that it "shares principles with the
European Union on flexicurity". It considers that
trade union co-operation is a balanced approach
to "flexicurity" since it recognizes "the part
played by social partners and collective
negotiations, not only in their implementation
but also in the conception of flexicurity
policies". This simply proves that they want to
lend a hand in the crafting and writing of
destructive policies; which in fact will negate
social classes and point toward corporatism. In
France, dismantling Labor laws, labor contracts
and existing permanent contracts is directly tied
to flexicurity as promoted by the ETUC and by the
European Union.
Moreover, the tripartite summit attended by the
ETUC decided "To modernize the labor market and
to promote the broad principles of flexicurity".
Comrades, just remember: a few years ago, the
ETUC proposed "positive flexibility". For those
of us who defend the right of workers to have
their own independent organizations, positive
flexibility or flexicurity means the undoing of
workers' collective rights. As they admit
themselves,: flexibility and flexicurity mean
lower labor costs, making workers exploitable at
will. The ETUC has amply proven that it promotes
flexicurity. When the European Summit adopted the
"common principles of flexicurity" and when, in
France on January 11th, "the agreement on labor
modernization" came into being, the European
Union rejoiced, speaking of "shared principles of
the European Union".
As for co-regulating by the trade union
confederations, what can we think of the
declaration by Joel Decaillon, CGT official and
secretary of the ETUC who "insists that the
European Commission encourages trade unions to
take a larger role in procedures than they used
to".
Comrades, I emphasize this part played by the
ETUC because it would be dangerous to consider
its actions as merely humdrum. This would mean
accepting to see our organizations become
subsidiaries in each of our countries. Comrades,
the ETUC approves the Lisbon treaty that provides
"free and unbiased competition". It stands for
directives on "services in the general interest
and on general economic interests" which it
promoted and co-formulated. It drives toward the
total privatization of public services, since
both "private" and "public" operators would
provide these SGI s.
In my opinion, one of the major axis of
resistance to the European Union, and vital for
all of the militants here today, will be to act
to preserve trade union independence in each
European country, and to show, on the basis of
facts, as I have tried to do, that the ETUC is
just another cog in the EU mechanism. Besides, it
reaffirms this in one of it's own memorandum:
"The ETUC insists on the role of social partners
as co-legislators in the field of social policies
as well as on the need to guarantee that they are
consulted as partners in their full right about
all the regulations relevant to social issues,
whether economic, social or environmental
regulations." The European Union is just a cog in
the mechanism of imperialist institutions. But
our presence here, and the contributions which I
have heard, will show that resistance is
organizing in European countries, and that, for
us, breaking with the European Union means the
forming of a free Union of Europe's Free Peoples
and Workers. In other words, the fight for the
future of the working class, with it's own
independent trade unions and parties, to face up
to the European Union, imperialism and their
institutions.
Yes, a solution exists: let us work on it together.
-----
Luis Gonzales (Spain)
It has now been four years since Zapatero, the
candidate of the Socialist Party, won the
elections. His victory was not due to his
programme but to the mobilization of millions
throughout the Spanish State against the Aznar
government. Among these actions were the
impressive general strike on June 20th 2002, the
massive student mobilizations against university
reform laws, and the million strong marches
against war in Iraq. And finally, on the very eve
of the elections, there were the protests against
Aznar's manoeuvrings to take advantage of the
frightening bomb attacks of March 11th 2004 in
Madrid, and against his attempts to use the
threat of terrorism in order to impose his
policies during the four years he had been in
office.
Zapatero's electoral mandate was clear:: break
with Aznar's political agenda, repeal the counter
reforms of labor laws, pass a decree to drop the
charges against the trade union activists brought
to court, defend industry and jobs, bring peace
to the Basque Country.
Another policy was possible, as when Zapatero,
taking support from the massive mobilization
against war, withdrew troops from Iraq. In the
same way, the situation concerning immigrants
could have been resolved. Zapatero provided
700,000 with papers. There were over one million
illegal foreign workers in Spain, with no
residence permit, no right to have job contracts,
to get paid in conformity with the collective
agreement of their work sector. Following the
mobilization of the immigrants, backed by
numerous Spanish workers, he could have legalized
every one of them. Peace could have been achieved
in the Basque country by respecting the will of
millions of Basque citizens, among them, numerous
socialists who yearn for a democratic solution.
It just required some political courage to defend
the policies demanded by the huge majority. But,
when Zapatero legalized the immigrants, the
European Union objected, and demanded that no
immigrant be legalized. The European Union,
supported by the state inherited from Francoism,
opposed a political change in Spain.
Zapatero's political cowardice gave strength to
reactionary forces. They took to the streets in
their hundreds of thousands, organized by
so-called associations of victims of terrorism,
by the Catholic hierarchy. Churches receive over
5 billion euros from the State every year,
directly and also via schools and NGOs.
Zapatero caved-in to E.U. demands and to the
policies of the monarchy. Hence, while he has
been in office, some 200 have been brought to
court for their union activities, especially
during the June 20th general strike. This is why
factories have closed down, causing thousands of
lay-offs. This is why, instead of opening
discussions to bring peace to the Basque Country,
the government and judges are about to declare
that the PCTV and the ANV, Basque left-wing
nationalist organizations, are illegal.
Our delegation has been mandated by a gathering
of workers and youth for the Republic that
convened in Getafe, near Madrid, on January 19th.
During that meeting, it was agreed that no
advance can be made towards democracy, and
towards meeting the needs of working people,
until the struggle for the Republic is engaged,
and until there is rupture with the European
Union.
-----
Henning Frey (Germany)
I am standing here as the spokesperson of those
members of the German delegation, trade unionists
and social-democrat activist, who have been
fighting for two years to defend the healthcare
system, and especially to defend psychiatric
hospitals.
Not quite a year ago, on March 31st 2007, we
attended the European Conference for an immediate
end to the privatizations in the healthcare
sector, which met in Brussels on the basis of an
appeal by General Practitioners and healthcare
workers. The conference mandated a delegation for
an interview with European Commissioner Kyprianu,
in charge with healthcare systems, due to take
place on April 2nd. The delegation was received
by a spokesperson of Mr Kyprianu, a Mr Brunet.
What was remarkable in that interview was that
the man repeatedly claimed that the European
Union was in no way responsible for the
destruction of healthcare systems. This
culminated in a phrase also quoted by Christel
Keiser in her introductive report, to the effect
that "the governments take every decision
concerning healthcare systems and that the EU
only takes care Member States do not engage into
undue deficits", that they do not spend more
money than they have.
Some six months later, on November 15th, another
delegation took place; that time it was in
Germany, North-Westphalia Rhineland. The
delegation was made up of ver.di trade union
officials and social-democrat activists of the
SPD group in the Regional Assembly of
North-Westphalia Rhineland.
The delegation was backed by several hundred
thousand signatures, many of SPD members; their
request was to refuse the privatization of
hospitals and to demand that the 180 million ¤,
ear-marked for psychiatric hospitals, be indeed
paid, which the liberal-Christian government of
North-Westphalia Rhineland refused to do.
At this point, it must be said that the fact that
this signature campaign was popular with SPD
members also results from an evolution inside the
SPD; the evolution was obvious during the latest
federal congress of the SPD. Within the SPD, more
and more members are vocal to demand breaking up
with former SPD chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's
agenda 2010 policies, breaking up with the policy
of privatizations and destruction of social gains
in Germany.
The interview we had on that November 15th at the
regional Parliament in Düsseldorf was in a sense
the follow-up of the interview with European
commissioner Kyprianu's spokesperson.
On November 15th, the social-democrat MPs told
us: "You are right: the regional hospital wants
to drive hospitals towards privatization by
denying them the subsidies they need."
So we answered: "Then, you are ready to make a
proposal at the regional parliament to ask that
the 180 millions be paid into the hospital
budget, to ask the restoration of public funding
for hospitals? Are you ready to call a
demonstration before the regional parliament on
that day?"
They answered: "If we make this demand, we must
also make proposals to find the funds, to say
where the money must be taken from. We have more
money at the receiving end but, as SPD group, we
have decided that half those additional receipts
would go to education and the other half to
reducing the public deficit."
Does this not shed full light on the issue?
Member States' policy is entirely subordinated to
the demands of the European Union and the
Maastricht Treaty! What they coin "reducing
deficits" is given top priority!
Member States have nothing to decide on, it is
the EU that makes decisions! The EU gives its
orders. MPs do not have the right to make
decisions to subsidize public hospitals, they
only have the "right" to closes down beds, shed
jobs and privatize hospitals. They are denied
their sovereign decisions.
And what place is reserved for trade unions in UE policies?
On September 17th 2007, therefore shortly before
the Lisbon Treaty was agreed on, the EU made
invitations to a first forum of "Social Services
in Europe". The trade unions were invited
alongside employers' organizations and NGOs.
What part was that forum expected to play? Here,
I am quoting the brochure of Ver.di union: "The
forum purposes to present the work that has up to
now been completed by the "Social service in
Europe" commission, to reach the same level of
awareness of the challenges, of the possible
solutions and of the assessments and to submit
the next phases of the work to discussion".
Dear comrades, does this not mean - with a
different wording - to say that the forum's
purpose is to encourage trade union to share
common assessment and views with the employers
and with the EU commission on what should be
considered as social services within the EU and
the best way to deal with them?
Does this not mean that they are encouraged to
stop viewing the situation from the workers'
point of view, and to represent workers'
interests? Does this not signal the
transformation of trade unions into corporatist
organizations?
What was the trade unions' position within the
ETUC, the self-styled European Trade Union
Confederation? I am quoting another passage from
the same brochure: "European trade unions are not
opposed to a common framework." This means: the
ETUC considers as acceptable that the European
Union should be the framework of the political
decision in the social sector. And again: "As a
key objective, European trade unions (.) demand
bringing under control the unbridled
privatizations of those services."
Comrades, what does "bringing under control"
mean? Maybe, putting some limitations to the
worst excesses, regulating privatization and
applying a dose of social accompaniment. But
"bringing under control" certainly does not mean
halting the privatization and re-nationalizing
the already privatized public services.
If a German or any other European country trade
union official is expected to accept this
position of the ETUC, it means that a trade union
official is under compulsion to accept the
principle of privatizations; just as the Nokia
shop-stewards were expected to accept the closure
of their factory as an unavoidable fact of life
in the framework of international and legitimate
competition in the framework of EU laws at the
ETUC Brussels gathering.
The Nokia shop-stewards chose to walk straight
out of the ETUC gathering. That is important for
us. For the first time such a trade union as IG
Metall is breaking with the ETUC at this level.
They could not, they cannot condone the closure
of their workplace.
This clearly shows for everyone: public services,
collective agreements, industry cannot be
defended unless one breaks with EU demands, with
the EU treaties that encapsulate those demands.
The interventions we have heard today in this
hall show that a force exists everywhere in
Europe; it is workers who take action, labor
political organizations and unions which do not
want to surrender to EU demands and which fight
that make up his force.
The interventions also show that we can give
support to this fight through our initiatives and
actions.
Today's meeting shows that it is possible to
break with the European Union and the Lisbon
treaty and to realize a free union of Europe's
peoples and workers!
-----
Pusa Rotaru (Romania)
Dear comrades, in the name of the Association for
the Emancipation of Workers, I thank you for your
invitation. We responded to the appeal for this
conference because, in reading the appeal, we
found that we face common problems. The attacks
against the working class, against our social
rights, our jobs, our contracts, and our trade
unions, are, in one form or another, are the same
throughout Europe. And the machine that leads
these attacks is the European Union.
For Romania, the attacks against the working
class, generated by the European Union, began in
the 1990s, before even the joining of the EU.
Since then, in the name of the "convergence
criteria", several so-called "reforms" have been
implemented:
- The subvention by the state of basic products and goods was abrogated;
- Free access to health care was abrogated and
the system on insurance funds was introduced;
- Taxes were introduced into public education;
- The Labor Code was modified;
- The retirement age was pushed back 5 years;
- The obligation to contribute to private pension funds was introduced;
- And, most of all, many state enterprises and
national and local public services were
privatized, leading to the loss of jobs.
The mining industry was liquidated. The
production of machines and tools was destroyed.
The extraction and refinery of oil was privatized.
A consequence of this policy was the significant
drop in economic activity in Romania and the drop
in the number of wage workers. We have arrived at
a situation where millions of Romanians were
obliged to immigrate to find a job. According to
official statistics, in Italy and Spain alone,
there are close to 2 million Romanians, close to
20% of the active population.
Many Romanians that work abroad are employed in
the black market, with no labor contract, and
often are paid under the minimum wage. And as the
number of immigrants in the European labor market
is growing, the wages are getting lower and
lower. It is harder to find and keep a job.
Those who profit of this massive immigration and
the problems that accompany it are the bosses,
who want to lower labor costs, and the
governments that aim to impose more and more
repressive policies against the workers, whether
native born or immigrant.
In Italy, for example, the Prodi government
proposed a decree that aimed to deport thousands
of immigrants, with the direct participation of
the so-called "radical left" - Communist
Refoundation, the Party of Italian Communists,
and "Critical Left."
How are we to understand that the parties that
claim to speak in the name of the working class
can propose such a measure, that aims to brutally
divide the workers?
The European Union demanded that Romania
"finalize the implementation of the reform of
health services" and "set up a new national
social assistance and social services system."
All this was foreseen in the Common Memorandum on
Social Inclusion, signed in Brussels on June
2005. Consequently, the hospitals were
restructured and closed and social protection was
destroyed.
Here's another example: The prices of goods and
services rose last year from 5 to 20%,
particularly for natural gas and electricity. Oil
has reached prices similar to in developed
countries in the European Union.
After having risen 10% last year, natural gas
rose again by 8%. In conformity with the
political analyses cited by dailybusiness.ro,
Romania pays the most for gas in all the European
Union. The spokesperson of the European
Commission on Energy, Ferran Tarradellas,
declared last week that the price of gas in
Romania, "reflects supply and demand and should
not be met with state subsidies."
We ask: What demand is this in our conditions
where there is a monopoly on importation? In
Romania, gas comes from one country, the
Russian-German Wintershall. The privatizations
imposed by the European Union, the regional
monopolies on sales, were created by foreign
companies such as Ruhrgas and Gaz of France.
In addition to imposing the economic policies,
the European Union sets the budget policies.
