|
INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATIONS TO
The13th Conference In Defense of the ILO Conventions and Trade Union
Independence
Geneva, Sunday, June 11, 2006
The countries represented were Algeria, Germany, Bangladesh, Belgium,
Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Ivory Coast, France, Gabon, India, Italy,
Niger, Pakistan, Romania, Senegal, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Togo,
and Chad.
A discussion began concerning the questions posed by the "new
trade union international."
On Sunday June 11, delegations from 21 countries came together in Geneva
at the 13th Conference of the ILC In Defense of the ILO Conventions
and Trade Union Independence
This conference opened up a needed discussion concerning the reality
of the "new trade union international," which is set to be
founded on November 1, 2006 in Vienna, after the dissolution of the
ICFTU and the WCL.
In his introduction, Daniel Gluckstein, coordinator of the ILC, spoke
of the connection between the threats to the International Labor Organization
(ILO) and the questions posed by the "new trade union international,"
as well as the world summit of the U.N. of last autumn.
Due to the importance of the discussion at this conference, we will
be publishing all of the speeches. In this message you will find the
introductory presentations by Daniel Gluckstin and Luc Delay.
The ILC is not in competition with any other organization of the workers´
movement. Its mission is not to formulate a program. Its responsibility
is to inform, alert and discuss these questions which affect the future
of the workers´ movement. At the end of the rich debate, the following
proposals were made:
-- To organize the debate and continue the discussion, not only on
a national level, but in the framework of the newsletter of the ILC.
In the ILC International Newsletter we will include, until November,
a special section on this discussion, beginning with the publication
of speeches presented at the Geneva conference.
-- To mandate the bureau of the ILC to write a letter to all the affected
organizations and all the delegates to the November 1st Congress in
Vienna, to discuss with them the need to preserve the independence of
trade union organizations.
********************
INTRODUCTORY SPEECH BY DANIEL GLUCKSTEIN,
COORDINATOR, ILC
We are here today at the 13th Conference of the ILC In Defense of the
ILO Conventions and Trade Union Independence.
For the last 13 years we have met here to discuss together the threats
against the ILO Conventions and to reflect on the ways for the workers´
movement, while respecting its diversity, to face these problems.
This year, we are confronted with important new developments.
Everybody who participates in this annual conference and all those
who are delegates to the International Labor Conference of the ILO,
which takes place each year in Geneva, know that this year there is
a very important event that will take place on November 1st in Vienna:
The creation of a new trade union international. (It may be necessary
to put quotation marks around the word trade union -- in any case, this
is a discussion we should begin.)
There is a relationship between what is going on in the ILO and the
developments in the trade union movement.
All this is also linked to the World Summit of the U.N. which took
place a few months ago, last Autumn. The question that must be posed
is the following: Aren't we faced with a brutal modification, that is,
the disappearances of the system on which the ILO is based?
I say this because the ILO, as we all know, is a based on a tripartite
conception, with representatives from the governments, the bosses, and
the trade unions. However, there is a particularly deepened tendency
on an international level (which does not fail to strike the ILO) aiming
to undermine the tripartite character of the ILO, and in doing so, the
existence of independent workers´ organizations -- and, linked
to this, the existence of sovereign states.
In the framework of what is being called the march to the "world
governance," isn´t what´s at stake the disappearance
of independent workers´ organizations and the disappearance of
states and nations?
These are subjects which we have discussed in previous conferences;
those of you who participated in these are familiar with the subject.
But with every year that passes, this question is becoming more and
more serious. Undoubtedly, today, we must ask ourselves if quantity
is transforming into quality.
Before returning to the heart of the discussion, permit me one parenthesis,
seeing as we are in Europe.
Luc Deley, the Swiss delegate who opened our conference spoke of the
policies of the European Union. The majority of you have surely heard
that a few weeks ago, Europe saw the creation of a new "sovereign"
state: Montenegro -- with its 600,000 citizens and its 14,000 square
kilometers - is now "independent," due to a referendum organized
by the European Union (EU). The EU set in advance the percent needed
for "independence" at 55%. Miraculously, this percent was
reached, with 55.4%. But the most significant thing was not that Montenegro
was proclaimed independent, but rather that immediately after the referendum,
the European Union declared: "The independence of Montenegro opens
the path to a new era, in which a multitude of new states in Europe
will prosper."
