|
REPORT ON DISCUSSION AT THE
13th Conference In Defense of the ILO Conventions and Trade Union Independence
Geneva, Sunday, June 11, 2006
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.
Due to the importance of the discussion at this conference, we are
publishing all the presentations by the trade union delegates to the
ILC Conference in Geneva.
------
Presentation by Schuster Heinz Werner (Germany),
Workers Commissions of the SPD (AfA), Ver.di, Düsseldorf
I am the president of Afa (Labor Community for Workers´ Questions)
in the SPD, as well as an individual delegate for the service-sector
union, Verdi.
Luc Deley spoke in his introduction of the threat to the unity of the
Swiss nation represented by the "reform of the constitution"
proposed by the government. And Daniel Gluckstein spoke of the danger
of the "new states" that the European Union would like to
create, just as they did with Montenegro. He also spoke of governance,
a corporatist scheme which aims to integrate the trade unions.
I would like to speak of these subjects in Germany.
Since the creation of the Grand-Coalition of the SPD and the CDU/CSU,
Germany has been struck by an important strike wave -- an expression
of the workers´ resistance, which aims to impose their legitimate
demands. My comrade Henning Frey will speak of this in more detail.
The global fusions between trade union federations principally take
the form of a strengthened representation of the CDU in the DGB.
Eight months after the formation of the Grand-Coalition, the DGB held
its congress and elected a candidate of CDU as vice-president of the
DGB. The position of the presidents of IG Metall and Ver.di was that
there should no longer any position given to Ursula Engelen-Kefer, who
up until now was vice-president and, among other duties, was the representative
of the DGB at the ILO.
She is a member of the National Bureau of the SPD, and in this sense,
incarnates the continuity of the historical links between the German
union and the SPD.
Peters et Bsirske defended, under superficially left rhetoric, the
growing links with the Left Party-PDS and the candidate of the CDU,
who wants to be a "bridge toward the CDU" and defended "constructive
dialogue" between the DGB and the Grand Coalition.
However, this is nothing less than that accompanying the destruction
of our system of social security and national collective contracts and
the integration of the trade unions into the reform of federalism, which
would subject all the existing workers´ conquests (codified in
the national framework) to federalization, that is, demolition.
The content and method of these laws show that the reform of the constitution
of Germany means the implementation of the European Constitution.
The Fundamental German Law must be made "compatible with Europe."
Then, in a second stage, the financial relations between the Lander
must be destroyed. Cooperative "federalism" must be replaced
by "competitive" federalism.
The trade unions must, in the spirit of "good governance,"
become actors in the application of the policies of Grand Coalition.
Thus, at the congress of the DGB there were resolutions that proposed
-- if the government imposed its project -- the implementation of federalized
statutes, which would create 16 DGBs acting separately in the 16 different
Landers. It was a very positive development that these resolutions were
rejected by the congress.
Nevertheless, the congress adopted the "minimum wage," thus
abandoning the basic union position Š all while big strikes were taking
place!
But the congress revealed profound fissures and resistance. A metal
worker proposed that Engelen-Kefer, who was not supposed to be a candidate,
run against the CDU candidate. Forty-three percent of the delegates,
almost half of the congress, voted for Engelen-Kefer, thus voting against
the destruction of the links between the trade unions and the SPD and
the integration of the DGB into the Grand Coalition.
Engelen-Kefer is a reformist who states that things must change. Her
position offered a platform of resistance in the DGB in defense of the
class character of our organizations. She was already an obstacle for
the policies of Schroder and is even more of one for the Grand Coalition.
Her reelection would have been an obstacle to the implementation of
the "reforms" of the health-care system and the pensions system.
That is why the leadership of the DGB did everything possible to keep
her from being elected.
The 43% votes obtained were the expression of a resistance in the DGB
and a call for all the workers´ movement to organize against the
integrationist course of the leadership.
This resistance was concentrated against the "reform of federalism."
She called on the SPD MPs to not approve the constitutional upheaval.
She also spoke in favor of the defense of the national contracts and
the struggle in defense of the trade unions and the public services.
In practice, this means that the workers in the public-service sector
must struggle for the Ver.di leadership to abrogate their support for
the TvÖD which was negotiated between Bsirske and Schily, Schroder´s
Minister of the Interior, which replaced the old BAT contract and permitted
federalism in relation to the length of the work day; the strikes of
recent weeks and months have been directed precisely against this policy.