The demands of the European Union concerning the
reduction of the budget led the Romanian
government, through the vehicle of the Minister
of Finances, Varujan Vosganian, to respond by
promising to lower these expenses by 1.5 billion
Euros from hear to the end of the first half of
the year.
In this spirit, the government adopted on
Wednesday January 30 a so-called "Memorandum to
Chart the Wage Expenses for Economic Operators
Under Monitoring." These expenses were limited by
8% on average in relation to 2007, while the rise
in prices were even higher.
At the beginning of this week, the trade unions
of the railway workers signed an agreement with
management, leading to wage raises aimed at
aligning their wages with the national contract.
Nothing more. But following the decision on
Wednesday of the government, the railway
management took back its signature from the
document, leading to deep anger among the railway
workers. Friday afternoon, traffic was stopped
for three hours throughout the country by a
national spontaneous strike.
This is how the illusions of the Romanians on the
entry of the European Union are disappearing more
and more quickly. Most of all when the European
Union condemns to poverty millions of workers.
This is how it was with the privatization of
Tractorul Factories of Braov. The trade unions
obliged the government to introduce in the
privatization contract the obligation to rehire a
number of the workers and retain the factories
open for 10 years. The European Union has begun a
lawsuit against the Romanian government for
undermining free trade.
Though the illusions of the Romanians are not
over, the desires of the multinationals, that
find in Romania a good place to move their
companies from the West, are being met.
The most recent example, that of the Nokia
enterprise in Bochum is illustrative. In one
week, in Cluj, a new factory will officially
open. But the wages offered are 10 times those
offered in Germany. They are making profitsS
The interesting thing is that in Bochum only 5%
of production costs come from wages. The secret
of delocalization lies in a series of fiscal
facilities given b the Romanian government, but
imposed and supported financially by the European
Union.
Let us be clear. We want jobs. But we do not want
these based on the suffering of workers in other
countries who are thrown into the street.
That is why we are in solidarity with the
protests of our trade union colleagues in Bochum
and we ask our German comrades to pass this on.
I must add one thing. In Romania, in November,
the elections for the European Parliament took
place. The turnout was very weak, less than 30%,
which proves that Romanians no longer await
anything from the European institutions.
Moreover, the political forces that call
themselves the left and the center left lost
hundreds of thousands of electors. The people,
the workers most of all, refuse to continue to
vote for parties that claim to speak in their
name but that, in fact, only play the games of
big business.
All the parties campaigned on the basis of the
principles and goals of the European Union. The
only exception was the Dolj departmental
organization of the Socialist Alliance Party, in
which are active members of the Association for
the Emancipation of Workers, our organization,
which based its campaign on the break with the
European Union.
Of course, the comrades in Dolj received an
immediate rejection on the part of the national
leadership of the Party, which, we should not
forget is a member of the European Left Party.
Nevertheless, there are members of the party that
took a position, basing themselves on what our
comrades said. We published all these positions
in a discussion bulletin that will be the basis
of a bigger conference concerning the
consequences of the policies of the European
Union for the workers in our country and
throughout the continent.
Thank you.
-----
Heiner Becker (Germany)
My name is Heiner Becker. I am mandated by my
trade union, the GEW (union of education and
science).
Four of us have come from the Land of Hesse in
Germany. In our Land, one week ago, the
conservative party was dealt a crushing defeat in
the elections to the local Parliament.
I will allow myself a brief remark concerning the
declarations of the colleague from Denmark who
spoke yesterday of the victory of the
conservatives in Europe, including Mrs. Merkel.
During the elections to the Bundestag, the
electors punished the SPD and the Greens for
their policies summed up in the 2010 Agenda. They
also imposed a massive loss in votes on the CDU.
The two big losing parties, the SPD and the CDU,
associated - against the will of the electors -
in the Grand Coalition to continue up until the
end the policies of the Lisbon strategy and the
Maastricht Treaty.
That in Hesse the conservative government was
defeated was only possible because the candidate
of the SPD for the post of president minister
took positions on the most important questions
for the majority of the population.
She came out not only against the anti-worker
policies of the conservatives, but also against
the old Schroder line.
This was the case concerning the public
education. The former government rose the tuition
fees to 1,000 Euros each year, against the
massive protests of students and the people. A
constitutional complaint against this measure
received widespread support.
The support of the SPD in the struggle for the
repeal of this tuition hike played without a
doubt an important role in the SPD vote of many
students and their families.
In listening yesterday to the French colleague
speak of the flight of professors in the face of
the students who fight against the implementation
of a new statute on the university, implementing
the autonomy law, I had the impression of "déjà
vu": the same thing happened last year in
Frankfurt.
The University Senate, mostly professors, wanted
to take a position - against the position of the
student representatives - for the Johann-Wolfgang
Goethe University from the responsibility and
control of the state and for its transformation
into a university foundation.
Twice, the students prevented this measure,
forcing the meeting of the administration to flee
to the headquarters of Deutsche Bank and, the
next time, to an unknown location. This
demonstrates clearly that the initiators of the
"autonomy" of universities have intentions that
are much different than freedom of science,
research, and teaching. A "university foundation"
means above all placing the university under the
control of a council run mostly by
representatives of the banks and industry. There
are already today, 38 "foundation professors"
that are subservient to their paymasters.
Yesterday, in her introduction, Christel Keiser
talked about the process in the university of
Mannheim in 2005, where, for the first time, a
university became "autonomous."
Since then, "foundation universities" in Lower
Saxony were set up and plans to set up new ones
elsewhere have begun.
It is not an accident nor purely the will of the
conservatives (as sometimes is said) that more
and more students are excluded from higher
education. In Europe, we are not only facing an
offensive transforming the university and all the
education system.
Is this exaggerated? Non, each can verify on
their own by reading a OCDE report titled "Focus
on Higher Education", in which is formulated the
program of the ministers of education of the
European Union.
During the meeting of June 27 and 28, 2006, in
Athens, it was decided to spread throughout the
Europe the OCDE objectives. One of these
objectives is the financing of universities by
tuition fees plus "socially accompanied"
investments or loans.
Another goal they've set to, in their words,
strengthen "the relationship between education,
investment, and growth" consists in the creation
of a "diversity" of educative institutions, for
which they need "organizational flexibility."
This "diversity" means that each university
should be distinguished from the others to be
"competitive."
Is it possible to more openly express the
objective of the destruction of the education
system through pitting schools against each other
in the competition of the market?
To where will this autonomy lead? We can see this
again in the recent decision of the University
Senate of Frankfurt to no longer recognize the
diploma of the end of secondary studies as a
right to enter university. Thus, they want to
eliminate with a stroke of the pen 10% of the
possible students beginning in the month of March.
The OCDE and, with it, the European Union know
perfectly well that the destruction of the
national systems will be "painful and
controversial" (Education Policy Analysis, 2006,
Pg. 15)
And for that it is necessary to consult the TUAC
and the ETUC with goal of together organizing
this drive. But can a trade union "socially
arrange" the Lisbon strategy and the Bologne
Process? Can it give a "social dimension" as
certain forces argue in my union, the GEW?
I say that this is impossible. We must break with
these policies and the institutions of the
European Union!
That is why I support the declarations of the
draft manifesto, which states: "The workers'
movement in Europe is at a crossroads: Either it
accompanies this policy of destruction (in the
name of a so-called "Social Europe") which would
mean the end of it as a workers' movement that
defends its specific interests or it break with
the institutions of Europe and leaves the
European Union, thus opening the road toward a
few union of free peoples of Europe in a Europe
of peace and progress, with solidarity between
the peoples upon the basis of the reconquest of
all the rights and gains won in the West and the
East of the continent."
Without wanting to go into the upcoming
contributions, I would only like to note that we
have come to an agreement to make this will
prevail and I will be part of this mandate with
my colleagues in Germany. I thank you for your
attention.
-----
Duro Velickovic (Serbia)
Dear friends and comrades,
My name is Duro Velickovic. I am a member of the
Executive board of the trade union EPS
(Electricity of Serbia) representing workers of
the largest company of the Serbian energy sector
which currently employs 39 000 workers. Within
the EPS trade union, I am also on the Executive
board of the electricity workers' union of
Kosovo, whose members have fought for 8 years now
to recover their right to work and their jobs,
from which they were expelled by Nato troops.
Kosovo has coal resources of 15 000 billion tons
and a production capacity of power which could
meet the needs of the whole of Europe for a
century. Before the NATO aggression, Kosovo used
to produce a constant important surplus of power
which was exported. Today, despite this capacity,
not enough is produced to fulfill the
population's basic needs and power is imported,
with frequent daily electricity cuts due to
restricted importation. This is the direct result
of NATO actions, a result which has lasted since
the very first day of the occupation and onwards.
The first thing the NATO occupation troops did in
Kosovo was to blockade the power stations with
tanks, to stop production and to expel the 8 200
workers - Albanese, Serbs, Montenegrans, Bosnians
- workers who had never known any ethnical
conflict and did not in any way participate in
the war, except as casualties. The only reason
why the power stations continue to be blockaded,
still kept out of service, and their workers
expelled, is precisely because they have been
sharing a common cause and are united to defend
their company and their right to work.
During these recent years, the energy workers and
their trade unions across in all of the countries
across our region have faced strong attacks and
pressures, against which they have fought with
much difficulty. Following the wishes of the
European Union and the IMF, a complete
privatization of the sector is under way, which
will produce the most fierce onslaught ever known
against our standard of living. Our trade union
unconditionally opposes this policy and tries to
coordinate its activities with other national
unions in the energy sector in the region. In
order to weaken the people's mass resistance to
privatization, the Serbian government has decided
for the first time to use the Tchoubaïs method of
privatizing, a method enforced in Russia during
the 1990s This offer promises the people a "free"
share of 15% of the new companies' shares, and
thus every inhabitant would receive shares worth
1000 euro. The companies' workers are promised a
total of 2.5% of the shares. The scheme's author
is none other than the vice-president of the
Serbian government, Bozidar Delic, a former IMF
expert and member of the Tchoubaïs team, the very
same team which achieved the first privatizations
in Russia, the greatest and most destructive
plunder of national resources in the history of
mankind.
A few days ago, our government signed an
outrageous agreement which sells off 51% of the
Serbian oil industry - a monopoly of the
processing and supply of oil and natural gas
by-products - to Poutine's oil company, Gazprom,
at a price which is less than a quarter of its
real market value. The government justifies this
outrageous sell-off of one of the pillars of the
national energy sector with Poutine's promise
that Russia will use its right of veto at the
UN's Security council to block the recognition of
Kosovo independence. This means that the Serbian
people will pay dearly the alibi that Putin will
use to make NATO's occupation of Kosovo permanent.
Our trade union officials have tried over the
years to coordinate with other national unions in
our region to defend our common rights. We have
organized two regional conferences of the
trade-unions of the energy sector against the
privatizations.
We participated in the meeting of labor activists
from the former USSR, from Central and Eastern
Europe and the Balkans in Cacak last October, an
encounter where it was decided also to
participate in this European Workers' Conference
and to inform you of our conclusions. You have
these conclusions in the preparatory file and I
will quote some excerpts:
In the former Yugoslavia, as established in the
letter of invitation to the Cacak meeting, the
today, the deadly plot has lead to the scheming
of Kosovo's alleged "independence", under the
control of the US base at Bondsteel Camp (the
largest US military base out of the USA). The
action is designed to split, definitely, Kosovo
from what is left of the former Yugoslavia. It is
the latest chapter of the split-up of the
Yugoslavian Federation, encouraged by the
European Union and the USA through the various
factions of the Titoite bureaucracy, turned into
direct gangster agencies working on behalf of
imperialism. It has nothing to do with the
peoples' rights. It considers Kosovo to be a
protectorate under UE and NATO trusteeship, and
counter-acts the Balkanic peoples' aspiration to
re-establish the Yugoslavian Federation on the
base of social property, peoples' sovereignty and
brotherly relations. These aspirations would mean
breaking with the European Union and NATO, and
the withdrawal of the troops."
It is against this so-called "future" of wars, of
plunder-plunder, of fragmented countries and
social decay that our peoples and working-classes
endeavor to raise-up and resist.
We can observe that, in various forms and under
the most difficult conditions, workers in our
countries endeavor to resist, with their unions,
grappling to hold on to their gains, to those
segments of the conquest of state ownership which
still remain., the conquests born from the
October 1917 revolution 90 years ago.
By saying this, we do not mean that the failed
regimes, which collapsed between 1989-1991, would
have been capable of preserving these conquests.
It is precisely those people who are accountable
for the 1991 collapse, who we now see at the head
of our governments, who privatize and offer-up
our countries to the international institutions
of the Bush government.
Those of us who attended Cacak, at the labor
meeting of October 27th-28th, have sworn that by
our presence on the liaison committee, we will
contribute to breaking down the workers'
isolation in our countries, by circulating news
within the labor movement of each of our
countries.
By going into this liaison committee, we oppose
the policy of fragmentation and US protectorate,
with that of the free union of the former
Yugoslavia's peoples, the free union of the
peoples of the Balkanic-Danubian region, the free
union of the peoples of the former USSR and of
Central and Eastern Europe.
By going into this liaison committee, we oppose
the privatization policies, with that of the
defense of all public companies and natural
resources, and the renationalization of
privatized companies and resources.
By going into this liaison committee, we oppose
the institutions of capital - NATO, EU, ECSO,
WTO...- with those of the free union of the
peoples of all Europe, based on workers' rights,
and ridding us of wars and exploitation.
The liaison committee has decided to publish the
totality of the speeches delivered at the
meeting, and has proposed that every national
delegation should publish them in the language of
their own country.
The liaison committee has decided to bring these
conclusions to the participants of the European
Workers' Conference to be held in Paris on
February 2nd-3rd.
Because workers and labor organizations all
around the world are confronting these same
questions, we appeal to the ILC: Should we not
convene a world conference, open to all those
activists and labor organizations who, in the
difficult situation we are confronting, seek to
preserve their independence and to aid the
struggle against war and exploitation?
-----
Grégoire (France)
Youth delegate from Lyon
Dear comrades, greetings to you all
My name is Grégoire; I am a student and a
Revolutionary Youth International activist. I am
a delegate to this conference sent by some thirty
students who met last week in Lyon; we discussed
the following issue: "The Lisbon Treaty, a
referendum to say NO". My intervention is the
conclusion of the discussion.
I shall start with what every one of us can see.
On the one hand, European policies (all of the EU
treaties and the latest Lisbon Treaty) which are
hitting people of every age with unbearable
barbarity, as each of us has said.