The newspaper The London Times, whose credibility cannot be doubted,
went so far as to publish a map (see Page 4).
It's the map of what they announce will be new "sovereign states"
in the European Union between now and the year 2020. And there is even
discussion that many of these "states" might be summoned into
existence long before that.
The list is significant: Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the French and Spanish
Basque Country, French and Spanish Catalonia, Andalusia, Sardinia, Corsica,
Walloon separated from Flanders -- making Belgium disappear -- with
the South Tyrol proclaiming its independence. Also on the list: the
Serb republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the remainder of Bosnia-Herzegovina
of the Serb republic, Kosovo, the republic of Transniestria, in the
east of Moldavia, South Ossetia, Chechnia, Nagory-Karabak, Kurdistan
and North Cyprus.
Beyond the whimsical character of the list -- though the London Times,
we should note, is not a whimsical newspaper -- there is a certain logic.
This is the logic of the atomization of states and nations, the generalized
dismemberment of sovereign states. This is the logic of unending balkanization.
There is a connection between this and what they are proposing in the
framework of the ILO.
The U.N. Summit met a few months ago. The World Commission on the "Social
Dimension of Globalization" -- created by the ILO in February 2004
-- successfully proposed to the Summit a perspective (reiterated in
the ILO´s documents this year) that affirms that "we are
in favor of fair globalization. And we have decided to make full employment
and decent and productive jobs for all our fundamental objectives for
our national policies."
The ILO is thus mandated by the World Summit of the U.N. to work for
the implementation of "fair" globalization.
In one of the reports presented this year, the ILO referred to this
mandate -- more or less given to it by the U.N. I would like to read
to you three or four quotes from these reports prepared for the Annual
Conference of the ILO, which is taking place at the moment.
In one of these reports, we find the following quote: "Important
programs are currently being implemented, dedicated to the development
of the business spirit." Comrades, this poses a problem.
It is perfectly normal that in a tripartite meeting, compromises between
the governments and states, bosses, and trade unions should take place.
But the "business spirit" is a whole separate matter. The
"business spirit" is implemented by the heads of companies.
In relation to the Europe which the ILO has decided to work for, we
find the following formulation: It is necessary "to work for the
reform of pensions in Europe." All the labor activists present
here know the meaning of the "reform of pensions in Europe."
It means the undermining of all the existing pension systems in our
countries.
The second strategic objective set by the report proposes to "promote
the business spirit at all levels" and mentions the "growing
interest for ILO activities concerning the corporate responsibilities."
This is not the logic of necessary compromise between trade union organizations
and organizations of the bosses.
Activists deal with compromises on a daily basis. But when one mandates
the companies with a "social responsibility," you substitute
the framework of demands for the framework of "social progress."
This can only take place through the integration of the workers´
organizations into the company and, in general, into the transnationals.
In the report of the President of the Administrative Council of the
International Labor Bureau, we find: "It was admitted that the
regulation of the labor market could have inconvenient consequences,
if it is poorly conceived or implemented in too strict a manner."
Comrades, the workers throughout the world have heard all the arguments
concerning the "too strict" or "too constraining"
nature of labor regulations. The bosses and governments tell us this
so that they can impose deregulation, and the undermining of collective
rights and of labor codes in all countries. It is normal that this be
the language of the bosses and the governments.
But can the ILO respect its tripartite structure by associating all
its members to this struggle against the "too strict" labor
market? If we answer yes to this question, it follows that the workers´
organizations themselves should join the fight for "less strict"
labor regulations. This is precisely one of the problems posed today
by this march to the "world governance" and the "new
united international trade unionism" promised for us at the Vienna
Congress. The purpose of the trade unions would no longer be to defend
the material and moral interests of the wage earners by preserving their
full independence vis a vis the capitalist class and the state.
The mission of the trade unions would be to become the social components
of globalization, that is, the social component of the "world governance."
Is this an exaggeration?
Before responding to this question, I would like to remind you of the
definition of Pascal Lamy, the General Director of the WTO, concerning
the definition of governance. He notes the difference between the words
"governance" and "government." He states:
"'Governance'" aims to ensure a co-existence (and sometimes
a consensus) between different and sometimes conflicting points of view.