The campaign against the reform of federalism found a large echo. SPD
MPs, on June 19, met with a delegation of the signers of our Open Letter.
Since then, the structures of the SPD and the SPD MPs have called for
the vote, originally scheduled for June, to be pushed back, so that
more discussion and public meetings can take place concerning this reform
of the constitution, particularly in the trade unions and the SPD.
*********************
Presentation by Tafazzul Hussain (Bangladesh)
President of the Bangladesh Jatiyo Sramk Federation, BJSF
Dear friends and comrades,
We are meeting in Geneva for the 13th time in defense of the ILO and
the defense of our trade unions. But what is going on throughout the
world? Those who want to destroy the ILO norms and subordinate the trade
unions are very powerful. They do everything possible to aid the forces
of imperialism.
The trade unions are on the brink of disaster. But the workers are
not remaining with their arms crossed.
You may know that a few weeks ago there took place a workers´
revolt in the clothing industry in Bangladesh. Forty factories were
burned down. Several workers were shot dead by the police.
But the demonstrations continued and eventually won their three demands:
vacation payments, respect for workers, and union rights.
The government and the bosses caved in. This revolt did not come out
of nowhere; it has been brewing for a long time. In the Special Economic
Zones, the trade unions are legally forbidden. This revolt obliged the
government and the bosses to recognize that the trade unions were necessary.
This is because the revolt had no relays. There was nobody to blame
and nobody to dialogue with. There were no leaders to tell the workers
to calm down. The government realized it needed an interlocutor, that
is, a trade union.
In the other sectors (jute, textile, sugar, and steel) everything was
closed down. This is a process of deindustrialization. Industry, workers,
and trade unions were destroyed. The ILO has sponsored for the last
couple years rampant NGOization of the trade unions.
The NGOs are in the process of promoting the implementation of workers´
co-ops in the closed-down industries, with the funds of the NGOs financed
by imperialism.
This is a slippery slope which the ILO is heading down. I know that
several delegates are also officially participating in the ILO conference.
The ILO is the final hope for the workers.
All that we can expect from the bosses is the extortion of more and
more profits, at the expense of the workers and trade union rights.
But the ILO was built to defend the workers and their trade union rights.
What is it doing today?
It is necessary that the delegates present explain to the ILO that
this drive is in contradiction with the principles which the ILO is
based on.
The drive toward "factory co-management" and "governance"
is spreading everywhere. In our country, the NGOs, the so-called "civil
society" regularly organize seminars.
They push for "factory co-management." What is this? They
want to destroy the rights of the nation and the national independence
of all states. They are trying to integrate the unions into this process.
In the colonial countries, we know what "factory co-management"
means. It is awful. What is this world governance?
At the same time, these organizations explain to us that another world
is possible. I do not know what world they are referring to. For the
moment, we cannot protect our rights, our decent wages, or save the
independence (and very existence of) our trade unions.
If we do not defend and reconquer all the conquests won by our predecessors,
how can we head toward another world? Is this the world governance?
And then there is the fusion between the ICFTU and the WCL. In our
country, we have 5 trade unions affiliated to the ICFTU and two to the
WCL.
But these federations have different goals and interests. How can there
be a fusion between them?
In conclusion, I call on all the trade union leaders who are participating
in the ILO session to defend the ILO norms and the independence of our
trade unions.
******************
Presentation by H. Mahadevan (India)
General Secretary of the All Indian Trade Union Congress (AITUC)
I thank the organizers for allowing me to make this speech. My name
is Mahadevan and I am the General Secretary of the All India Trade Union
Congress, the oldest trade union in the country.
I listened to the examples given by our comrades. In our country, we
face the liquidation of the workers´ conquests, lay-offs, public
and private industry closings, the ruin of the cities and the towns,
the dismantling of social security, deregulation, a regressive tax system,
and Structural Adjustment Plans that push for outsourcing.
We are facing violence against struggling workers. The courts have
come out against the workers. The law of the jungle is being promoted.
Through the framework of the infernal trio of the World Bank, the IMF,
and the WTO, violence, unemployment, and the destruction of our futures
are being implemented everywhere.
What has the ILO done for the past five years in the face of this destruction?
There are attacks on the existence of collective contracts. Yesterday,
the labor organizations refused to participate in the discussion.
But governments such as those of France and Bangladesh have filed a
resolution on free trade. They have come out for the revision of the
existing contracts.
There is pressure from the donor-states, such as the U.S. and Japan,
to modify the statutes of the ILO. And they want to continue down this
path.