On the other hand, all efforts are being made to
prevent any discussion of this issue. Slander,
provocation, even from those parties that claim
to be "Left wing" all subordinated to the E.U.
Those who act in this way, what are they trying
to achieve? To cut us off from the masses? To
conceal the responsibility of the European Union?
To block any discussion requesting a referendum
to say NO to the Lisbon Treaty? CertainlyS
It is obvious: that democracy is denied everywhere.
One youth ask the following question: "Doesn't
democracy simply require the call for a
referendum whether to vote Yes or No?"
True, a referendumS But, in the case of the
Lisbon Treaty, no democracy! With this treaty,
the idea is to trample the 2005 French and Dutch
No Vote to the European Constitution,
constitution that is entirely repeated in the new
Treaty! With this Treaty, the idea is to force on
people a still more destructive policy,
subordinated to Capital, that has nothing to do
with the demands of the peoples, such as the
right to a genuine diploma, a real job, true
wages, social security, retirement pension,
lodgings!
All of these are being dismantled by the European
Union; we any discussion is kept well away from
all this! The new treaty shores-up EU
institutions and that is truly anti-democratic!
This is why we want a referendum, but a referendum to be able to vote
NO!
There are those who tell us: "You are promoting
the split with the EU and all of its treaties;
therefore you advocate isolation for France, you
are against Europe!"
This is disproven by the fact that: we are all
here together today, activists from all over
Europe; the European Union and the Lisbon Treaty,
these are not Europe. They represent the
subordination of European people to destruction,
to organized barbarity!
As for us, we promote a Europe of peace, of equal
rights, a Europe where everyone is entitled to a
real diploma, a real job, a real salary! We are
for the free union of Europe's free peoples!
Europe should be the right of the young to have a
future. Today, they are deprived of this by
European institutions.
During the discussions in Lyon, some young people
described their own situation.
A student told about the movement against LRU
[the Law of Reform of Universities] (a law of
autonomy of French universities) that took place
over recent months.
The LRU complies with the orders of the European
Commission to the effect that "recognizing skills
is an obsolete obstacle"; so skill-recognition
should end. LRU is the second phase of LMD, it is
the continuation of the European Bologna
strategy, which is nothing other than "European
harmonization" of the privatization and
destruction of universities! LRU means closing
down entire courses of study that students have
just paid for, as with one student at Lyon 2 when
she learnt that her musicology course had been
ended; or as was the case for Political Sciences
in Lyon 3, and these will soon be followed by
Sociology, Psychology and all those courses that
the EU considers to be non profitable!
The LRU spells the end of national diplomas that
give us guarantees on the labor market thanks to
collective agreements. During the student
movement, however, every effort was made to
silence the issue of national diplomas; every
effort was made so that demands would not be met!
Every effort was made to prevent the decision by
students from all French universities to stage a
march to the Ministry of Higher Education. All
these maneuvers were made by those who refuse to
speak of breaking from Maastricht, by those who
claim to be revolutionary, notably the LCRS.
Another young person, hired as a Specialized Help
for disabled children spoke of the situation in
her sector.
Today the EU Stability Pact imposes reductions on
public expenditure, especially in the healthcare
sector. Special educational institutions for the
disabled close down one after the other.
Therefore, disabled children are deprived of the
structures that are best suited to meet their
educational and healthcare needsSInstead,
temporary jobs, without status, are created, to
serve in a way as buffer zones in an attempt to
integrate those disabled kids into "ordinary"
schools, most of the time irrespective of their
own wishes!
This is also the result of cuts in healthcare
expenses. And the Lisbon Treaty considers pushing
things still further down that road!
To this should be added the fact that in the Val
d'Oise, some 600 Specialized Helpers for the
disabled have been made redundant because they
cost too much! So after undoing all of the
specialized structures, temporary and "more
profit-making" jobs were created to replace
specialized teachers, but EU policy even gets rid
of those "buffers," forsaking those children who
are left alone to face their difficulties with
nothing to meet their educational needs.
Other instances could be cited. Young people
spoke of the Subprime loans crisis and of the
destructive role played by the ECB against that
backdrop; about the situation in Serbia, and so
onS All of these cases show that the young have
no future within the framework of Maastricht,
within the framework of Lisbon, within the
framework of financial capitalism.
One of the decisions taken as a conclusion of the
youth meeting in Lyon was to send a letter to JJ
Qeyranne, Socialist Party MP for Lyon and
President of the Rhône-Alpes region. In his
capacity, he will take a position on the revision
of the constitution due on February 4th to adopt
the Lisbon Treaty. Here is the conclusion of the
letter.
"You claim to be on the left, you are also a
university teacher. Is it possible that you could
vote other than NO this coming February 4th at
the Congress or that you could support the
violation of democracy? Can you accept that the
LMD and PRES [Higher Education and Research Pole]
and the LRU should continue to be implemented?
Can you accept the undoing of our national
diplomas?
We therefore ask you Mr Queyranne to accept to
receive a delegation of students and to give them
your answer.
For our own part, we say: repeal the LRU! Defend
national diplomas! Withdraw the PRES and LMD!
Break with the Bologna strategy of the European
Commission! We want a referendum to say NO to the
Lisbon Treaty! We are for a free and brotherly
union of Europe's peoples, breaking with EU
institutions and their destructive treaties!"
Today we can see that workers and young are not
defeated. Class struggle is rising. Illusions are
being shed. The youth are trying to resist.
Today, to fight, we have to regroup, organize
into independent frameworks. We must affirm this
determination of the young and of all the peoples
of Europe to put an end to the orders from
Brussels, this determination to be able to say NO
to the new European treaty!
This fighting spirit is being formed at the
European level thanks to the present European
Labor Conference, thanks to the ELC (European
Liaison Committee of Workers!
We must join hands together in a united fight; to
achieve this. The Lyon youth approve the content
of the draft Manifesto that is proposed. We
especially emphasize the last paragraph which
proposes setting up a Liaison Bulletin of the ELC
which should be regularly published by an
editorial committee.
I will conclude by repeating that youth too has
had enough of EU policy! Enough of the European
Union! Young people are entitled to a future!
No to the Lisbon Treaty! Break with Maastricht!
Yes to the free union of Europe's free peoples!
Thank you.
-----
Eva Hallum (Denmark)
Dear friends and comrades, I will only say a few
words, concerning the international dimension of
our struggle and then concerning Denmark.
I represent the Popular Movement Against the
European Union. We thank the Workers Party of
France for organizing this conference.
On an international level, I think that we should
speak of Ireland, seeing as it is the only one of
the 27 countries of the European Union where the
citizens will vote on the constitution.
That is the reason why one of our representatives
met with a representative of the Irish Popular
Movement Against the European Union, with the
goal of seeing how we can give our support in
relation to this important vote.
Their organization is less strong than ours. In
recent months, the number of citizens taking
positions in favor of the European Union has gone
into decline.
At that moment, the Irish trade union
confederation, I no longer remember its name,
discussed the position to adopt. Le Pen visited a
high school and this led to a reaction of the
partisans of the Yes to massively react. The
press spoke of pressure from other countries.
That is the reason they have a lot of fear of
foreign interference.
We have decided to have one of the members our
organization remain in constant contact with
them. Concerning financial support, as long as
the date of the referendum has not been sent, we
can send them support, but this is not possible
afterwards. But we do not have any money.
I thank the French organizers of this conference.
I thank them for the support. We feel at ease
here. Thank you for the coffee and the
interpreters.
The Popular Movement Against the European Union
is a large organization that regroups people from
the right and the left. The basis for our unity
is the question of democracy and the fact that we
want to leave the EU. We have built committees in
all the cities.
We have descended into the street to collect
signatures to demand a referendum. If we lose,
the day of the ratification we will form a human
chain encircling Christiansborg, where our
government is located.
We want to leave the European Union and we hope to lead this struggle
with you.
-----
Jan Cumpelik (Czech Republic)
Dear comrades,
The situation in the Czech republic is almost the
same as in other European countries. Prices are
rapidly increasing, our government calculates
with figures from the privatization of the few
public services which are not already in private
hands. There was an organization called Communist
Union of Youth, which has been banned, even
though they have broken no laws. I did not agree
with this group, but I think that there was no
reason to harass themS
As you already know, I'm from the Czech republic
and the Czech republic will be the next leading
country of the EU. Their program won't be very
different from that of other countries, which
anyway means - not good!
But there is one thing, which is a little bit
unusual. They want to invite the USA to
officially participate in European security
policy. I think this is another part of my
government's lobby for the US national defense
system in Europe, which means military radars and
missiles in the Czech republic. The USA is
talking about anti-missiles in Poland. What's it
all about? If "terrorists" wanted to attack the
USA using missiles, these radars would detect and
track them, and send signals to anti-missiles in
Poland so that these could destroy the terrorist
missiles before they reach US air space. But
"terrorists" don't have any such missiles in
their hands, so this whole system is nonsense. I
think that this is why so many people disagree,
and not only in European countries (for example,
also in Canada and even some groups in USA).
People know that this system won't bring safety
to Europe, but it could, perhaps, jeopardize
public security. If you want to attack a country,
you must first destroy it's eyes. Radars are a
country's eyes. By the way, they also know that
this system may not work, since it hasn't been
tested by a real alert, only with simulations.
But my government wants this radar, no matter
what the cost.
A few weeks ago, one of our politicians (I think
Karel Schwarzenberg) said, that they wanted the
radar because of the danger from Russia. I don't
know your opinions, but in my opinion there is no
danger from the Russian federation to Europe. But
the USA still talks about terrorists and evil
countries from Asia. In fact they want to have
more units in Europe. They want to have any
movement in Europe under their control. Anyway, a
few months ago the USA offered participation to
Russia. And the Czech government didn't even know
about it. So this is one example of how important
we are, and are opinions, to the USA.
Some government politicians say that we have all
the information about the radars and that all of
the information is on the internet. Other
politicians say that the information on the
internet is not very specific, because the more
specific information is classified. Then,
non-governmental experts say that the outline
study by government experts is incorrect. This
has only two explanations, first that the
government is lying, or second that they don't
have more specific information, because the USA
doesn't want us to have all of the information
about the project
This is why almost 70% of people in the Czech
republic are saying NO! to this US national
defense system in our country. We are saying NO!
to all USA policies.
------
Beata Novakova (Slovakia)
The situation of education in Slovakia.
The Minister of Regional Development has
discriminated against the smaller municipalities,
the villages, when he granted European Union
subsidies for school building maintenance and
repair.
The vice chairman of the Coalition Party has just
declared that, in order to receive those
subsidies, the local authorities have to register
in advance.
But most of the smaller communes had not been
informed on the conditions and did not know that
schools with less than 200 school-children were
not eligible. As there are some 2,500 schools in
that case, this simply means that the European
Union bans them from receiving any subsidy.
So, the Party vice chairman's stance simply
amounts to favoring the schools of the larger
towns and the more important schools.
Indeed, would it not be absurd to fund repairs
for schools with less than 200 pupils when those
public schools are shortly due to "voluntary
phase out" or to be demolished?
It is crystal clear that public schools are
currently being consciously destroyed in order to
put private schools in their place. The first
private schools came into being 15 and 17 years
ago but, they were exceptions at that time and
they were not State funded whereas they now are.
Today, building and managing private schools has
become a fair dealSNow public schools only
receive 80% of their management expenses from the
State whereas private school receive the entirety
except in the cases when parents pay for "tuition
fees", amounting to 30% for instance, and then
the State tops the remaining 70%.
Private schools are simply mushrooming though the
level of teaching there is much lower than in
public schools.
Private schools are rarely monitored by State
departments, when they are, much is simply
overlooked. Besides, more often than not, the
money that those schools receive from the State
or from the parents is not used in the interests
of the pupils since the district does not really
control them.
Democracy is at risk in Slovakia!
Besides, though secondary schools had up to now
been independent in right, since 2007, continuous
bureaucratic measures have constantly threatened
this independence.
In Slovakia, 50% of the students who complete the
secondary technical courses find jobs or continue
into further education, the others are jobless.
Today, the majority of secondary technical
schools no longer try to find jobs for their
students. They are not concerned with the new
jobs that should be taught and simply drop the
courses. Everything is going worn off and
obsolete, buildings as well as machines.
There are 26 public universities in Slovakia and,
from 2008 on, application fees and monthly
"running costs" will have to be paid for. The
State provides for a minimum sum but, actually,
the sum is decided on by each university board.
Universities are funded by the State according to
the number of students: roughly 800¤ per student,
per year. Therefore a university numbering 2,000
students is granted 1,600,000¤ which serve to pay
for the staff wages, research and building
maintenance.
Do they think that asking students and their
families to pay fees for "running costs" will
improve the tuition quality and level? Is that
the true reason why families are made to pay for
those costs?
About 7 to 8% of graduates are jobless. Those who
do find jobs usually work outside their
specialty. Many go abroad to survive on casual
jobs. Young Slovakians currently migrate to
Ireland, England or the Czech Republic.
-----
Marie Edmone Brunet (France)
I am a teacher, head of the national union of
professors and workers of national education.
First of all, as did a comrade yesterday, I would
like to express my pride at being in the same
room as our brother Miron Cozma, after all he has
endured in the name of his class - in the name of
our class.
We must be conscious that the European lackeys of
American imperialism cannot accept the least bit
of resistance to their demolition drive to
destroy workers' gains. The presence of Miron
Cozma in this room proves that nothing is
inevitable. But our enemies are ready to deal
blows against the working class.
In a text, Victor Hugo wrote to the bourgeoisie
and Versailles in relation to the workers of the
Paris Commune and said: " They are your terrors
and you are their fears."
How are we supposed to understand that a few
thousand individuals can rule over billions of
workers throughout this world?
This violence is translated in France through
unprecedented measures. They cannot accept, in
particular, the gains won through the French
Revolution, the Paris Commune, and Liberation:
Social Security, a gain that our comrade Pierre
Lambert participated deeply in wining; public
jobs with statues; civil and military codes;
Republican education based on the transmission of
knowledge, national programs and diplomas. These
gains are denounced. The French exception is
unacceptable.
But we, here, know that to implemented their
policies, they need the active support of a
certain number of leaders of the traditional
organizations of the working class.
At this very moment, the Minister of National
Education is in the process of breaking up
professional initial teaching and is planning on
closing whole sections of vocational high
schools, in addition to thousands of closures of
classes and job cuts.