Evidently, this is different from government. In most cases, governments
arise from universal suffrage and are supposed to represent the general
interest -- but they are not supposed to synthesize different or conflicting
interests.
"In a democratic and organized society, the different or conflicting
interests are expressed through trade unions and, on a political plane,
through political pluralism. But the framework of governance aims to
make different or conflicting interests permanently co-exist -- the
meaning of the term is the same concerning both "world governance"
and "corporate governance."
In reality, this is a new form of the labor-capital partnership, a
new form of corporatism, in which divergent interests must always result
in a common decision. This is the true meaning of this term "governance,"
utilized everywhere for the past few years.
The real problem facing us is the following: Do we still live in a
society divided into social classes with antagonistic interests? If
this is so, why should the workers throw out truly independent organizations?
Don´t we still live in a society where capitalist exploitation
rests on the extorsion of surplus-value and a relationship of exploitation?
We have the right to pose these questions because, by putting forward
the plan for "world governance," all the international institutions
(the IMF, the World Bank, the U.N., and also the so-called regional
institutions, such as MERCOSUR, FTAA, ALENA, ACEAN, and OECD) are demanding
to be part of the construction of this "world governance."
In reality, what is planned is the integration of the international
trade union movement. This is why the "world governance" must
be unified on an international level.
Some union leaders have gone very far on this road. You know that,
a year ago, there was an important division in the trade union movement
in the United States. A significant number of trade unions broke with
the AFL-CIO and constituted a new regroupment -- which is not a new
trade union federation -- called Change to Win, which groups together
various national trade unions.
Andy Stern, the leader of SEIU -- the main union of Change to Win,
made the following statement last February 27, in an interview published
by Epoch Times:
"SEIU's goal for 2006 is to go global and to bring unions and
corporations together as partners, not enemies. I think that what we're
going to see happen within ten years, if not sooner, is a convergence
of a global labor movement."
Stern continued:
""Employers need to recognize that the world has changed
and there are people who would like to help them provide solutions in
ways that are new, modern and that add value to companies. ... A partnership
between labor and corporations would be a step towards the intended
goal."
Addressing himself to the trade union movement, Stern then added:
"On the other side of the coin, union members have to understand
that companies are not their enemy, but must think about increasing
shareholders' wealth. ... Labor should ask itself, 'how can I contribute
to meeting those [shareholders'] expectations in a way that also meets
mine'?"
The positive side of these quotes, linked to a positive American tradition,
is that all is said openly. The positive side of Andy Stern is that
he says out loud what others say in a more camouflaged manner; namely,
that it is necessary for the worker to be organically connected to his
or her company, for the worker to understand that his or her well-being
depends on the well-being of his or her company, and hence it is necessary
for the union and the bosses to co-manage the company.
Comrades, in this conception, the idea of trade union independence
must be eliminated because the workers and bosses have common interests.
We know that each time such a system has been implemented -- in all
its different forms -- it has never led to a rise in living and working
standards, but rather it has taken away the workers´ instruments
to defend their interests. It has always resulted in political and social
deterioration, at least for the working class.
I would like to bring your attention to the way in which Andy Stern,
the main leader of Change to Win, poses the problem of the future of
trade unionism.
You all know that at this moment in the United States, mobilizations
of millions and millions of immigrant workers are taking place against
the anti-immigrant proposals of the government, measures meant to divide
the working class.
This struggle has created an extremely important debate in the U.S.
trade union movement.
First of all, all the trade unions -- both within Change to Win and
the AFL-CIO -- have participated (with various levels of intensity)
in these mobilizations in defense of the immigrant workers, against
the division of the working-class. They should be commended for doing
so.
But in relation to these mobilizations, a question is posed: What is
the role of a trade union?
Should it be, as the leaders of Change to Win have done, to write with
the legislators a law concerning immigrant workers? In the pursuit of
the goals and principles I outlined a few moments ago, the leaders of
Change to Win and SEIU participated together with Republican and Democratic
senators (notably John McCain and Edward Kennedy and) in writing a legislate
bill titled S.1033. This bill essentially says: Let´s not let
Mr. Bush himself decide on the repressive measures to be taken against
the immigrant workers; let´s decide on these measures together,
so that they will be less harsh.