In this context, what does solidarity mean? It is not traditional solidarity.
We need solidarity which I will call organic solidarity. Through organic
solidarity, I mean that the stronger sectors should support the weaker
ones on a national and international level. This could be one goal of
meetings like this.
There is another important point. Last September, a strike took place
in India, with the participation of almost all the confederations. The
main demands were the rejection of the privatization of the public sector,
a real agrarian reform, and a law protecting agricultural workers, as
well as a social security system for the informal workers.
This June 21 and 22, we are organizing a conference in India to continue
this struggle, including through strikes and sit-ins until August 1st.
We are also planning a mass demonstration on Parliament, so that the
organized workers can support the workers in the informal sector. This
type of organic solidarity can be useful.
I must raise two other important points: The U.N. is transforming itself
into an auxiliary mechanism to facilitate the implementation of the
policies of NATO, the EU, and the United States. At the same time, they
are aiming to have the ILO help implement the dictates of the donor-countries.
This is being secretly and insidiously implemented in various places.
They talk to us about "corporate responsibility." What does
this mean? This means exploiting the workers, transforming the trade
unions, abandoning the norms and conventions of the ILO, and transforming
collective bargaining into the negotiation of concessions. This is not
the same thing.
The negotiation of concessions takes place through more or less brutal
pression. They have created in the electronic sector in India a new
type of job: a qualified slave. Hours of unlimited work, unlimited days
of work, with no laws or rules. Labor should not be a commodity, but
it has become one in all sectors.
I would like to underline this because we were all delighted to see
the example given by the French students who fought with the workers
against the CPE. The protests forced the government to back down. There
are many other similar struggles.
But we should analyze our strengths and weaknesses, as well as our
possibilities and the threats facing us. There are many threats. Many
of our weaknesses have become traditions. How can we overcome these
weaknesses?
If we workers have nothing to lose but our chains, I think it is a
major weakness that today these chains are in our heads. We have interiorized
these chains into our heads. We have to break them. This is on the agenda.
If we take a step back, it is clear that the fusion between social
democracy and social Christianity, has nothing to do with our discussion.
We are independent federations. We organize our class struggle. And
we will advance in this manner.
***********************
Presentation by Jean-Pierre Page
(France)
Good-day. I want to make four remarks.
1.Firstly, I think we cannot think about the questions on world governance,
of the ILO, of the new international trade union that the ICFTU and
the WCL want to create, without thinking carefully about the deepening
of the crisis of the capitalist system. We must think about the rise
in resistances, the class struggle on an international scale, the future
of civilization confronted by the savage will of the capitalism and
imperialism to impose domination in all domains in the most brutal fashion
possible because for them there is no other alternative than to increase
and worsen the exploitation of workers, peoples and nations everywhere.
In consequence what we are seeing with the reform of the structure
of international institutions, that of the United Nations, and their
manifestation on the trade union level, whether it is in the life and
activity of national or international organizations, everything is marked
by the stamp of a coherent offensive inspired by the very nature and
logic of globalization. Let us be clear that this globalization is none
other than what Lenin explained in his famous opus: "imperialism"
is nothing more than the highest stage of the development of capitalism.
2. This radically new situation between socialism and barbarism shows
that the trade union movement is confronted by totally new responsibilities,
considerable stakes, and to the extent that it is not prepared for this,
its action, its proposals, any perspective of alternatives is handicapped.
It is a fundamental question: the role and the place of workers in the
process of transformation. This is so because trade unionism as well
as the political parties emerging from the labor movement are confronted
with a deep crisis of efficiency, credibility, representativity and
in particular with regard to the labor world but also in regard to the
youth and all the sectors commonly labelled part-time, flexible, precarious,
without status, without conventions, without rights, unemployed, etc.,
where the trade union movement is practically absent.
For example, we have spoken about the CGT which is the main trade union
in France, but it is based on 65% of members in the public service and
nationalized sectors. This is a reality. In fact those masses of workers
today in industrialized countries or countries in development completely
are completely outside the trade union movement and its intervention.
It is a problem, a considerable challenge that we must face – lest we
continue to weaken.
3. Much was made of this state in the introductory report of the ILO
and its defense. I am in agreement. At the same time, we cannot take
shelter in innocence and naivety. The ILO is an institution that has
played an important role in the creation of norms, conventions, etc.,
important for the workers but at the same time we know the limits especially
those that do not only concern the ratification but the application
of these norms and conventions. We cannot emphasize enough the fact
that the U.S. remains the state which has least ratified and refuses
to apply these.