Yesterday I called the social councilor of the
minister to demand, once again, a meeting with
two other trade unions that, like us, reject this
dismantling. He responded, tranquilly: We
regularly meet with those who signed the
agreement protocol (in other words, those who
immediately capitulated and betrayed their
mandates) and we work with them. Here you have a
good example of social dialogue!
We did not come here to write up a list of
complaints. We are here because we have proposals
to make to our class. The workers are distressed
and are looking for answers. What to do? How? How
is it possible?
Several comrades have said: The working class is
not defeated. It is doubly the victim of the
deadly logic of capitalism and also the betrayal
of a certain number of leaders of the traditional
leaders of the workers' movement.
Here, at this European Workers Conference,
because we raise the banner of European workers,
we are here to express this resistance.
Yes, we speak of the class struggle, workers'
rights, the defense of the specific interests of
the workers. We fight against the implementation
of the liquidation of all gains. Yes, we are
against the European treaty and all its
implications.
Isn't our responsibility to give responses to the
questions of hundreds of thousands of youth,
workers, unemployed, pensioners, to give them the
means to mobilize against this policy that
undermines the very basis of civilization, to
help them have the path of history turn backwards?
-----
Jeanine Cheneux (Belgium)
I come from French-speaking Belgium, Waloons,
from a small town 30 km from Liege, Maastricht,
and Aachen in Germany.
I would like to demonstrated how, seen from
inside an institution of federal social security,
the authorities have led to privatization and
contributed to the crumbling of our Social
Security.
I am a full time worker at the National Office of
Employment, but despite the name, the Office
deals with the unemployed, not with jobs. I am a
trade union representative, head of ten
unemployment bureaus in Walloons. I specify this
because the national union leaders decided to
divide the trade union organization in order to
better adapt to the structure of the federal
state structure. My Dutch-speaking colleagues
also have their own head for Flemish bureaus and
the same goes for the Brussels bureaus and
central administration.
The currency of the Belgian state is: force in
unity. We in the three trade union delegations
obviously work together. But in the General
Central of Public Services (CGSP), the sector was
divided into three different sectors.
In Flanders, in the North, our union joined with
the Ministers sector. In Brussels, I speak of the
bilingual region of Brussels, they remained the
parastatal sector and in Walloons, in the South,
we fused with the local and regional
administrations. I am not even mentioned the
German-speaking community. Nevertheless, force in
unity.
The dismantling of Social Security and our social
gains: At the beginning of the 1980s, the
administration decided to put responsibility on
the institutions of Social Security. The next
step was that our administrations signed, with
the federal government, administration and/or
management administration. Today, to name our
managements, there is no more language problem.
They use the language of the private sector:
English. For example, we have no more personnel
services, but "Research Management Development":
"human resources."
This is no longer personnel services. At work we
have an administration contract in which our
administration is obliged to work for three years
with a set budget.
The goal of these budget constraints was to get
to the 3% deficit of the Maastricht treaty - at a
time we had a 10% deficit.
Our ministers returned from the Lisbon summit by
introducing titled services. In fact, this was
the placement of women laborers in private firms
for a ridiculous sum. The introduction of
"service titled" means the destruction of working
conditions, through the valorization of part-time
work with less hours and miserable wages - and
only for women.
The set budget, with the obligation to fulfill
the obligations set in the administration
contract, means playing with the budget to make
savings. These are savings on the back of the
workers and those insured by these services.
These mean savings on personnel. Of course, there
are not lay-offs, but they are not replacing
those who leave from pensions, long-term disease,
death, and even sometimes suicide. When a new
mission is begun, the unemployment office only
engages in a resolution labor clause linked to
job activity.
IF the activity ends (in the case of the
unemployment office), its workers become
unemployed or return to unemployment. While
formally concentration exists, for me it is done.
In our concentration, the trade unions have an
advisory role. And even in the three
representative unions give a negative vote, the
administration can overrule this.
Our first prime minister of the federal
provisional government, Huy Verhofstadt, wrote a
note on the "reform on institutions." Concerning
the reform of the state, this note speak of the
regionalization, among other things, of
unemployment benefits, family subsidies,
collective contracts, etc.
Let us recall Renault Vilvord that was located in
Flanders. At this enterprise worked workers from
Walloons, Flanders, and Brussels. Imagine what
would happen for the laid-off workers if the goal
of regionalization the Verhodstadt note were
already implemented.
The laid-off workers would have had a different
unemployment benefit - and a different period of
authorized unemployment - even though they made
the same wage and worked at the same enterprise!
I could give similar examples from other
institutions, such as the national office social
security, the national office of family benefits
of wage workers, the national office of pensions,
the auxiliary fund of unemployment benefits, the
national sickness insurance fund, the accident
funds, the office of annual vacations, etc.
This is the reason for my presence here and for
my engagement in Belgium in the committee for
unity.
-----
Javier Alcolea (Spain)
At the moment of the workers conference against
the new European treaty, the Revolutionary Youth
International (RYI) met at the university of
Nanterres to discuss the specific problems facing
the European youth. Sixty-eight people
participated in this meeting and eight youth from
diverse nationalities spoke to explain the form
taken by the attacks of the European Union in
their country.
These attacks can be summed up in the following manner:
-- In Spain, Xavi spoke in the name of the
teaching collective of the Workers and Youth for
the Republic to expose the process of
privatization and destruction of teaching on all
levels (maternal, primary, secondary, bac, and
higher) and to detail the campaigns that the
collective leads on this theme. Next, Ana, in the
name of the Revolutionary Youth Organization
(ORJ) spoke of the problems facing the Spanish
youth: precarious work, difficult to find
housing, and the struggle for the Republic.
-- In Germany, Julian spoke of the crisis of the
SPD and its defeat in the recent regional
elections. This was the product of its
governmental pact with the CDU, leading to its
submission and its abandonment of a policy that
favored workers and youth.
The CDU has radicalized its right-wing course,
criminalizing youth through an alarmist discourse
against youth delinquency, ending penal rights
for youth, creation internment camps for
undocumented immigrants and deporting those who
commit a crime.
The German comrades demand access to secondary
studies from the age of 13 and for free
education. They want a coalition that is made up
of the Left parties and the Greens that is
opposed to the reduction of access to education
and the LMD system - in other words, a policy of
breaking with the European Union.
-- The French comrades David, Kim, Vincent, and
Pierre spoke of the problems facing the French
youth, particularly: the attempts of the Sarkozy
government to end full-time work contracts and
establish a new contract for youth, just like
they tried to impose two years ago; the LRU, a
law that under the pretext of the autonomy of
universities, wants to push for the privatization
of higher education, and which sparked big
mobilization by students last Fall; the
criminalization of youth, particularly immigrant
youth, and the policy brutality pushed by the
governmental policy.
They also mentioned the extremely serious
situation facing the Palestinian people and the
International Conference on Palestine that will
take place in Madrid in April, as well as the
unending war that the European Union (under U.S.
mandate) would like to impose.
-- From Switzerland, the comrade Giacomo spoke to
say that, though Switzerland is not part of the
European Union, the parliament has adopted all
the privatization directives adopted at the
different summits. The Socialist Party
participates in the government, leading to a
permanent contradiction between the submission to
these measures and the demands of youth and
workers.
This contradiction provoked the loss for the
Socialists of nine MPs in the last elections and
obliged the president of the SP to resign. In the
context of the new extraordinary congress that
should designate the new president, the comrades
are developing a campaign to demand the opening
of a discussion on the subject of the integration
into the European Union, in light of the cost of
this submission for the SP.
-- Lastly, comrade Jan of the Czech Republic
spoke to us of the drive of the United States to
install missiles on the Czech territory under
NATO command, under the pretext of defense
against a possible attack by Russia. The comrade
noted there is very little chance of such an
attack, because Russia has not the slightest
intention to attack the Czech Republic.
While there is agreement among the government
subordinated to the interests of the United
States (by the way the government just declared
the communist youth illegal), the people's
rejection of the establishment of the missiles is
enormous. It is estimated that close to 70% of
Czechs are opposed to this measure.
The conference received two messages of support:
One from Revolution Youth of the United States
and another from the Komsomols of Kouban, in
Russia.
The following decisions were made unanimously:
-- The distribution of the Gaza appeal, to
prepare the International Conference on Palestine
that will take place in Madrid in April.
-- The distribution of the RYI address to inform
all of the agreements of the conference.
We also raised the following demands: rejection
of the Bologne process, rejection of the European
Union, rejection of war, rejection of the
capitalist system.
-----
Henry Mott (Great Britain)
Dear Comrades,
My name's Henry Mott I am a trade unionist Unite TGWU from London.
Firstly I wish to convey apologies from Nick Phillips and
Gerry Daniels, comrades from London who had to
remain in Britain at the last moment due to work
commitments.
Secondly I wish to inform you that a message of
solidarity has been received to be conveyed to
this conference, from fellow UNITE (TGWU section)
National officer on behalf of the campaign
Called: Trade Unionist Against the Lisbon Treaty
their contribution is called "The Lisbon Treaty
Thatcherism for ever."
I request that the platform will record it in the minutes.
Today I will concentrate on one of the key issues in Britain: Council
housing.
Public/Council housing is - along with the NHS -
one of the major gains of the working class in my
country won by the hard struggle of the trade
unions and the Labour Party after the Second
World War.
The first attacks against public housing started
under Thatcher but the fact is that now public
housing runs in total contradiction with the
Stability Pact that Britain has to abide by.
We must not forget that on June 1997, the
Amsterdam Summit - with the participation of Tony
Blair- adopted a resolution on the Pact of
Stability and Growth.
The Pact of Stability and Growth became the new
framework within which the British Government
should act and it orders the member states to
constantly reduce public spending.
This is how the Stability Pact signed by Blair
and which is part and parcel of the New Lisbon
Treaty, supported by Gordon Brown
And continues and aggravates the offensive against public housing.
What are the consequences?
I have come here on the basis of an Open Letter to
Gordon Brown for a referendum to say NO to the
New Lisbon Treaty which clearly spells out the
consequences of these policies for the working
class.
It says:
"We the undersigned live in Southwark, one of the poorest areas
of London.
In this area we have one of the biggest housing
estates in Europe - The Aylesbury Estate. It is
being sold off, demolished and replaced by
private housing and housing association
properties. The politicians' claim is that they
can no longer afford to provide decent public
housing. That their 'hand hands are tied by
central Government anti public/Council housing
policy. By introducing an Area Regeneration
scheme and designating the south London
Aylesbury Estate a regeneration area where so
long as the local politicians agreed and simply
"consulted" with the those Aylesbury tenants the
green light for privatization of their homes and
all the prime land they are built upon (a
kilometer from London central business zone),
could start being phased in as early as September
2008.
I would like to point out that the UK housing is
largely made up of private sector housing of
around 90%, compared to the remaining 10% of
public/Council housing. Unlike the rest of
Europe, where the private sector is much lower.
The UK Government's privatization option of
grossly under funding Council housing departments
will further reduce the public Council Housing
provision.
The main vehicle for council housing
privatization has been Stock Transfer Option to
Housing Associations (HAs), the so called "not
for profit community based" organizations. Yet
HAs like the London and Quadrant (L&Q) has taken
over so many council estates and other smaller HA
homes. Recent reports stated that L&Q are in the
process 'floating' the company on the London
Stock Exchange. In reality housing providers are
privately run with no political democratic
accountability to the Former council tenants or
local council.
All these policies derive from the constant
reduction of public spending by successive
governments.
They are directly imposed by the European Union.
The net result is more privatization of public
services more destitution of working people more
unemployment a worse health system a worse
education system.
Prime Minister, recently you have signed in our
name - without consulting us - a new European
Treaty which adopts all the key elements of the
European Constitution. These have been rejected
by the French and Dutch electorates in
referendums precisely because of their
consequences on the lives of ordinary people.
The New Treaty you have signed - the Lisbon
Treaty - takes up all the provisions imposing
massive cuts in public services, privatization of
the Post office, the NHS, public transport,
education and council housing and would decide on
foreign policy.
When you were elected you promised a referendum
if such a new treaty was to be ratified.
The people of this country must have their say. It is a question of
democracy.
When the Trades Union Congress demanded the
organization of a referendum they spoke for all
of us. Likewise, when the RMT (railway workers)
called for a referendum and a NO vote.
Let the people decide on their future.
We want to be able to say NO to the privatization
and the destruction of the public services.
We want to be able to say NO to the destruction
of jobs imposed by the unrestricted competition
of big businesses and multinationals, ordered by
Brussels and its Lisbon Treaty.
We want to be able to say NO to Brussels and the
US working hand-in-hand to threaten other
countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq.
You have not been elected to ignore people's
views or to destroy what the Labour Party and the
unions have built with ordinary people. Not in
our name!
We want a referendum to say NO! "
Comrades, with the Aylesbury Estate it is the
entire public fabric of Southwark which is now
being sold out.
This leads me to one issue I wish to address as a conclusion.
I am here today because a few months ago I took
part in a meeting reporting on a conference in
defense of the health systems in Europe which
took place in Brussels and was attended by Nick
who could not come today..
I must confess that if - generally speaking - I agreed with
the consequences of the European policies and the
European directives exposed by Nick - I still had
a few reservations.
I was asking myself if breaking with the EU was a
realistic perspective that working people would
understand.
I must say that when Nick, Gerry and I
participated in a meeting of the "defend public
housing campaign in Southwark " and circulated
the open letter, it was very well received.
Indeed, let's ask ourselves what do we really want?
Do we really want them to privatize public
housing estates like The Aylesbury Estate all
over the country and push millions of people into
destitution? Do we want to force people into
borrowing money from private lenders like
Northern Rock who use their money and their
sub-prime mortgages to speculate on the financial
market?
Or do we "say enough is enough". Let's return to
what the Labour Party and trade Union leader
Aneurin Bevan did in 1945 and implement a
successful public housing programme.
Where do working peoples interest really lie?
Is it in more speculation on the financial market
that people will ultimately have to pay for? Or
in decent public housing for working people? Is
it in nationalization and progress or destruction
and backwardness?
Yes - public housing must be fully nationalized
just like the NHS. So should the railway system
and the utilities systems, gas and electricity.
But re-nationalization is banned by the EU.
That is why the only realistic option is not only
to break with the EU but to leave it.
Only these measures can secure the defense and
the recapture of what the Labour Party and the
trade unions won for the well-being of the
working class.
-----
Pierre Compain (France)
AS you probably know, one month ago the students
of France mobilized for the abrogation of the law
on the autonomy of the universities (LRU).