Of course, this bill (which contains measures aimed at militarizing
the border, deporting immigrant workers and undermining their rights)
is infinitely less brutal than the initial proposal by Bush.
The debate in the trade union movement concerns the following question:
In the name of the "lesser evil," should a trade union write
legislation that undermines workers´ rights? Or should a trade
union reject being a co-legislator of such a law and defend the rights
of immigrant workers?
The latter is the position of the AFL-CIO, particularly defended by
its vice president, Linda Chavez-Thompson.
I think the debate in its form is North American, but its content concerns
all of us. Is the role of a trade union to be a co-legislator?
More and more, the trade unions are being invited to occupy this role
by all the governments and all the regional, continental, African, American,
and Asian institutions.
All the trade unions have been invited to play this role, and a certain
number have accepted. Others have refused. This is a debate we should
discuss today.
Should the trade union be a co-legislator?
For my part, I think that becoming a co-legislator undermines trade
union independence and integrates the trade unions into the government.
Isn´t this governance?
I think it is necessary to discuss these questions because this debate
concerns the "international trade union fusion" planned for
November.
I, personally, think we make an error when we speak of a "union
fusion" or "new union international." I don´t think
these terms correspond to reality. Let´s open the discussion.
This new "trade union" institution being proposed in November
is first and foremost an instrument to destroy the existing international
trade union confederations, notably the ICFTU, to undermine the existing
trade union federations as they exist in different countries, and to,
bit by bit, integrate them into the process called "world governance."
On this theme, I want to raise another question. One of the forms taken
by this march toward the "world governance" is the undermining
of national trade union federations.
We know that the history of the class struggle in each one of our countries
gives its trade union movement very different forms from one country
to another.
I don´t think there is one model that is better than the others.
But the general rule of the class struggle in all countries is that,
whatever the form of the development of the workers´ movement,
it always arrives at a stage in which local, sectorial, and professional
unions come together in a confederation (which doesn´t necessarily
call itself a confederation; sometime calling itself a central, or,
in the case of the AFL-CIO, a federation).
The significance of this organization is that the working class is
a class, with members both in the public and private sectors, in small
and big industries, and in different regions. They are members of the
working class because all their organizations come together in a confederation.
In each country, the weight of the working class -- its political and
social weight -- is often directly related to the level of strength
of the confederation.
It is shocking to see how the undermining of the existence of trade
union organizations is concentrated against the existence of national
confederations. This drive is not only the work of the governments and
regional institutions -- it is also supported by sectors within the
labor movement.
I spoke of the United States. Independently of the reasons for the
split between the AFL-CIO and Change to Win -- it is possible to differ
in our assessment of these reasons -- it is clear that the AFL-CIO is
a confederation, even if it calls itself a federation. Change to Win
did not constitute itself as a confederation. It also explained why
it didn´t care to do so.
The leaders of Change to Win explained -- beginning with Andy Stern
-- that it is necessary to participate within the framework of the multinationals,
to create more useful results. Thus what is important is not the confederation
or federation, but rather promoting what is essentially a company trade
union -- whether on a world level (if the company is a multinational
corporation) or on a local level.
But the trade union confederation, based on the fact that all workers
in a nation have common interests, is in contradiction with the plan
for a vertical union, integrated into a multinational or company. From
this stems the fact that Change to Win is not a confederation.
This phenomenon can also be seen in Brazil. The congress of the CUT
-- the main trade union confederation in Brazil -- just ended yesterday.
Various sectors of the CUT decided to leave the CUT a few months ago
because of a certain number of disagreements with the CUT leadership.
These positions can be discussed. I personally do not share their points
of view. These sectors formed a regroupment called CONLUTAS, which held
its congress on May 6.
In this CONLUTAS congress, a discussion occurred concerning the question:
"Should we found a new confederation?" It decided not to do
so. "Should we found a new trade union central?" It decided
not to do so. "Should we found a new opposition current in the
CUT?" It decided not to do so. The congress decided to "found
a movement larger than just a labor union. It will be a movement that
will include NGOs, associations, etc." In other words, the class
character of their union organizations is dissolved, becoming instead
a component of so-called "civil society," the "movement
of movements," the Social Forums, and NGOs. This means the undermining
of the existence of trade union confederations.
In our respective countries, we know well that sectors of the labor
movement, together with the government, aim to undermine the existence
of federations. I think there is a relationship with this problem.