In a more general fashion, what goes for the ILO goes for the United
Nations system. The ILO is the reflection of the balance of forces.
What is clear is that today it is going elsewhere, something else beyond
simple instrumentalization but towards a system that actively participates
in global governance. These choices and orientations are a break with
past norms, a functioning considered by the dominant imperialist system
an anachronism which radically turns its back on the interests of the
workers and trade union organizations.
We speak of the tripartite system and its defense. But what is the
tripartite system system today? It is a system that pits two against
one. We should not pretty-up things! As regards the functioning of the
ILO one must have the courage to say that one is confronted after dozens
of years by the hegemony of an international organization named ICFTU
that thanks to its reactionary role and the weight it carries, prevents
the functioning of the organization any real representation as well
as any real intervention by the workers, the trade unions of the world
in the different structures of the ILO. Evidently the wealthy countries
in the first place, the United States of America and the European countries,
the bosses, encourage this situation, but it has now reached its limits.
The ICFTU is incapable of confronting this new situation because it
must choose between committing suicide or flee from governance which
is the goal given to this new international. The system no longer responds
to what one expected of it. So one must change it with the vision described
in the famous report on "the social consequences of globalization"
prepared by a group of experts that brought together trade unions, NGOs,
multinationals, international financial institutions, etc. One more
thing: the ILO is the promoter of a certain number of objectives shared
by an important part of the international trade union movement, especially
the ICFTU, but also by states not the least important of which is the
United States of America and the European countries. For example, we
have the idea of a partnership between the ILO and the WTO which Clinton
came to Geneva to promote. Today it is an objective taken up by the
international trade union movement especially by the ICFTU.
It is this partnership between the ILO and the WTO that aims to determine
the social progress in the function of the evolution of international
commerce which is evidently one of the elements to set up with the new
governance.
Therefore I think we need to look at the functioning of ILO not only
lucidly but combatively since without this we will see a qualitative
jump in which the ILO plans to participate by not only serving as an
instrument such as the United Nations united to the capitalist and imperialist
world policy, but to become its active promoter.
The reform proposed by Kofi Annan means just that.
4. A few words on the new international trade union.
I share your thoughts in this report. It is important and there is
a battle to be fought in each of our organizations and also a debate
to be held on an international level.. While one participates in congresses
around the world or in one's own country, one can realize one's ignorance
of the real objectives of this organization. I think we should situate
them in regard to the conditions of the crisis in trade unionism, its
reconstruction and the objectives of capital. There is a large margin
between intentions and realization. There must be an effective will
on the part of the ICFTU and the WCL, and even if it has not been mentioned,
on the part of the ETUC. We must not forget that the project of a new
international federation is fundamentally a European project of trade
unions from wealthy countries.
Gabaglio is one of the initiators. He is the former secretary general
of the ETUC. They have not reached their objective because, first of
all, because they are in conflict with an idea that we must embrace.
Everyone is in agreement with the need for trade union unity. But do
we fight for trade union unity for struggle, to develop solidarity or
to become a partner in the governance? But why become the third among
organizations that should participate in this type of debate? It is
totally unsupportable, but it is the choice of the ETUC/WCL. There is
also a third international organization called FSM which held its congress
in Havana with 250 national organizations from 78 countries, and is
today an undisputed force. There was the question of the CUT in Brazil.
The second tendency within the CUT representing 20% of its forces has
joined the FSM although the CUT is associated with the ICFTU.
It think it is very important that a majority of federations throughout
the world that are not affiliated internationally are excluded from
the debate. I think this is unacceptable. I think the problem of trade
union unity is a real problem. It is true that there is an urgent need
for the workers and trade unions of the world to unite to fight capitalist
globalization. But this project does not provide an answer. It responds
to totally opposed objectives including the federations that were asked
to participate in the debate. If what has been said of the CGT is correct,
it should be clear that it refers to the leadership of the CGT. Last
year during the debate on the European Constitution, the leadership
of the CGT and the ETUC, B. Thibault, were in the minority by 83% of
the members of the CCN that rejected the European Constitution. I don't
know if the same thing will happen with the new international federation,
but it is true that many people are concerned to see these things brought
up again, since everything is done by the leaders of the CGT trade unions
in order to avoid a real debate.