They mobilized by the thousands to demand the
defense and maintenance of national diplomas.
These were diplomas that were recognized in the
national collective contracts. By the thousands,
they demanded to preserve their university and,
to do this, they demanded and organized a
national demonstration in front of the ministry.
Today, we haven't won the abrogation of the LRU
because the students faced several obstacles on
their path.
The main student organization has remained in
favor the LRU. It does so because it is
financially and politically linked to the
European Union. It's minority tendency, lead and
linked to the Revolutionary Communist Youth
(JCR), the youth organization of the
Revolutionary Communist League (LCR), has at each
step of the movement opposed the organization of
a national demonstration in front of the
ministry, thus isolating the students campus by
campus, university by university.
And now? And now that school is back in session
in January, the minister of education aims to
implement a plan to go all the way with the LRU
destroying the units of research and professional
formation and destroying the baccalaureate. In
this sense, what the Slovakian comrade explained
is very similar to the offensive in France.
The plan destroys professional vocational
education and, in the framework of
deindustrialization, aims to adapt education to
deindustrialization. All this is in the plan that
is being implemented right now and which will
have very serious consequences for the students.
In Nanterre, where the meeting took place
yesterday, the departments such as philosophy are
pure and simply threatened with disappearance.
The departments such as Anglo-American languages
are threatened. The same thing occurs in the
University of Creteil, in the Parisian suburbs.
This plan would destroy the national programs to
recruit teachers into public education.
These are the consequences of the LRU, a law
stemming directly from the directives of the
European Union.
That is the reason why we currently struggle for
the abrogation of the LRU. We must not back down.
The abrogation of the LRU requires looking again
at the institutions of the European Union, thus
the abrogation of the Maastricht treaty.
On May 29, 2005, 60% of youth voted No to the
European Constitution. And now they want this
vote to disappear? They want us to accept no
referendum? They also want us to accept the
destruction of our diplomas and labor contracts.
If there is no referendum, it is because the government fears the people.
And if in Lille the administration council was
suspended because 50 some-odd students blocked
the entrance demanding the abrogation of the LRU,
it is because the administration has fear.
That is the reason why we lean on this resistance
to say: Yes, it is possible to win the abrogation
of the LRU, just as it is possible to obtain the
rejection of the Lisbon treaty and get rid of the
European institutions.
-----
Marc Vassiliev (Russia)
Dear comrades, while Russia is not part of the
European Union, all that was said here, all these
dramatic processes of the destruction of our
social gains, is known in our country.
In the 1990s, despite the privatizations, the
gains of the Revolution of October 1917 were not
totally liquidated. With the arrival to power of
a new administration and Putin, despite his
anti-American rhetoric, we are seeing year after
year an ever-deepening implementation of all the
demands of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO.
Thus, they imposed on us a new Labor Code, a new
Housing Code, the monetarization of social
advantages, and the joining of the "Bologne
Process" for higher education.
The most dramatic thing in Russia is the complete
political vacuum on the left. Though the
so-called "Federation of Independent Trade Unions
of Russia" (FNPR) announces officially that it
has several million members, it demonstrates each
day that in practice it is nothing but an
appendage of the state.
All this is the consequence of Stalinist and
post-Stalinist "socialism" which has lowered the
level of consciousness of the Russian working
class to the level of the beginning of the 20th
century.
UP until a recent period, the largest political
organization in the country was the Communist
Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF). And
though the number of militants long ago lost
their illusions in the ideology of the leadership
of this party (a Grand-Russian nationalism), it
is nevertheless true that thousands of members of
its ranks were participants in social protests.
This explains the electoral scores of this party
in the legislative elections of 1996.
But the results of the compromise of the
leadership of this party became clear. During the
last legislative elections, the KPRF received a
little more than 13% of the votes and,
immediately afterwards, the leader of the Party,
Guennadi Ziouganov, met with the president to
pass on his wishes of success.
Many activists in Russia feel that the
presidential elections of March 2 will mark the
end of the KPRF as a political party.
On the other hand, we have seen how the whole
State apparatus mobilized to ensure the electoral
victory of the presidential party, "Russia
United."
In reality, Russian lives under a one-party
state, the "party of power, which brings together
the worse aspects of the nomenclature of past
bureaucratic socialism and the worse aspects of
contemporary parasitic and Mafioso capitalism.
But in these conditions, there is a perspective
that the best force for revolution is the
counter-revolutionary power.
In 2006, the decision to transform the social
advantages of the veterans into money allocations
(monetarization) provoked such an uprising of
protest that the state was forced to retreat.
Ten years ago in Russia, there were hardly any
left-wing youth organizations because, according
to the propaganda, the youth were looking to
"make money" and were enthusiastic about
liberalism. But today there are many such youth
organizations.
These organizations have differerent political
orientations, but as much in Moscow as in the
Provinces they lead common actions together.
And on the level of the workers' movement, as an
alternative of the trade unions of the FNPR,
there is the development of independent unions.
In the course of the last six months, a wave of
social conflicts has developed in numerous
enterprises, particularly in the auto sector.
The two most important of this strike wave were
the struggles in the Ford factory in Vsevolojsk
(a district in Leningrad) and in the giant auto
factory Avtovaz in Togliatti. The origin of these
two conflicts was the extremely low wages, the
lowest in Europe for Ford. These are salaries
similar to those in Albania and even Thailand.
The repeated appeals of the workers of these
factories for wage raises and better working
conditions met with fierce repression. The
powers-that-be have called for all possible
repressive measures, including the lay-off of
trade union activists.
Only international solidarity can help the trade union struggle in
Russia.
To wrap up, one last piece of news: Yesterday
began a strike with occupation of the mineworkers
of Karaganda in Kazakhstan. This mine belongs to
the Kazahys company, an affiliate of the Samsung
corporation. Four hundred workers have refused to
return to the surface until the management
responds favorably to their demands for a wage
raise, better working conditions, and medical
insurance.
The authorities are already envisioning using
special security forces to make them return to
the surface.
According to the latest opinions of the World
Bank, Kazakhstan represents a model of "free
trade", a model that should be followed not only
in Russia but throughout th4e rest of Europe.
All the counter-reforms facing us today, in the
Russia and the European Union, were implemented
in Kazakhstan five or six years ago.
Is a trade union representative and a member of
the Afa committee, Hesse SPD, - on the editorial
board of the SoPoDe journal, which in Germany
supports the European Conference and fights in
order that the SPD MPs vote against the EU Reform
Treaty.
Comrade Daniel Gluckstein has referred to the
results of the elections that took place last
week in Hesse. I come from Frankfurt-on-Main, the
largest city in Hesse. I would like to draw your
attention to the results of the elections in
Hesse. I don't want to overdo its importance, but
it is in fact a remarkable event in German
politics.
Hesse is one of the sixteen German länders. It is
not very big: 6 million inhabitants when the
whole of Germany has 80 million. 4.3 million have
the right to vote.
It is a strong länder from the economic point of
view. Many international banks have their
headquarters there, notably the European Central
Bank. Its headquarters are located into a
building that used to accommodate the trade
unions' bank, now bankrupt. The ECB is going to
move into what is now a listed building, the
former central market, which is consequently to
be split into various sections. This is a symbol
of the contempt with which the EU regards the
sovereignty of nations. The ECB enjoys
extraterritorial rights in the middle of the town.
Hesse still has a dense economic structure. It
still has chemical and pharmaceutical industries
(Höchst), a car industry (Opel, a VW factory), a
vehicle manufacturing industry (Henschel),
electronic and electrical engineering industry,
and of course services: banks, insurance
companies, a fair and an airport.
Schweizer Tagesanzeige, a Swiss newspaper, wrote
on the evening of the elections: "In a way the
elections in Hesse should be assessed as a
plebiscite for the whole of Germany."
Aftobladet, a Swedish newspaper, said: "The gains
made by the left wing will have an impact on the
elections to the Bundestag S and consequently on
the balance of power in the EU.
The left-wing policy within social democracy has
enabled Andrea Ypsilanti to be successful in Hess.
For how long will social democracy be willing to
put up yet again with the agony caused by a
coalition with the Christian democrats, when
there is a mandate for a progressive policy?"
In fact, the elections were a vote directed
against the Grand Coalition of Merkel and Beck,
who implement EU policies - although with
difficulties since the SPD Congress of last
October in Hamburg.
What happened?
The SPD won back 210 000 votes in Hesse. The CDU
government lost 325 000 votes. This defeat is a
real landslide, a turning-point.
It is claimed that Koch's defeat was a reaction
against the attacks on young immigrant workers,
whom he wants to round up in camps. But his
divisive policy was already a helpless reaction
to the looming electoral defeat.
Andrea Ypsilanti, who was the SPD chief
candidate, said: "I don't' want any more reforms
that frighten people." He was thus deliberately
turning his back on the policies of the 2010
Agenda started by Schröder and continued by the
Grand Coalition.
This led to a mobilization with the SPD against
the CDU government including the following
demands:
For a return to free collective bargaining and a
collective agreement for public sector workers.
For more teachers, against selection and against
the exclusion of working-class children from
access to education.
For the withdrawal of university tuition fees
(which are part of EU policies applying to all EU
countries.)
For the end of the privatization of teaching
hospitals and universities - which is EU policy
throughout Europe.
For the reintroduction of the wealth tax to fund education.
It is worth noting that the outgoing CDU
President-Minister, Koch, supports the Grand
Coalition and carries out in Hesse reform N°1 of
federalism, in compliance with the EU' s
regionalization policy, which involves:
Longer working hours for public sector workers.
Scrapping the collective agreements of public
employees through laws passed by parliament, thus
violating the constitution and infringing free
collective bargaining for the first time since
1945.
Implementing the EU Maastricht criteria: this
meant saving ¤1bn by slashing costs in the social
and public sector.
Applying productivity criteria to public services.
We fought in the elections on the slogans: "Koch
out!" "Stop social devastation!"
The result of the elections has shown that the
majority of the population wants to put an end to
the policies followed in Germany by the former
Schröder government and the Grand Coalition,
which enforces EU policy.
This policy was defeated by the vote in favour of
the SPD! In what way can this mandate for a
social policy, a real social-democrat policy
become reality?
Employers remain careful but they are going to do
their best to thwart this electoral success. The
Chairman of the Union of Manufacturers (BDI) is
warning against a policy that "would only mention
social justice and redistribution." Clement, a
former Minister in the Schröder government, who
introduced Hartz IV, had advised against the SPD
vote in Hesse.
It did not stop the population from using the
SPD. But Andrea Ypsilanti is seeking an alliance
with the bourgeois party, the FDP, whose
programme is even more antithetical to the SPD
than that of any other party. For the FDP, the
policy implementing EU principles pursued so far
did not go far enough in the destruction of
education, privatization, etc.
Everyone is wondering how a coalition with this party could be imagined.
We are fighting for an SPD government in Hesse,
which would fulfill the mandate given by the
population who reject EU policy.
SPD members, even in the leadership, warn against
joining in Hesse a Grand Coalition involving the
party responsible for carrying out EU policies in
Hesse. They refer to the possible resignations
from the SPD such a decision would lead to. In
the regional committee, voices are being raised
to build in the new Landtag majorities that would
respond to the mandate given by voters. Two trade
union leaders (from the DGB and IG Metall) have
declared themselves in favour of an SPD
government with the Greens and Die Linke.
We are fighting in Hesse for an SPD government
that will cancel the violation of the collective
agreement and restore the agreement that enables
all public sector workers to fight together in
unity for their demands (an 8% wage increase).
We are fighting in Hesse for an SPD government
that will get rid of tuition fees and thus give
all young people the right to education and
restore the proportion of working-class children
in universities.
We are fighting in Hesse for an SPD government
that will cancel the measures that introduced
selection and deskilling and will employ enough
qualified teachers to guarantee the education of
all children.
We are fighting in Hesse for an SPD government
that will create enough places for apprentices
and will secure employment, so that young people
- whether of immigrant or German descent - can
get real career prospects
We held a meeting for that purpose including
trade union activists and shop stewards, who are
in favour of an SPD government that fulfils the
people's mandate against the EU's diktats;
We call upon all workers, trade union members and
activists from all political horizons in the
working-class movement. The elections in Hesse
are a signal and a mandate against the grand
Coalition for the whole of Germany (perhaps for
the whole of Europe as well). Let us defend that
position together by fighting everywhere for a
break with the Lisbon treaty, for a break with
the implementation of that policy in every
country (in Germany for a break with the 2010
agenda).
Thank you!
-----
Dominique Vincenot (France)
I will try to deal with a few questions.
The first proposal we should reflect on is the
proposal to publish all the spoken interventions
of the conference.
For two days, we have had among us a free
discussion, a discussion among activists from
different political and trade union traditions.
We discussed on the basis of equality in a free
discussion concerning the vital questions today
confronting millions of men and women in Europe
and on an international level.
We know there were periods in the workers'
movement where free discussion was sometimes
difficult and sometimes impossible. But, as is
the tradition of the ILC, I think that we have
reaffirmed our loyalty to workers' democracy,
free discussion in the respect of the positions
of each of us.
In publishing our proceedings, and distributing
them in our organizations, we will help the
workers' movement move forward, faced with the
extremely difficult situation that we know is
facing us.
I would like to make three remarks on the
discussions we have had. First of all: We are 24
hours before the probably passing by the French
Parliament of the Lisbon Treaty, which has a
symbolic meaning because as France will soon
preside over the European Union, president
Sarkozy wants this ratification to be the
beginning point of a quick ratification of the
Lisbon Treaty in all countries.
As comrades Sorensen of Denmark said, the Lisbon
Treaty repeats and worsens 90% of the so-called
constitution rejected by the French and Dutch
peoples in May and June 2005. Yesterday, Christel
posed the question: "Isn't it paradoxical that we
are meeting on the eve of this ratification?"
She asked: "Is the struggle against the Lisbon,
Maastricht, and Amsterdam treaties a thing of the
past or of the next period?"
Nobody here can underestimate the seriousness
other situation for the workers and peoples of
Europe, the tragic situation stemming from the
blows of the institutions of the European Union
against the working classes.
In publishing our proceedings, we will be
publishing a real act of accusation against the
policies of the European Union, which as numerous
comrades explained, is a policy of reaction all
down the line.
We heard comrade Schuller of Germany explain the
pension rate of 21.80 Euros after the Hartz.IV.
plan.