The working classes were constituted in the framework of nations. They
created their trade union confederations, which express their existence
as a class, within the framework of nations. We are witnessing an offensive
against the existence of nations as well as an offensive against a confederated
trade union movement, and thus an offensive against the existence of
the working class as such.
This question is posed in the draft of the statutes (or bylaws) of
the new world confederation to be formed in November in Vienna. We all
know the statutes of our own trade unions.
From the preamble of the statues of the new world trade union confederation,
I quote the following:
"The confederations assume the duties of fighting poverty, exploitation,
oppression, and inequality." Many charitable organizations throughout
the world (both secular and religious) have sought -- even before the
existence of the labor movement -- to fight poverty, misery, and indigence.
It is also possible to fight spite, evil, and ugliness. But these statutes
do not mention defending the specific interests of the exploited.
The form or vocabulary matters little. To defend the interests of the
workers, of the exploited. I am sure that in all our countries, the
statutes of all real trade union confederations contain a similar phrase
whose content (if not its form) is the same.
Here, not only is this phrase not present, but (in its place) we find:
"The new world confederation aims to fight for the democratic governance
of the economy, in the interests of labor, which it prioritizes over
those of capital."
This is all said in a pretty manner, comrades. But what this essentially
says is that, in the framework of the "world governance" (a
labor-capital association) the representatives of labor will try not
to cede too much to the representatives of capital. But, in any case,
what we have here is the world governance and corporatism.
I doubt that a trade union organization worthy of the name can fight
based on these premises. This is not only a world project, but it is
one that will have consequences concerning the events of the workers´
movement in each of our countries.
We all know that as this project is implemented on an international
level, the proposals find relays in each of our countries in very concrete
ways.
There are three components of this world trade union central: the ICFTU,
the WCL, and a third group made up of national trade union organizations
which up to now have not been affiliated to either the ICFTU or the
WCL.
Some of these are important confederations which belonged to the World
Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU). Others are unaffiliated centrals.
What is the position of the trade union confederations concerning this
new international formation, which they dare to call a "trade union
central"? First of all, this debate has not even taken place in
many organizations. In a few organizations a debate took place and in
others, at the very least, the question was touched upon in a few recent
congresses. I´ll speak about two, but I´m sure the comrades
here can speak of others.
In the congress of the Brazilian CUT which just took place, a motion
was presented that called for "the defense and autonomy of the
CUT in the face of the government, the defense of union democracy and
working class unionism against ´proposal´ unionism, the
fight for the renationalization of the privatized enterprises against
the policies of ´corporate social responsibility,´ and the
condemnation of the new world confederation." This motion received
25% of the votes. This, at the very least, demonstrates that the discussion
is posed.
Also, the congress of the CUT unanimously voted in favor of the following
resolution: "Faced with the recomposition of world trade unionism,
the CUT reaffirms that the principal objective of any organization on
any level should be to defend the interests of the workers against capitalist
exploitation."
That the congress of the CUT judged it necessary to pass this motion
-- even if it didn´t want to condemn this new international formation
-- represents, at the very least, an obstacle toward the type of organization
that is being built like to build. It shows that this debate must take
place.
In France, this debate took place during the recent congress of the
CGT union federation. Bernard Thibault, the general secretary of the
CGT, and his organization play a central role in the third group of
the new international formation.
What are the arguments of Thibault? Here is a quote from the pre-congress
forum of the CGT, dedicated to the international questions, in which
representatives of all the international organizations (ICFTU, WCL,
and the European Trade Union Confederation, ETUC) participated:
"We are in the process of building the unionism of the 21th Century.
In France, with the impetus of the ETUC, we have progressed down this
road." (There is not enough time right now, but I hope the French
comrades will return to the discussion on whether the ETUC is a factor
for trade union independence or not.)
Thibault was more specific:
"Even if we are only beginning, the goal is to set up union networks
inside the multinationals." Comrades, the conception of union networks
inside multinationals is linked to Andy Stern´s proposals. It
is a conception that blunts, at the very least, or eliminates the fact
that the class is a class through its organizations and its confederations.
Thibault adds: "Of course, the national framework remains pertinent,
but it is necessary to be lucid: social relations between states are
no longer sufficient."