Sometimes we abuse the leaders of the trade unions, since this project
is not a formula including in the ICFTU. Most of those that have been
approached to become affiliated have declined the proposal.
What is needed is a great debate on the contents of international trade
unionism. Considering the failure of European trade unionism in regard
to economic and social policies, to be inspired by this vision, these
principles of organization that they want to implement in this new international
federation could provoke new disappointments and perhaps even bring
about the end of trade unionism.
******************
Presentation by Patrick Hébert (France)
Trade Unionist
I am a member of the CGT-FO, an organization arising from the split
of the CGT in France. We have held this type of meetings for the past
13 years and we note how the offensive, on an international scale, to
implement deregulation and privatizations has developed with a certain
coherence.
We discuss this every year, with variations but always on the same
track. When we say "defense of the ILO Conventions and trade union
independence"—trade union independence being a means to defend
the workers' interests—this does not mean that we considered that the
ILO conventions were perfect, that it was de facto that it regulated
the group of problems of the labor movement on an international scale.
When a national plan, in a professional sector after a fight, we negotiate
and eventually sign a collective convention, we know that it is an agreement,
a point of support to go a step further in the defense of workers' interests.
The question that has been asked is not to know if what exists is perfect,
satisfying and that it would be best to give up the fight in order to
obtain more. The question asked is why the governments want to cast
doubt on what exists in order to destroy all the conquests of the workers
on an international scale in each of our countries.
I think this offensive carried on to reduce all of our conquests to
nothing, we believe the central question is "the new governance"
rather than the integration of trade unions on an international scale.
The comrade that preceded me, recalled the role of the ETUC in this
area. I recall that originally the ETUC was called the CESL (the L stood
for liberty). The CISL (ICFTU) also had the same L and I note a simple
coincidence in both cases, at the time when we reform the European structure
several years ago and now internationally, it has resulted in the suppression
of the L of liberty. Perhaps this is a mere coincidence but a troubling
one.
What characterizes the CES (ETUC) is that in loosing its L it was transformed
into something other that a trade union federation because the ETUC
demands and has long been practicing this form of governance considering
it is the co-author of the European directives. At this stage they are
not directives since the constitutional treaty was beaten or at least
not applied as yet but we can imagine if tomorrow Europe adopted the
constitution that some want, these would not be directives, they would
be laws.
We know these directives have practically the force of law since in
France, 80% of parliamentary work is the simple transcription into French
right of the European directives. In France, 80% of the legislative
work of the deputies consists in translating into French law the European
directives and the ETUC participates directly in the authorship of these
directives and from this point of view it can be considered as a legislator
of the European plant. So the ETUC positions itself not as a trade union
in the European plan, but as a governor or at any rate a legislator.
According to Montesquieu, there is a distinction between executive
and legislative. But on the level of the European Union we no longer
see the distinction because even this elementary democratic conquest
which is the separation of powers between legislative, executive and
judiciary does not exist. It is one commission that acts as a legislative
and an executive power.
The ETUC has a long experience in co-legislation. In our meetings we
have fought the national plan. I have the impression following the introductory
report that the way things are going in the international plan with
this new federation, the will to participate in world governance, strangely
resembles what we have already experienced in Europe.
This fierce will on an international level, on the level of Europe
and each one of our countries, to implicate and integrate the trade
unions into the national plan, or a company plan is also the expression
of a resistance by the working class. If there wasn't this resistance,
it would not be necessary to integrate the trade unions into their plan.
This resistance was expressed in particular in France in different
ways over the last few years as in the victory of the NO to the referendum
a year ago on May 29. Despite all the official political forces that
called for a YES vote, the French people, especially the working class,
showed that 84% of workers voted NO and 60% of employees and youth voted
NO.
There is a rejection to this policy that is expressed to the referendum
plan when the occasion arises, but more globally by trade union action
and this translates in a spectacular manner on the occasion of the battle
for the withdrawal of the CPE. I would say this spectacular fight is
just the most manifest face of the daily fight. There are no daily great
battles like those against the CPE , but every day in France in companies
in diverse forms, there is resistance, strikes and sometimes we win
and sometimes we don't but this trade union movement exists and even
if it is not as strong as we would wish, because we are all trade unionists,
it exists. We were able to thwart the French government regarding a
European project. The CPE, the excessive flexibility, labor casualization
are not a French project, but rather a European one. And the fact that
we were able to thwart it is a victory and a point of leverage in France
as well as in Europe and on an international scale, which proves we
can win.