We heard comrade Nazarenki from Moldavia explain
how, in his words, a government of "false
communists" submitted to the European Union and
NATO established a legal age to retirement that
is higher than the average life expectancy.
We have heard numerous comrades explain the
dramatic effects of deindustrialization. Comrade
Pablo from Spain spoke of the Power 8 plan in
Airbus, dismantled by North American finance
capital.
We have spoken of the steel factory in Lorraine,
France, where 1,000 workers are threatened with
being thrown into the streets. Comrades gave news
concerning the militarization offensive of the
European Union under NATO aegis.
Numerous teacher and student comrades from
France, Germany, and Spain explained the
dismantling of 1,000 years of university
tradition in the name of the LMD and the Bologne
Process - the European plan to destroy
universities.
Many other comrades gave important reports. For
example, take the report of comrade Laszlo of
Hungary.
And, at the same time, faced with this barbarism
and these attacks there is an urge to resist by
all means in all countries.
It is true that the situation is dramatic in
Hungary, but it is also true that last December
15, the Hungarian working class, by the hundreds
of thousands, together with large sectors of the
peasantry, rose up against a government plan
implementing the dictates of Brussels, which
wanted to dismantle the Hungarian system of
Social Security, won in 1945.
In a leaflet, the Liga union confederation, calls
for a strike: "Health insurance for profit is
assured misery. We are for health insurance based
on solidarity. Together, we demand the respect of
our will, against the privatization of health and
pensions."
A peasant's organization distributed a leaflet
against the coalition government of the Socialist
Party and the Liberal Party, saying: "The NSP-SDS
coalition wants to transform our right to health
care into a business of speculation and money. We
must say no together to the destruction of Social
Security."
The comrade noted to us that more than 200,000
signatures were gathered on a petition by these
organizations to demand that the President of the
Republic not ratify this law destroying health
care and Social Security.
This resistance takes many different forms. The
day before yesterday, there was the spontaneous
strike of Romanian rail workers, as comrade
Rotaru noted. There was the demonstration of
15,000 in Bochum in Germany against the
outsourcing of the Nokia factory, during which
thousands of workers, with their union IG-Metall,
yelled: "Expropriate Nokia! Nationalization!" The
question of nationalization is posed for Nokia in
Bochu but also throughout Europe. And it is in
contradiction with Articles 87 and 88 of the
Maastricht treaty.
This resistance is expressed in Switzerland
through the referendum and in the canton of
Geneva where, on the initiative of the trade
unions, the state monopoly on water and energy
was reestablished.
Schuller spoke of the referendum in Liepzig where
80% of the population said, "We want to guard the
communal ownership of electricity and
transportation."
The resistance is the strikes in the auto-sector
in Russia, despite the police and private militia
repression that aims to terrorize the trade
unions. The workers have organized to demand
better wages.
It is undeniable that this resistance expresses
itself on all levels of the workers movement.
It is expressed from below but also in the
highest leaderships of the workers'
organizations. This what comrade Gustafsson of
Sweden explained: After the blow against the
trade union (the decision of the European Court
of Justice), voices were raised in the Social
Democracy and in the LO union confederation to
say: "In these conditions, isn't the question of
re-examining the affiliation of our country to
the European Union posed?"
In the same way, the Turkish comrades explained
that more and more doubts are being raised in the
Turkish trade unions concerning the membership in
the European Union.
This leads me to a second reflection.
Many comrades here at this conference, who have
important responsibilities in the workers'
movement, explained that the policies of the
European Union and its institutions threatens the
very existence of the workers' movement.
Comrade Marquiset of France recalled, for
example, that the ETUC has called for positive
"flexibility."
Comrade Jenet declare: "The European model
implies another type of unionism." This is a
discussion begun in this conference that merits
being continued.
This morning, the comrade from Belgium explained
how the offensive that aims to pit different
sectors of the Belgian population against each
other aims, first of all, to break the trade
unions, particularly the FGTB, in order to crush
the rights of all the workers of Belgium, their
unemployment benefits, and their Social Security.
Yesterday we heard comrade Polke from Berlin
explain how the workers of the S-Bahn (public
transportation) faced the offensive of
privatization and the offensive to break up their
trade union to "facilitate the offensive of the
destruction of social conquests." This is a
problem that is posed in other countries.
This is a problem in all countries. Comrade
Lorenzo from Italy was right when he said that
though the importance of the wage increases were
debatable, the Italian metalworkers, who signed a
national collective contract, felt that they
succeeded with their trade union to challenge the
will of the European Union and the bosses and win
a contract for all metal workers from the North
to the South of Italy.
In my own country, you know, last November, the
railway workers and electrical workers rose in
the name of all workers for the defense and
reconquest of all the pensions systems, for 37.5
years for retirement in the public and private
sectors, against all the injunctions of the
Barcelona summit of 2002 of the European Union,
which demanded the break-up of all the pensions
systems.
We have spoken in this conference of the people
who champion "anti-capitalism." But in my
country, four of these militants, who up until a
few days ago belonged to a confederated union
federation that has fought against the
destruction of their pensions regimes, just
announced publicly that they are leaving this
federation (and the confederation to which it is
affiliated) in order to build an autonomous
union, leading to the atomization of the working
class.
A question must be raised. Of course, one can use
the term "anti-capitalist." But is this policy
one that leads to the break-up of the working
class? Doesn't this policy help those, like the
European Union and the capitalists, who want to
dismantle the working class? This is a discussion
that should take place.
I will only say that those who speak
contemptfully and ironically about the "glorious
past of the workers' movement" aim (in the name
of "anti-capitalism") to reject the history of
the workers' movement. We have responded in our
conference that the "old" workers' movement is
not dead!
Mayor comrades spoke of 1789/1793 and 1905, the
law of the separation of Church and state.
Comrade Schivardi recalled the socialist
tradition of Juares and comrade Guathier added
that of the Serbian Socialist Party that, in 1913
and 1914, with the other socialist parties of the
Balkans and Turkey, opposed the imperialist war
and the war in the
Balkans.
Comrades from Moldavia and Russia recalled how in
the daily struggle in the ex-USSR, the workers
cling to the social conquests won in October 1917.
Comrade Henry Mott recalled how the British
working class leans on the social conquests won
in 1945, in the framework of the governments of
the Labour Party. And in France, we recalled the
importance of Social Security of 1945. Comrade
Velickovic recalled that in 1945 after the war
and the defeat of fascism, the Yugoslav
federation was created. And comrade Carmelinda of
Portugal recalled that today the conquests of the
revolution of 1974 remain intact and are in
contradiction with the policies of the European
Union and its relays.
This leads to a second reflection. The question
of democracy was raised quite a bit in this
conference and particularly the manner in which,
under all forms, it is being undermined in the
framework of the institutions of the European
Union and aggravated by the Lisbon treaty, which
will be ratified in France.
We took the decision and will continue
unceasingly the campaign for the liberation of
the imprisoned unionists in Romania.
We heard the speech of comrade Cozma: More than
100 comrades here signed the appeal proposed by
the tribune. We repeat: It is unacceptable that
trade union leaders be thrown in prison because
they respected the mandate of the members of
their union!
But this is true not only in Romania. This is
what comrade Gonzalez explained: In Spain,
hundreds of unionists much check in with the
commissariats each week because they are under
the watch of the legal system for having struck.
In Portugal, the legal existence of parties is
undermined. That is what the comrade from the
Czech Republic has explained. The organization of
communist youth has just been undermined by the
Minister of the Interior because it took a
position against the regime of the private
ownership of the means of production.
This is what comrade Schivardi said when he
explained how in his commune the municipal
council was pushed to take a position against the
undermining of the right to strike, against the
"minimum services" that undermines it.
It is for the same reasons that today in all
Europe, they are refusing referendums on the
Lisbon treaty. As comrade Sorensen said, in
relation to those governments that reject this
basic rule of democracy, "their peoples do not
suit them."
Faced with these institutions that undermine all
the gains won from the old workers' movement,
that undermine the existence of independent
organizations and particularly trade unions,
democratic rights, political democracy, and the
very existence of nations, faced with all this we
can be proud to have heard the Belgian militants
speak in all the languages of their country in
the framework of the "committee for unity" to say
that behind the fabricated tensions is the goal
of dismantling Social Security and workers'
rights.
They were right to say that the FGTB fulfilled
its responsibilities when it called a
demonstration of 25,000 in Brussels to affirm the
unity of the Belgian working class.
We can be proud that we have heard in our
conference the unionist comrade from the
ex-Yugoslavia, from Kosovo, explain that there
had not been "ethnic" tension between the
Serbians, Albanians, and Macedonians.
The comrade was right to say that there is a way
out in this situation: the return of all workers
to their jobs and their original towns,
regardless of their nationalities. Their place is
in the same union and enterprises to fight
against the same privatizations.
Thus, comrades, by publishing all our discussions
and widely distributing this brochure in all the
workers' movement we can be sure that the
struggle against the Lisbon treaty, for the
abrogation of the European treaties, for the
break with the European Institutions has just
begun and that this conference will have
contributed to this fight.
-----
Proposals and Message
We are going to submit the proposals made by the
delegates during the entire conference.
First proposal, the Manifesto: During the
conference some details concerning the Manifesto
were made from the floor and have been integrated
into the platform.
Second proposal: Publish all the debates of our
conference in a special bulletin.
Third proposal: The Stockholm Conference for the
withdrawal of the decision made by the European
Court of Justice regarding the Laval affair. We
know that this conference will take place on May
25, 2008.
Fourth proposal: The campaign for the liberation
of the miners imprisoned in Romania. It is
proposed that the appeal with all the signatures
be circulated widely and that signatures will be
asked for. It is also proposed that a conference
take place in the month of March in Romania and
that a delegation from the European Conference be
present.
Last proposal: The World Conference of the ILC. I
propose that Daniel Gluckstein, ILC Coordinator,
present these proposals to the conference.
-----
Daniel Gluckstein, ILC Coordinator:
This was reported at the beginning of this
conference. The ILC was formed in 1991 in
Barcelona and based upon a manifesto against war
and exploitation. While comrades met in the
Cacak, Yugoslavia conference several months ago
proposals were made for a new meeting of the ILC
as a continuation of everything that was done 17
years ago.
Indeed, for 17 years there consistently took
place, not only in conferences, but in dozens and
hundreds of concrete campaigns, very specific
actions to assist, sometimes modestly, the
strengthening of the class independence of
organizations, to help defend freedoms, and to
help defend all the foundations of civilization
that are threatened. For those of us who
participated in all these conferences, for those
of us who voted, revoted and voted again for the
motions demanding the freedom of Miron Cozma and
his comrades, for those of us who organized these
many delegations and initiatives, it is true that
the presence of Miron Cozma on the stage of this
conference is a concrete expression of the sense
of our campaigns and of our activity.
In 1991 we said that what brings us together,
whatever may be the diversity among the currents
within the workers movement, is the defense of
the independence of our organizations, the
defense of its conquests, and the struggle
against war and exploitation. Honestly, nobody
among us was imagining to what point these
questions would take on major importance, and to
what degree of decomposition we would be
confronted. It would be dishonest for us to
imagine the extent of these processes.
In 1989, just before the fall of the Berlin Wall,
I went to Poland to visit some comrades that were
fighting within the shipyards. I had a discussion
with them about the fact that the opening to the
West would threaten the privatization of the
shipyards. And the comrade with whom I was
discussing had said, "it may be possible in other
countries, but here it is impossible, because the
shipyards are the property of the people.
Unfortunately, it was possible and not only for
the shipyards in Poland but also in many other
places. We have been confronting this process of
destruction in all areas for seventeen years.
We are here in a European conference. I heard
certain information on television this morning
that, in the way that it was presented, had an
astonishing viewpoint: "Kosovo will be
independent in a few days. 2000 European police
and lawyers have just arrived to organize the
independence of Kosovo"
We don't see how independence is compatible with
the arrival of 2000 police and lawyers from other
countries.
In Chad, it is a European force, "Eurofor", which
is presently on the firing line against the
thousands of soldiers called "rebels" that were
obviously sent in an underhanded way by the
United States and the new European Union is
engaged in a war on African territory with all
its consequences.
These questions are posed for us in Europe. They
are posed for those on all continents. This is
what makes the ILC, after seventeen years,
capable of acting and debating. We do not try to
ignore the differences that exist within the
workers movement. They exist. They are an
historical product. They also make for the
richness of the workers movement.
But these differences occur within a common framework of class independence.
I listened to a comrade who said, "no compromise,
no truce under any circumstances". This is a
slogan which to which I am very sympathetic. But
there are circumstances where the greatest
revolutionaries were led to make compromises.
This does not make them traitors. For example,
Lenin, while he implemented the new political
economy or when he signed the Brest-Litovsk
appeal, said, "these are great compromises but we
do not have the choice of preserving the most
important."
Therefore the question is not one of knowing if
there is ever a possible compromise, because one
can be forced into doing so, but rather of making
a difference between what is a compromise and a
compromise of principle.
The greatest revolutionaries have been forced to
compromise, because the relationship of forces is
not favorable, because the situation is
difficult, because the opposing forces are
numerous. But when someone manages city
governments together with the social democrats
and the ex CP in the largest cities of Germany
and privatizes public housing in order to apply
the dictates of the European Union, is this a
compromise or a compromise of principle?
When someone is in a parliamentary majority in
Italy and all this parliamentary majority,
including the extreme left institutions, vote to
send troops to Afghanistan and close tens of
thousands of hospital beds and tens of thousands
of classes in schools, is this a compromise or a
compromise of principle?
This is part of the debate.
At this stage, I consider it to be a compromise
of principle, not a compromise, but this is part
of the discussion.
A conference took place several weeks ago in
Mumbai, India. The comrades felt that the central
questions for workers of the entire continent is
if we are going to resign ourselves to watching
the disappearance of social property in China or
are we going to take the position that despite
the policy of the Chinese leaders it is necessary
to defend social property in China? They formed a
committee for the defense of social property in
China, run by workers of the entire continent.
A conference is going to take place within a few
weeks in Mexico in order to break with all the
free trade agreements. An important delegation
from the United States is going to participate
with union leaders who feel that the American
working class is the first one threatened by the
consequences of the crisis of the decline of
North American capitalism. The statistics show
that especially the sub-prime crisis has as a
consequence "the most serious social and economic
decline for the Black community in the United
States since the crisis of 1929. The most serious
collapse of social conditions."