That social relations between states are no longer sufficient is not
a new idea. For instance, it was to complete the work of the national
trade union confederations that the ILO was constituted almost 80 years
ago; naturally, the role of the ILO is to elaborate conventions which
once ratified by states are backed by the force of law and are thus
a point of leverage for trade union organizations.
But Bernard Thibault is not referring to this. He adds: "Social
relations between states are no longer sufficient despite all the efforts
of our unionist comrades inside the Workers´ Group of the ILO;
this institution is not up to the task of providing norms adapted to
the new context of globalization."
I think that this affirmation is extremely debatable. I think that
the difficulty of enforcing the ILO Conventions is first of all linked
to an offensive led for various years against the ILO system of conventions
(which have a constraining character) for the seven fundamental norms,
which are only principles and recommendations with no binding character
upon states. This is what has weakened the power of the ILO.
But if we say the opposite, that is, that the ILO no longer produces
social norms adapted to globalization, then we are heading down the
road of the reform of the ILO of the U.N.
Thibault says: "The analysis of the CGT joins that of the report
published in 2004 by the commission of the ILO on the Social Dimension
of Globalization, which concluded: ´The potential for globalization
is enormous, but for the vast majority of men and women it has not responded
to their simple and legitimate aspirations to decent employment."
From the view point of the working class and its class independence,
the affirmation of the immense potential of globalization (which has
not yet reached the exploited and oppressed) is a very contestable affirmation.
Globalization is a capitalist instrument for the policies of deregulation
and the destruction of workers´ rights. It is not a potentially
progressive force. Globalization is not what each of us will make of
it; it is not what each component will be capable of doing within the
framework of the "world governance."
Faced with what is called globalization, the response should be the
strengthening of the independent workers´ movement and its capacity
to defend its past gains.
But if, like Thibault, we feel that it is necessary to tap "the
potential of globalization," taking steps in this direction has
its own logic and conclusions.
Thibault in his introductory speech to the CGT conference declared:
"Because the potential of globalization is immense, to respond
we cannot remain isolated and canonized in our national territories."
For my part, I don´t think that the existence of national trade
union confederations means the cantonization of the labor movement.
This same day, Jean-Louis Moineau, the former confederal leader of
the CGT, said: "Globalization puts into question the pertinence
of the national framework which we grew up in." Let´s discuss
the national framework.
Globalization undermines the national framework because it was within
the national framework that the workers codified all their conquests,
rights, and national trade union organizations.
Clearly, internationalism is needed to reinforce the role and perspectives
of the trade unions in each of our countries. But can we say that globalization
"pertinently" undermines the national framework?
I think I can correctly affirm that all the comrades here can indicate
what the undermining of the national framework means in their respective
countries. They can respond to the following question much better than
I: Is this process "pertinent" for the workers´ movement
and democracy? I don´t think so.
J.-L. Moineau adds: "It is necessary to bring forward a new contribution
to the redefinition of the world: It is necessary to pass from the national
level familiar to the union to the regional level." When he says
regional, he means continental: "The union should enrich itself
with associations and NGO experts to fight for the social question in
a global economy."
I don´t think that the working class -- the main producer of
all society´s riches and the only social class which can provide
a future and social and democratic progress for humanity -- can be reduced
to becoming the "social dimension of a global economy."
On this march towards "governance," there has been a slide.
I spoke of the CGT congress because it was there that this process was
expressed in the most spectacular and visible manner in my country in
the recent period. But it would be dishonest on my part to claim that
these problems are only posed in the CGT. Under different forms, these
questions are posed in France in all the confederations. I imagine that
this is the same on an international level.
But I think that we need to discuss the heart of the matter. This process
is not set in stone. We have a role to play, a role which the ILC has
always played. Our role is not to say "it is necessary to do this
or that" or to dictate any policies. But we have the potentially
useful role of organizing the debate and clarifying the stakes.
This is not an abstract debate. This is a debate that has extremely
concrete consequences. For example, throughout the world, we see that
many trade unions are revising their statutes, or bylaws.
Many trade unions throughout the world are rethinking their statutes
and the role of federations, unions, regions, etc.
This is not a spontaneous development. It is the translation of this
offensive. I´ll speak of a current example which at first glance
may appear as if it doesn´t have anything to do with the subject.