Because of the weakness of the trade union movement we have to revitalize
it. We have not won everything, we have taken blows and had setbacks,
but there is a reality which is resistance. That is why they want to
neutralize trade unions on an international scale, a European scale
and a national scale.
In France, this takes the form of two reports that were issued to which
comrade Sandri refers to in his speech.
I think I can say that since the birth of the trade union movement,
that is, since the bosses and the governments were obliged to concede
the right of workers to freely organize, they immediately sought a solution
so that the trade unions would not be totally independent.
I compare it to a social conquest; in order to gain something, a collective
convention, etc., you have to fight, to go on strike and when you win
you sign, but once you have signed it is not won until it has been applied.
Our trade union independence is similar-- we have conquered it but
now we have to fight every day to keep it. Because, every day, under
various forms, they attempt to make us something else rather than independent
trade unionists.
This has taken important forms in France. In 1969, General de Gaulle
had proposed a reform to the constitution that pretended to make trade
unionists into senators. Already they wanted to transform us into legislators.
Today we see the same project under a more subtle form proposed by Chertier.
The reporter remembered that the merit of the North Americans was their
frankness. They called a cat a cat.
Chertier proposes to make us co-legislators because he wants to remove
from parliament the right of legislate on all social matters and give
the social partners, that is to say the trade unions and the bosses,
the right to create laws in agreement.
Concretely this means, at least in regard to the social domain, that
the deputies would strip themselves of the essential democratic prerogative,
that is to legislate for the benefit of trade unions, who would suddenly
become legislators. So, being legislators, they would not only make
laws but logically, they would be mandated with implementing them regardless
of the consequences.
Consequently, from an organization defending the rights of wage workers
we would become an organization charged with defending the law. But
a law is not only a law for employees. We know that in a society such
as ours, a capitalist society, the interests are contradictory and that
one law that could eventually correspond to the general interest, is
not necessarily a good law for the particular interests of employees.
In the case of a certain concept of democracy and not only the separation
of powers but of functions, it would seem absolutely necessary to allow
an independent trade union organization to defend the specific interests
of the working class, even if these can momentarily appear contradictory
to the general interest.
We are faced with a second report named Hadas-Lebel who which takes
this logic to its natural conclusion because it proposes to somehow
finance the trade unions directly through the state. There, everyone
would become a trade unionist, and one presidential candidate. Segolene
Royal, recently proposed "obligatory trade unionism in France."
We heard of this during the war at the time of Pétain.
Thus the Hadas-Lebel report means that the trade unions would be directly
financed by the state and there would no longer be a need to become
a trade unionist and therefore our ‘power' would not come from employees
who become trade unionists freely and who give a mandate, but it would
come from the state who would finance us and we would become a force
charged with having laws respected that were decided together by the
state and the trade unions.
Of course this is only a project but we must not underestimate the
dangers. We heard what the German comrade said, all this is inscribed
in a totally European project in conformity with the ETUC and in conformity
with what they want us to do on a national and international plan.
In each country, even in the federations that would not join this international
federation one must find the way to implicate them and integrate them
in the state plan.
*****************************
Presentation by Gulzar Chaudhary (Pakistan)
President of the All Pakistan Trade Union Federation (APTUF)
The political, economic, and labor situation in Pakistan is very bad.
Pakistan has been subjected to martial law for the past 28 years. President
Musharaf says there is democracy. But there is not, because be it the
public or private sector, the army is holding all the reins.
There is no framework in which to organize trade unions in the private
sector. In the public sector, the law allows for trade unions, but in
practice it is impossible to organize them.
Thus, in an important sector such as that of the railways, which employs
more than 100,000 workers, there are restrictions concerning the organization
of trade unions. We face many obstacles.
The government has recently declared that:
-- If a worker is laid-off, he or she cannot go to court to protest
the lay-off; but only the courts can grant workers compensation.
-- If a worker is laid-off, he or she cannot continue to serve as a
union officer.
-- If the workers strike, the strike is declared illegal and all the
labor activists and leaders are fired without compensation.
Another ordinance gives the government the power to lay off a worker
without needing to provide a reason. The ordinance on forced pensions
allows the government to lay off any worker or trade union leader, without
having to provide any compensation.
The government also recently passed an ordinance prohibiting the Ministry
of Labor or any other ministry to control the corporations or investigate
to see if they are violating the law. If you register a complaint to
a ministry, the ministry cannot investigate.