And in these conditions, the comrades feel that
the policy that goes along with the free trade
agreements, with the war in Iraq, and with the
overall destruction of public services demands
the unity of the workers from the North and the
South of the continent in order to break with all
the free trade agreements and for the formation
of independent workers organizations.
In the end, these problems are common to all of
us in Europe, but they are common to everyone on
an international scale. The common task of the
ILC, that of the recognition of the class
struggle and the independence of the working
class requires that we are able to put these
debates and these initiatives together in a world
conference. The situation is more difficult than
in 1991 in order to bring together a world
conference. The consequence of the fall of the
Berlin Wall, "The Iron Curtain", as it was called
by the imperialist powers who were separating the
East from the West in Europe and who were
presenting it to us as a "generator of freedom"
is that it is more difficult today to organize
such a conference.
In order to prepare for an international
conference of the ILC, it is necessary to plan it
far in advance and to choose the least
restrictive country from the standpoint of civil
liberties.
There were several proposals. There was the
proposal to have this conference in the United
States. But after discussing this with the
American comrades, who made a list of the
countries from which it would be nearly
impossible to have delegates, the proposal was
made of having the next world conference in
Berlin. Why in Germany? Because we have shown in
this conference that Europe, despite the blows
dealt by American imperialism, continues to play
a central economic and political role and as has
always been the case, the German working class is
at the heart of this entire process.
This was already the case during the 19th
century. More today than in the discussions that
we have here, the convergence among the problems
posed in the East and in the West of Europe
operate very naturally, and above all, in the
very heart of the German proletariat and its
organizations.
That is why, with the pressure of resolving some
small logistical and technical questions with our
comrades, and I don't doubt that we can easily
resolve them, I believe that we can establish the
objective, within one year exactly, in the month
of February, 2009, of holding in Germany a world
conference of workers and of the peoples. In
other words, we will make a balance sheet of all
the initiatives that we have taken here, within
the framework of this European conference, but
also all those taken by comrades on other
continents.
That is how we explain why the ILC was formed and
why it continues to act: for the unity of the
world working class.
Down with war, down with exploitation!
This proposal was held up.
A proposal from Marc Vassiliev was transmitted to us:
"The automobile companies have had a wave of
strikes, notably the strike against Ford in
Vsevolojsk and that of AVTOVAZ in Togliatti,
Russia. For their mobilization, the demands of
the workers were met. However, the pressure upon
the independent unions of these companies has not
weakened.
The European workers conference that took place
on February 2 and 3 expressed its solidarity with
the workers of Russia and condemned the pressure
that was being placed upon the leader of the
independent union at Ford of Vsevolojsk, Alexis
Etmanov, and upon the union committee "Unité"
AVTOVAZ. We also condemn all the pressures,
threats, and layoffs that are being used against
the union activists of these businesses. Our
cause is a common one and your victories are also
ours."
It is therefore proposed that our conference give
its support to this activist (adopted).
-----
Dominique Vincenot
In the name of the organizing committee, I would
like to thank all the comrades that have
participated in this conference. I would like to
report that they have come from 19 countries, and
for some in conditions that are more and more
difficult, as has been explained.
As we said, this conference is a starting point.
Yes, in our country, France, the Lisbon treaty
will be ratified tomorrow and the entire
propaganda machine will not miss this meeting.
But as a comrade said yesterday, we are in this
conference because we do not accept it anymore
but at the same time it seems that we are
convinced that we are not alone, that within the
workers movement resistance exists.
We leave this conference with the initiatives
that have been enumerated, with the Manifesto and
with the full report of the debates that will be
published as soon as possible in order to make
known the totality of the interventions in this
conference.
May everyone have a safe trip home. Down with the
European Union! Long live the European conference
of the workers! It's because we are
internationalists and because we are against the
European Union that I propose that we end the
conference with the signing of the International
in various languages.
----
A proposal by Marc Vassilieve was sent to us:
"The auto factories has undergone a series of
strikes, particularly at Ford in Vsevolojsk and
AVTOVAZ in Togliatti (Russia). Through their
mobilizations, the workers won their demands. But
the pressure on the independent unions has not
gone away.
The European Workers Conference on February 2 and
3 in Paris expresses its solidarity with the
workers in Russia and condemns the pressure
against the leader of the independent union,
Alexis Etmanoc, and on the union committee
"Unity" AVTOVAZ. This is a common cause and your
victories will also be ours."
It is thus proposed that our conference gives its
support to these activists. (Adopted)
-----
Dominique Vincenot
In the name of the organizing commission, I would
like to thank all the comrades that participated
in this conference, who have come from 19
countries, some in very difficult conditions. As
we have said, this conference is a first step.
Yes, in our country, France, the Lisbon treaty
will be ratified tomorrow and all the propaganda
machine will be working in full force.
But as a comrade said yesterday, we are at this
conference because we don't accept and because we
are convinced that we are not alone, that in the
workers' movement, the resistance process exists.
We will leave this conference with the
initiatives that were just noted, with the
Manifesto and with the full report on the
discussions that will be published in the
shortest time period, so that all the
interventions of this conference can be known.
Have a good trip home. Down with the European
Union! Long live the European Workers' Alliance!
And because we are internationalists, because we
are against the European Union, I propose to you
that we conclude by singing the International in
our respective languages.
-----
Contribution from Germany
Carla Boullboule
In the last elections in Landtag in Hesse, the
majority of the population rejected the policy of
the CDU government led by Koch, a model student
of the Grand Coalition, who followed the policies
of Agenda 2010 and Hartz IV which are expressions
of the EU directives. The government of the Great
Coalition did everything so that the German
people could not express with a vote their
rejection of the Lisbon treaty, a treaty that is
no more than a new version of the constitutional
project that was also rejected by the German
people, like all the other peoples of Europe. The
nervousness on the part of the SPD leadership
finds its expression in the letter previously
mentioned from the president of the SPD group to
all the SPD deputies which is in favor of a vote
for the treaty. This squares up against the open
letter from the trade unionists and the
social-democrats to the deputies which calls for
a vote against the treaty. But it would be false
to affirm that the EU is responsible for the
decisions that are not in agreement with the
values of the SPD. It would be false for example
to affirm that the Lisbon treaty is responsible
for the budget consolidation. It would be false
to affirm that it makes impossible an adequate
supply of public services, etc.
And yet it is a fact, and different contributions
have shown it, that the Lisbon treaty is part and
parcel of the antisocial and antidemocratic
Maastricht treaty, the stability pact and the EU
directives.
In Germany, and especially in especially in the
eastern part of Germany, entire regions have been
transformed into a desert by the application of
the Maastricht treaty and the stability pact.
The budget reductions demanded by the EU, the
privatizations, the fiscal reductions and the
drop in business spending result in disaster for
the budgets of the federal government, the
states, and the towns.
I would like to give as an example the
developments in Berlin, the city in which I live.
The Senate of Berlin, which is led by the SPD and
The Left (the party that comes out of the SED),
is characterized by its total subservience to the
terrible economic policy that the EU imposes upon
the country and by its total pursuit of the
policy of Agenda and of the Hartz laws from
Schröder that the Great Coalition itself has
fully taken up.
The balance sheet:
Today one child out of three lives on money from
Hartz IV. In other words, there is not enough
money for school lunches. The SPD/PDS Senate
eliminated more than 30,000 jobs from the public
service and another 20,000 should disappear in
the coming years. The kindergartens are
privatized. Cleanliness and hygiene in the public
schools is a catastrophe to the point of putting
in danger the health of the children. This is the
case because there are not enough funds for
renovations. Because of the budget cuts in the
hospitals of Berlin, the employees warn against
"healthcare that puts life at risk".
For a long time the European Commission has been
demanding that the public banking sector be
dismantled. It represents 45% of the total. In
the name of free competition it must be open to
speculation.
For an encore, the SPD/PDS Senate of Berlin went
ahead and under pressure from the EU has, for the
first time in Germany, opened the way for the
privatization of a savings bank and a public
bank. After the speculators have looted billions
of public money during the banking scandal, it is
presently 5 billion obtained from the sale of the
bank that must be paid to the speculators in
compensation for their losses! This looting of
the public coffers is paid for by the children
and the youth, by the destruction of the
educational system, the lack of teachers, the
sick, the elderly, and the public employees that
put up with lows wages and are subject to layoffs.
And they want to make us believe that the EU
policy and the Lisbon treaty are not responsible
for the destruction of the infrastructure and the
public services? Is it not instead a fact that
the article of the Lisbon treaty about "excessive
public deficits" reinforces this development?
Because the EU dictates in this way to the states
that it aims for a zero deficit, this means that
in place of the 3% requirement, the zero deficit
requirement is currently being imposed.
Article 107c of the Lisbon treaty gives the
government the possibility, five years after it
goes in to effect, of not only reducing
assistance to Berlin and to the states from the
East in the framework of the solidarity pact,
which was approved, but of completely eliminating
it. The consequences for Berlin and the states,
which have an urgent need for assistance, would
be disastrous. The calling into question of
German unity, which the German people wanted to
achieve with the fall of the wall and of the SED
bureaucracy, is going to be completed under the
political constraints imposed by the EU dictates
regarding budget consolidation and free
competition. It is to this policy that Berlin
owes its title of the capital of poverty.
In October 2006, there was a decision from the
German Constitutional Court that "advised" Berlin
to get rid of its social services as well as
public services and infrastructure support in
order to eliminate its debt. This decision is a
direct tool of the policy dictated by the EU and
led by the Great Coalition in order to
consolidate the public budgets. It is aimed at
the states and the towns but particularly the
towns and the states in the eastern part of the
country due to their high deficits and they see
themselves forced to abolish what is left in the
public domain.
Each time this provokes a wave of resistance on
the part of the people, as in Leipzig where the
mobilization stopped the sale of energy services
from the city to the gas industry of France.
The government of the Great Coalition actively
pursues the federalism reform. The objective of
this reform is to make the institutional arsenal
of the European stability pact and the deficit
standards of the Maastricht treaty be a part of
the constitution and become the supreme rules of
the state. In the name of the European federalism
of competition, the constitutional principal of
solidarity within federalism must be done away
with. The federalism reform deprives of any
meaning the basic principle of the republic of a
"federal democratic and social state" with its
need for "unified conditions of life".
The states will be under pressure from merciless
competition and a dumping of wages and social
services and Germany will dragged into social
decomposition that itself will lead to political
decomposition.
For years now, the social unity of the Republic
and the conditions for a unified life are being
weakened by the policy of The Agenda and the
divide between West and East is growing. The
resistance to the destructive policy of the EU
and the Great Coalition increases. This is shown
by the important industrial actions from last
year and those that are planned for this year as
well as the elections in Hesse. The majority of
the population can not accept and will not accept
that the hopes linked to the reunification of
Germany be reduced to ashes.
Can their exist another way other than that of a
break with the EU and all its institutions and an
exit from the EU as the manifesto correctly
proposes?
We, European workers, should be united in our
efforts to bring about a break with the EU, for
the victory of the no vote on the Lisbon treaty
and for an exit from the EU.
I an convinced that with this conference and this
common manifesto we will take an important step
forward.
I would like to add for the German delegation
that in the framework of the ILC of Europe we
have decided to build for next year in Berlin. We
especially are going to work for an alliance with
our collaborators from the eastern part of Europe
and to take our place within the liaison
committee that was formed in Cacak.
-----
European Workers Conference
February 2 and 3, 2008
Paris
MANIFESTO
-- We are political and trade union activists of
various horizons form all over Europe. We have
met in Paris on February 2nd-3rd at a key moment
in the life of the working-class and the peoples
in each of our countries.
Whether we are from the East or the West of our
continent we are suddenly confronted with the
danger of collapse in every aspect of what lay at
the basis of the reconstruction of our states
after they were devastated at the end of the
Second World War.
Never in time of peace have so many jobs in the
key sectors of industry, construction or even
agriculture, been slashed or relocated; never
have our collective rights in matters concerning
work, education, health, pensions, been
simultaneously attacked by the same directives
issued by the European Union Institutions.
As millions of workers and families are striving
to survive and therefore in each of our country
clearly raise the question of winning back all
those rights, of renationalizing the public
services that have to all intents and purposes
been broken up by the same policies of
privatization, and as the current dismantling of
industry raises the crucial question of
nationalizing or renationalizing the companies
under threat at this very moment we come up
against the incredible straightjacket of the
European Union.
In compliance with the principles of the market
economy in which "competition is free and
undistorted" and which form the very foundation
of the European Union treaties, the Court of
Justice has recently forbidden the Swedish trade
unions (and in effect all trade unions in Europe)
to demand the implementation of their collective
bargaining agreement against the dumping
practices of the bosses.
In compliance with those alleged "principles"
which are the antithesis of the whole judicial
framework won in our countries against the
"principles" of "free and undistorted
competition", it is declared to all those who
stand against the break-up of the aeronautics,
steel, and electronics (Nokia) industries that
the state is banned from nationalizing or even
subsidizing any enterprise whatsoever.
In order to create a straitjacket aimed at
enforcing a ban on any expression of the people's
will, the governments of our countries have
decided, in agreement with the governing bodies
of the European Union, to mount a real coup and
impose, behind the people's back, the Lisbon
Treaty, a mere repeat of the "European
Constitution" that was rejected by the French and
Dutch peoples.
None of us, no working-class activist, none of
our peoples, can accept the result of the putsch
that has been mounted with a view to introducing
a totalitarian order that could give capitalists
the guarantees they want concerning the total
implementation of what the European Union has
undertaken for many years, which has been
accelerated since the Maastricht Treaty and has
reached an unprecedented degree of brutality in
the aftermath of the most recent attacks launched
in connection with the financial crisis of a
capitalist system itself in crisis.
None of us, no working-class activist, can accept
an order in which trade unionists are thrown into
jail - as is happening in Romania - for having
abided by the mandate given by their union, or an
order in which - as is happening in Spain -
hundreds of trade unionists are placed under
judicial supervision because they have gone on
strike.
None of us, no working-class activist, can accept
that millions of migrant workers should be
scapegoated by the European Union and the
governments and submitted to repression and
super-exploitation.
None of us, none of our peoples, can accept the
fact that those who have decided to mount this
incredible attack against democracy dare claim to
be inspired by "the right of peoples to
self-determination" when - as they are doing
today in Belgium or Kosovo - they do their best
to split and break up the nations in order to be
better able to crush democratic rights and the
gains won by workers.