We have recently heard of an intraprofessional agreement that was proposed
to all the trade union federations. This agreement has a specific characteristic:
It concerns 1,200,000 wage workers who are covered by various existing
National Collective Contracts (CCN). These collective contracts were
negotiated by the various federations. In all countries, there are federations
of the various sectors. In these cases, the confederations have the
responsibility to sign an intra-professional agreement that does not
affect the whole working class, but only a determined sector. But this
so-called "intra-professional" agreement includes a whole
number of clauses that are inferior in relation to the existing collective
conventions. This poses two questions.
Is the role of a trade union federation to negotiate collective agreements
beneath the already existing agreements? Is the role of a confederation
to take away the power of the federation to negotiate changes to the
collective contracts or the existing agreements and substitute these
with intra-professional agreements that deregulate all the borders between
professions that are organized with their collective guarantees?
It is clear that this is related to the current discussion. This is
related to the fact that they tell us that the labor code is too complex.
This is true. I read the official texts of this proposed intraprofessional
agreement. I was surprised by the number of CCN for these 1,200,000
workers. This complexity is the result of the class struggle. In each
sector, the workers have sought to win a bit more guarantees Š
This class struggle is crystallized in the CCN. If with the single
stroke of a pen, an agreement can overrule a CCN, then this is possible
for all the CCN. This means that whole hierarchy of existing norms,
in which the norm most favorable to the workers must be implemented,
can be undermined.
This is related to the existence of federations and the structural
reforms. In another example -- once again from my country -- a confederation
wants to change its statues and indicates that "from now on, the
unions will organize workers in their sector, and beyond."
If the criterion is all sectors of the profession, and beyond, this
is no longer related to the collective guarantees of the profession;
the unions are no longer linked to a specific collective contract, statute,
or professional sector. This multiprofessional union, disconnected from
all collective guarantees, means the individualization of rights.
Are these problems linked to the world governance? I think so.
Earlier, I spoke of the CUT congress in Brazil. Two famous sociologists
were invited to speak at the opening session. One was Antonio Negri,
who at one time was very ultra-left, but has visibly watered down his
politics.
He presented to the CUT congress a speech on "The role of unions
in the 21th Century." In this speech, he said: "It is necessary
to tell the truth: the working class has lost much of its hegemony as
a force for resistance and the productive sector has lost all its power.
A new tendency has emerged: that of immaterial labor and, in fact, the
power of the state, like the power of unions, is in the process of disappearing."
He continued: "What role can a union play in this post-modern
period? What is the role of a union?" He proposed: "There
are two forms of unions possible today, two models of modern unionism.
The first is to accept being a contractual representative of the workers
in the service of governance. This is the model implemented in the United
States. The other is to see unionism as a process of social representation
which searches to occupy a greater place in society, in the debate concerning
wages, but more generally in the debate concerning social well-being,
though the construction of citizenship which is being strengthened in
various European countries."
Let´s translate what Negri is saying: He´s talking about
the European Trade Union Confederation.
Thus, the alternative proposed by Negri is either a union integrated
into governance or into the European Union.
Negri went on to say: "What is important about the two models
is that we should not consider them as being contradictory; they both
have elements than can be joined together. Unionism should enter a process
of interpretation and recognition of its role as an emancipation movement
to defend a common project together with all the corporative interests
and the social movements, as well as its role as a constructive political
force for a new social order."
If unionism is meant to construct this new social order, it must play
a role in a given corporation. This reinforces our view that the world
governance is nothing but what at one time was called "corporatism."
To end on an optimistic note, I would like to bring your attention
to the fact that after this speech was loudly applauded, the CUT congress
decided that it would be a good idea, in relation to the new international
trade union federation, that all unionism must be based on the eternal
need for the trade union to defend the interests of the workers against
capitalism exploitation.
This debate, which was opened by the sociologist, was left unconcluded.
This is a good thing, because it means the discussion will continue
in the federation and in the international workers´ movement.
The situation is difficult, we will not deny this fact. But I think
that we can, though this discussion, contribute to enlarge and develop
this debate to the benefit of the working class and democracy on an
international level.