These are the conditions facing us. The majority of workers have no
written contract with their bosses. If a worker wants to build a trade
union, the Ministry of Labor demands proof that he or she is employed
by the company. The boss thus then declares that he or she does not
work for the company because he or she has not signed a contract. None
of the rights guaranteed by the law concerning lay-offs are implemented.
The government claims it is encouraging investment. But the chaotic
social situation prevents investments from coming in. There are only
contracts to build buildings, but none for factories. Seven thousands
factories have closed and more than 150,000 workers have been laid-off.
Although Pakistan has ratified four conventions of the ILO, the government
and the bosses do not implement them. However, the government pretends
that it is implementing the law.
Despite all these obstacles, we have built a united front of all the
trade union organizations. A peasant organization with 20,000 members
is affiliated to our federation. The brick-yard workers built a union
and joined our federation. Various federations have come together to
found a united confederation. Despite all the difficulties, we are advancing.
We have also built an alliance of forced-labor workers, which brings
together agricultural laborers, workers in the brick-yards, and workers
in the informal sector.
In conclusion, the situation is very serious. The working class lives
in misery. Due to unemployment, the workers must accept extremely low
wages. In the countryside, the feudal landlords have installed serfdom.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan receives a wage of 100 million. The debt
has risen 800 million. The wages of the ministers have risen 300%. But
the workers and the unemployed have received a 1.91% rise in wages.
Many are pushed to suicide, including women and children.
We are advancing, despite everything. I think that the anger toward
capitalism is growing everywhere. Thus, there was a Social Forum in
Karachi, and very few Pakistanis participated. We were the only federation
that openly criticized it and refused to participate in it. We even
wrote an open letter to the organizers and the authorities. I hope that
one day our struggle win triumph.
******************
Presentation by Lorenzo Varaldo (Italy), teacher unionist
I think that the question of the integration of the trade unions is
at the center of the political situation in the world and in Italy.
There is a contradictory situation in my country. On the one hand, there
have been massive strikes and demonstrations for years against the policies
implemented by the Berlusconi government -- policies that were the direct
implementation of the directives of the European Union. And in the elections
of April and May, the workers, youth, pensioners, and people said: It
is necessary to end these policies, things must change. Thus, there
is resistance from the people.
But the government of Prodi, the leader of the Unione coalition which
won the elections, has presented its program for the first 100 days:
It is a complete continuation of the policies of the European Union.
Let´s not forget that Prodi was the president of the European
Commission.
These are policies of privatization, lowering labor costs, attacking
public services, and the destruction of all our conquests.
Thus, there is a contradiction between the will of people and that
of the government. And, faced with this contradiction, the government
and the capitalists have declared that it is necessary to integrate
the trade unions and it is necessary to collaborate with the trade unions
to implement the program of the European Union.
This contradiction expresses itself on other levels. The policies of
the European Union lead to the division and destruction of the country.
On June 25, a referendum took place concerning a proposed reform of
the constititition, which would create 20 little Italies through regionalization.
Here too we see a contradiction, because the will of people was to defend
the unity of the nation.
In all the protests of recent years -- be it concerning education,
the metal-workers, or the pensions -- the population said: "We
are united from the South to the North."
The parties of the center-left called for the population to vote No.
But the Prodi government and the parties proposed another reform with
the same content: regionalization and the break-up of the country.
In the face of the will of the people, they search to integrate the
trade union organizations and to establish dialogue to implement the
policies of the European Union. But here too there is resistance. Many
leaders are in favor of implementing the policies of the European Union,
but now we are hearing from leaders who are beginning to say that regionalization
means the division of the country and the destruction of national trade
unions.
Five years ago the reform of the constitution was passed with the agreement
of all the trade unions. But today, some are beginning to pose questions.
And the ranks say: It is necessary to defend the national trade unions,
the national contracts, the unity of the nation, and the unity of the
Republic.
In the ILC International Newsletter, you may have read an interview
with a leader of the CGIL in Piedmont, who says: What is needed is the
defense of the independence of the trade unions. Thus, we are seeing
resistance from the ranks, but also from certain leaders who are posing
questions.
In this context, the partisans of the ILC in Turin presented a slate
in the municipal elections for the first time, on the basis of a program
for a rupture with the European Union, the defense of the public services
and democracy, thus the unity of the nation.
This allowed us to begin the discussion: How can we defend the conquests
with a Prodi government that says it is necessary to submit to the directives
of the European Union? This discussion also led to a discussion concerning
the trade union questions, concerning the independence of the trade
unions.