None of us can accept the fact that the ECB, in
the name of the fight against inflation, imposes
a policy that cuts all wages, extends
deregulation and the casualization of labor,
works in close cooperation with the FED to
"accompany" the fall of the dollar, which results
in something very similar to a bombing of our
industries. And all this only serves investment
funds and US capital.
None of us can accept the fact that with the new
treaty, contingents of soldiers from our
countries are going to be forced to intervene in
Afghanistan, in the Middle East _ at the US
government's beck and call, the fact that more
and more American bases are being built, like
"Camp Bondsteel" in Kosovo or the new radar bases
in central Europe.
The Future Is In Our Hands
To secure a future of peace, welfare and freedom
in Europe, as a contribution to the fight for
emancipation put up by workers all over the
world, let us unite to win back our rights
against capital and break with the European Union
and its treaties, which is the precondition for
building of a Free Union of the Free peoples of
Europe.
The labor movement in Europe is confronted with a dilemma:
Either it accompanies that destructive policy (in
the name of an alleged "Social Europe"), and this
means it is bound to disappear as a working-class
movement that defends its specific interests.
Or it breaks with the European institutions and
withdraws from the European Union, thereby paving
the way for a Free Union of the Free peoples of
Europe, a Europe of peace and progress, of
fraternal cooperation between the peoples, on the
basis of the reconquest of all the rights that
have been undermined both in the East and the
West of the continent, especially the right
(abolished by the Maastricht Treaty) to
nationalize and renationalize the sectors of the
economy that are today threatened with immediate
liquidation.
We are appealing to all the organizations and
activists who are committed to the labor
movement: Is there any other alternative?
Should we not, on those bases and in respect for
one another's traditions and positions, together
form a European Liaison Committee of Workers,
whose first act will to publish the discussion we
have had at the Workers Conference of February
2nd-3rd 2008 in the first issue of a liaison
bulletin and on this basis wage and coordinate a
European campaign to say No to the Lisbon Treaty
and support the struggle of those who, in
countries that are not member of the EU, fight -
on the internationalist positions of the labor
movement - against joining the EU?
Isn't this the only way to be loyal to the old
slogan "Workers of the world, unite!" which 160
years ago gave rise to the working-class movement
at the international level?
-----
First signers of the Manifesto
Germany
ALTMANN Michael, unionist Ver.di, member of the
leadership of Hesse du Sud de l'AfA (commission
ouvrière) SPD;
BECKER Heinrich, GEW;
BOULBOULLE Carla, GEW unionist, member of
editorial board of "Sozial Politik und
Demokratie";
BRANDT Gabrielle, Ver.di;
BUNZ Kerstin, Ver.di member of the branch in Cologne;
FALKE Elke, Ver.di;
FREY Henning, SPD/GEW teacher unionist;
FUTTERER Michael, vice president of the regional
leadership of GEW, education union, SPD;
GÜRSTER Eva, Ver.di, SPD;
GÜRSTER Julian, IRJ;
HESSE Lothar, ex-secrétaire de Ver.di;
KISSELS Uli, membre de la direction de section du SPD;
KLEIN Brigitte, membre de la commission branche
enseignement professionnel GEW Heilbronn;
KRUPP Gotthard, SPD, Ver.di;
LEISLING Monika, Ver.di;
LUDWIG Barbara, DGB regional leadership Hesse du Sud GEW -SPD;
MEES Hans-Jürgen, Ver.di, member of the regional
leadership Rhénanie du Nord-Westphalie-NRW;
MEISTER Maria, Ver.di;
MÖSAR Ingo, Ver.di vice president of the shop council;
OTT Lothar, GEW/SPD;
PRASUHN Volker, Ver.di, SPD-AfA;
SCHÜLLER Heingard, BAU/IG construction union;
SCHÜLLER Klaus, Transnet /SPD, vice president of Afa of Thuringe;
SCHUSTER Anna, SPD /AfA, Ver.di;
SCHUSTER Heinz-Werner Ver.di, president of AfA, Düsserdolf
SCHEFING Günter Ver.di;
SIEWEKE Beate, SPD/Ver.di;
WERNECKE Monika, Ver.di;
ZUTZ Axel, SPD, member of the leadership of AfA, Berlin, IG BAU;
Belgium
DRAIDI Fayçal, unionist, FGTB;
GIARROCCO Roberto, FGTB-CGSP;
LARSIMONT Philippe, coordinator of the MDT
(Mouvement de défense des travailleurs);
MONSIEUR Serge, Vice president FGTB/CGSP (Vivaqua);
PALMANS Olivier, CGSP Télécom-Aviation
(intersectorielle- interprofessionnelle)
principal delegate, member of the PS;
THONUS Joelle, CGSP, member of the PS;
Denmark
CHRISTENSEN Kirsten Annette, LFS (teachers union);
HALLUM Eva, Popular Movement Against the EU;
LAUGESEN Bent, Copenhagen construction union;
SÖRENSEN Per, Popular Movement Against the EU, Copenhagen construction
union;
Spain
ALCOLEA Javier, "Workers and Youth for the REpublic";
GONZALEZ Ana, student;
GARCIA-CANO LOCATELLI, Pablo delegate CC.OO. of
the factory committee in John Deere, Madrid;
GONZALEZ Luis, member of the confederal council CC.OO.;
NFALY Faty;
ORTEGA Blas, UGT, unionist;
SANCHEZ Jose, UGT union branch, mayor of Leganes; SECUNDO Facho, Madrid;
France
ARNOLD Frank, PT;
BARROIS Jean Pierre, PT;
DENIS Jean Claude, Comité permanent pour un parti ouvrier;
DORIANE Olivier, PT;
GAUTHIER Lucien, PT;
GAUQUELIN Marc, PT;
GLUCKSTEIN Daniel, coordinateur de l'Entente
internationaledes travailleurs et des peuples,
secrétaire national du Parti des travailleurs,
Comité permanent pour un parti ouvrier;
JEANNENEY Pierre, Maire;
JENET Claude, syndicaliste, militant laïque;
KEISER Christel, PT, Comité permanent pour un parti ouvrier;
MENNECIER Jean, PT;
PRIVOLT Grégoire, AJR, délégué de Lyon;
SALAMERO Joachim, anarcho-syndicaliste;
SAVY Aimé, Comité permanent pour un parti ouvrier, maire
adjoint;
SCHIDLOWER Marie-Claude, PT;
SHAPIRA Daniel, PT;
SCHIVARDI Gérard, Maire de Mailhac (11), Comité
permanent pour un parti ouvrier;
SIMONNIN Michèle, syndicaliste;
SOURBES Christian, Maire;
VINCENOT Dominique, PT;
WEBER Carine, Comité permanent pour un parti ouvrier, syndicaliste,
socialiste;
Great Britain
MOTT Henry, TGWU/ UNITE (in a personal capacity);
Hungary
ANJISZONYAN Klara, activist;
ASZTALOS Laszlo, unionist of the Workers' Council;
KOVACKS Marika;
SIRALY Ida, (Communist militant);
Italy
CROCE Ugo, editorial board "Tribuna Libera";
VARALDO Lorenzo, teacher, member of the leadership of UIL- school in
Turin;
Moldavia
NAZARENKO Evgueni, "Popular Resistance"
Portugal
PEREIRA Carmelinda, leader of the POUS;
REBELO Naida, Socialist Party;
Czech Republic
CUMPELIK Jan, KSCM;
TESAR Jan, editor of the bulletin EET-EIT;
Romania
COZMA Miron;
NICULAIE Constantin, editor of "Tribuna Sociala";
TUDOR Marian, president of the Association for
the Emancipation of Workers (AEM);
ROTARV Pusa, AEM, Bucharest;
Russia
GOLOVIZNINE Mark;
Serbia
IMSIROVIC Pavlusko, Political Workers Alliance;
VELICKOVIC Duro, unionist EPS;
Slovakia
JURICOVA Jela, "Bulletin EET-EIT"
NOVAK Rudolf;
NOVAKOVA Beata;
Sweden
GUSTAFSSON Jan-Erik, president of the movement "No to the European
Union"
Switzerland
ANOR Albert, teacher, member of the Swiss Socialist Party;
DIJAMATOKIC Christine, unionist;
HERRANZ Antonio SSP/public services union;
PILLET Alain-Pierre, Geneva;
SYSELIYCK Joëlle SSP (health sector), Geneva;
VAGNI Giacomo, student;
-----
Appeal to a European Workers Conference in Stockholm
For the repeal of the judgment by the European
Court of Justice concerning the Laval building
site in Vaxholm
We inform you of the events that took place in
Sweden and which threaten all the labor movement,
all the trade unions in every country
Latvian company Laval and Partners posted several
dozen workers from Latvia to building sites in
Sweden, notably to the town of Vaxholm. The
Swedish Construction union engaged talks with the
company concerning the wages given to the Latvian
workers and in order to make the company sign the
Swedish collective bargaining in the sector of
building.
The Swedish union took action against Laval over
the company's refusal to sign the collective
bargaining contract with a blockade of the
building site of Vaxholm, then of all the
building sites of the company in Sweden. As a
consequence of this industrial action, which the
Swedish electricity workers had joined in with a
sympathy action, the activity of the company was
interrupted.
On December 18, 2007, the European Court of
Justice ruled that the blockade imposed by the
Swedish construction and electricity workers'
unions in 2004 to the Latvian company Laval was
unlawful.
The ruling of the Court of justice is clear:
"Such action in the form of a blockade of sites
constitutes a restriction on the freedom to
provide services which, in this case, is not
justified with regard to the public interest of
protecting worker." This is the implementation of
Article 49 of the Maastricht Treaty, which is
taken up again without any change in the new
Lisbon Treaty.
What are the consequences in Sweden and other Nordic countries?
The judgment of the European Court of Justice is
a destructive attack against all the trade unions
in Sweden with consequences throughout the
European Union. The Court imposed minimum norms
to foreign workers posted to a Member State. This
is in contradiction with the Swedish and Nordic
tradition, which is to negotiate collective
bargaining contracts between employers and trade
unions without any interference of the State.
This opens the gate to social dumping, to the
lowering of wages and to the destruction of the
Unions. The "freedom to provide services", the
"freedom of movement" are incompatible with
Swedish collective bargaining.
With this judgment, the Court cancelled the law
called "Lex Britannica" which allows a trade
union to go on a strike or blockade to safeguard
the Swedish collective bargaining contracts.
How dare the European Union and its institutions
declare null and void a Swedish collective
bargaining rightfully negotiated by Swedish trade
unions?
Today this concerns Sweden, but this is a threat
looming over collective bargaining, all the trade
unions in all the countries of Europe. This
judgment is not an exception.
Finland. On December 11, the European Court of
justice blamed the Finnish trade union concerning
the Finnish company Viking Line, in order to
lower the cost of exploitation of the company,
had decided to register the ship Rosella in
Estonia, in order to hire Estonian staff, with
lower wages than Finnish wages.
The Finnish Seamen's Union which organize the
crew on the Rosella expressed their opposition to
such a project and appealed the International
Transport Workers' Federation (ITF), which is the
umbrealla organization for 600 unions in this
sector and fights against the use flags of
convenience. This Federation sent to their
affiliate Members a circular forbidding
negotiation with Viking, which caused the failure
of the relocating project. The company lodged a
complaint before the Court and at the end of the
trial, the European Court of justice reached a
decision.
On December 11, the Court of justice blamed the
Finnish union with the following arguments: "The
Court notes that the provisions of the Treaty
concerning the freedom of establishment are
applied to a collective action engaged by a union
or a group of unions (_). The provisions on the
freedom of establishment confer rights on a
private undertaking which can be opposed to a
union or an association of unions."
In Denmark, the first head-on attack against the
system of Danish collective bargaining took place
in 2006 when the employers had the European Court
of justice (for the respect of Human Rights)
condemn a bipartite agreement between a workers
union and the employers in a negotiation in a
company of a sector. Now, the European Court of
justice can go further and attack the traditional
right to organize a blockade.
The decision of the European Court of justice
calls into question the right to negotiate freely
a collective bargaining between workers unions
and employers, it calls into question the right
of blockade, the right to go on a strike, the
right of workers to organize freely and decide
freely their actions.
The "Laval case" causes reactions within the Swedish labor
movement
Immediately after the Court's decision, the
President of the Left Party, Lars Ohly, called
for Sweden to leave the European Union. At a
Social-Democrat Party conference in Lund, in the
south of Sweden on January 12-13, the
Social-Democrats and the president of "Swedish
Building Workers" in Lund, Tord Persson said:
"European Union laws must change, unless we have
to re-examine the affiliation of Sweden to the
European Union."
This judgment concerns all Europe
In the case of Vaxholm, the Court of justice
called into question the fact that the Latvian
undertaking was compelled to sign a collective
bargaining and negotiate the wages.
But tomorrow, in any other country, another
judgment of the Court of justice can deal with
any other aspect of labor laws, considering it is
above the minimum requirements of the guideline
on posted workers.
On December 11 and 18, the European Court of
justice passed two judgments which massively
attack the right of unions to make decisions of
struggle and to organize and realize strikes.
Once again, this shows that the right to strike
and the European Union policy are irreconcilable.
What is left of our sovereignty? What is left of
the right to negotiate freely, to go on a strike,
to organize a blockade?
We, Swedish and Danish activists, meeting at the
European Workers Conference for the NO to the
Lisbon Treaty, held on February 2 - 3 in Paris,
conference convened by trade union and political
activists from 19 countries of Europe and the
International Liaison Committee, opposing the
destructive onslaught of the European Union
against all our rights and gains, we express our
support for the NO to the Lisbon Treaty, for the
abrogation of the Maastricht and Amsterdam
treaties for the break with the European Union.
We do not pose these issues as a precondition in
the struggle for unity against the judgment of
the European Court of justice.
We launch an appeal to a European Workers
Conference in Sweden, to say: There is no
legitimacy of whatever international institution
to call into question the social laws wrested by
centennial struggles of the working class and
their organizations in the framework of nations.
The undersigned, participants in the European
Workers Conference, have already endorsed our
initiative.
Jan-Erik Gustafsson, President of the Movement No to the European Union,
Sweden
Per Sorensen Member of the People's Movement
against the European Union - Denmark and
President of its workers' Commission.
Eva Hallum member of the People's movement against the European Union
- Denmark
Bent Laugesen Building and environment workers union Denmark
Kirsten Annette Christensen Teachers Union Denmark
Daniel Gluckstein, coordinator of the
International Liaison Committee of Workers and
Peoples
Back to Home Back
to ILC Newsletter Index
|
Open World Conference of Workers