********************
INTRODUCTORY SPEECH BY LUC DELAY
(Switzerland)
Brother Delay presented the greetings of the UCPO (Union of Circles
of Workers´ Policies). He opened the 13th Conference and also
invited Rubina Jamil, General Secretary of the APTUF, Daniel Gluckstein,
coordinator of the ILC, Norbert Gbikpi-Bénissan, General Secretary
of the union of independent unions of Togo, and Patrick Hebert, a French
unionist, to the presidium.
I would like to say a few things concerning the situation in Switzerland
-- problems which affect all countries -- which pose various questions
inside the Swiss labor movement.
As in most countries, the privatization threats occur every day. A
few days ago, on June 7, faced with the government draft, the Federal
Council, the Swiss Parliament composed of two houses, refused to completely
privatize Swisscom, our telecomunications sectors, which is no longer
100% controlled by the state -- the state own 60%. But the proposal
of the Federal Council was to completely privatize it. This is an important
victory for us. The question of the protection of this sector was posed.
Should we raise the following question: Isn´t it necessary to
return this public service to the full ownership of the state?
This is an important victory because, in all the countries around us,
we see the implementation of the European directives that demand the
opening of the markets. This is a victory against privatizations and
in defense of public services, won through the action of the trade unions
and the Socialist Party, which echoed the masses´ will in a Parliament
that is, in its majority, bourgeois.
How was this achieved? First of all, it is necessary to point out the
trade unions declared that if the Parliament voted on this law, they
would organize a referendum, enabling the people to vote on it. In Switzerland,
we can reject any law by using our democratic right to referendum. By
collecting 50,000 signatures in three months, we can force the government
to subject the law to popular suffrage.
This is a right that has existed since 1873, which we have successfully
used against the implementation of the European directives, such as
the rise in the retirement age of women or the liberalization of the
electricity market. We use all the democratic rights written into the
Swiss Constitution as points of leverage. Switzerland is the oldest
democracy in Europe with a sovereign parliament.
Switzerland is not a member of the European Union. We are not at their
mercy if we do not implement the EU´s directives.
It is necessary to point out that our victories -- such as the rejection
of the privatization of Swisscom -- were won because the unions and
the Socialist Party organized together a campaign against this privatization.
But the situation is contradictory because the government pushed through
an important revision of the Constitution, which threatens the very
foundations of our state and democracy by introducing a new financial
equalization which creates a new level, the "obligatory legal settlements
between cantons." This is the undermining of democracy in Switzerland.
This is the undermining of democracy in Switzerland, which is based
on three levels: the communes, the cantons, and the confederation. Each
level has its own parliaments, completely sovereign institutions. Thus,
this is a serious threat to the existence of the nation. At a time when
the government modifies the Constitution, we are very worried about
the position of the leadership of the Socialist Party in favor of joining
the European Union.
We have just learned that the congress, which was supposed to take
place this year in October, will now be organized in September. But,
because July and August are a period of vacations in Switzerland, there
will be enormous difficulties for the branches to discuss the party´s
orientation.
Concerning the agenda, we see that the branches cannot take positions
on two important texts: a 120-page revision of the platform concerning
the European Union and a 190-page new economic program.
At the same time, this congress should prepare the party´s intervention
in the federal elections of 2007; thus the branches of the Socialist
Party will not be able to take positions on these important documents,
in a situation where there is a contradiction between the aspirations
of the workers and peoples against privatizations and an economic program
pledged to the European Union. The program aims to make Switzerland
compatible with Europe, which gravely threatens democratic rights, because
the right to referendum and other democratic rights cannot be implemented.
On June 7, the Parliament sovereignly voted against the privatization.
But with this reform, this would no longer be possible.
This poses a problem that is necessary to discuss: It is not possible
to fight for our demands if we do not defend the rights for our unions
to lean laws, norms, statutes, and democratic rights to oppose the undermining
of our conquests.
We are faced with a serious threat and the discussion we will have
today will touch upon questions that we are faced with in Switzerland,
particularly, the defense of our organizations and the defense of the
nation, the framework in which we have won our rights and conquests.
The question of trade union independence is necessary to enable the
workers to defend their specific interests faced with capitalist exploitation.
Personally, I think that we need to fight for a position against joining
the European Union. Only through doing so can we defend our public services,
our conquests, and the independence of our trade unions.
* * * * *
Back to Home Back
to Trade Union Independence
|
Open
World Conference of Workers