In this situation, there are clear dangers. It is a difficult situation,
but there are elements of resistance. A discussion has begun. With the
report on this conference and the work of the ILC, this debate can continue
and bring about results.
*************************
Presentation by Tolé Sagnon (Burkina Faso)
National Secretary of the General Confederation of Labor of Burkina
Faso (CGTB)
I am the National Secretary of the General Confederation of Labor of
Burkina Faso. I would like to speak about the life and struggle of the
workers of Burkina. The situation in my country is not very different
from the majority of African countries.
Our countries are subjected to the Structural Adjustment Plans (SAP),
which are presented as "strategic frameworks in the struggle against
poverty."
The results of these plans and frameworks are clear: Billions of dollars
are funneled into these programs, which only spread more and more misery
among the people.
In Burkina, for example, the percentage of the population living under
the poverty line rose from 43% in 1998 to over 46% in 2003, according
to the official statistics.
There is a small minority of the population who have become millionaires
-- particularly the government officials and their lackeys -- by enriching
themselves through the misery of the great majority. The people get
poorer and poorer. In these conditions, social and popular struggles
naturally arise.
Initiated by the CGTB, in the framework of the workers´ movement,
we have reached unity in trade union actions around all the very concrete
social demands concerning better wages, pensions, advancements, lower
prices for oil, water, electricity, grain, the end of the liquidation
of the public enterprises, and the distribution of unemployment benefits.
All these struggles resulted in powerful struggles in 2005 and 2006.
The government faced stronger and stronger mobilizations against a reform
of the labor code, which would restrict the right to strike.
It is a restrictive definition even in comparison with the Constitution
of Burkina Faso. It would only allow strikes for professional demands
that were rejected by the bosses.
Thus, the trade union regroupment decided to mobilize the workers for
a strike to defend the right to strike; we have the right and the duty
to strike to fight for trade union liberties. We organized the mobilization.
Last May 23 and 24, the trade union movement organized a general strike
and, yesterday, June 10, while we were here, the workers were in the
streets fighting for their demands.
That is why we registered a complaint to the Committee on Trade Union
Liberties of the ILO, for the violation of Convention 87.
I mention all this to explain that that the point raised in the introduction
concerning the drive to destroy confederations seems very pertinent
to me. In the proposed reform, a confederation would not be able to
call on all its members to fight for a demand presented to the government.
The employer says, for example, in relation to our demand for lower
taxes on oil, that it cannot fulfill this demand because the demand
is addressed to the government.
Thus the possibility for the confederations to exercise their rights
and duties as trade union organizations and regroupments.
We are still struggling today, and we think that international trade
union solidarity -- like we are trying to develop here today -- can
allow us to advance in the defense of our trade unions, which allow
the working class to defend some of its demands. And the defense of
union rights is an integral part of our struggles. We are certain that
this is the path needed to impose the independence of the trade union
movement.
********************
Presentation by Jean-Charles Marquiset (France)
Trade Unionist
Today, the norms and conventions of the ILO are being attacked. These
conventions, 20 to 30 years ago, were far below the gains that had been
won by workers in their own countries.
Today, however, with all the counter-reforms passed in various countries,
we see that even in the countries with a more favorable situation, the
norms and conventions of the ILO are an important point of leverage
to conserve rights for the whole working class of the concerned countries.
What is the root of this offensive aiming to integrate the trade unions?
The root is the resistance of the working class, which exists everywhere.
Without a doubt, in all countries there are important struggles taking
place. We recently saw this in France, where the workers with their
trade unions smashed the attempts to destroy their collective guarantees.
There is this offensive, but things are not simple. For example, in
France, there is a clear difference in perspectives between the confederate
leadership of the CGT and the mid-level cadres, who called for the NO
vote in the referendum of May 29 on the European Constitution. But the
National Confederal Committee, as well as the ETUC -- an apparatus of
the European Union -- had already called for the YES and organized forums
in France for the YES. But the workers said NO, and the trade unionists
mandated the CGT leadership to reject the Constitution.
Concerning the question of the new international, we should not be
tricked by words. This is not a new trade union international. It is
a framework like the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). In my
opinion, the ETUC is not a trade union confederation. It does not defend
the interests of workers. It co-legislates with the European Union the
destruction in all countries of our collective guarantees. It is not
a trade union organization.
When we read the draft statues of the "world confederation"
it becomes clear that it will participate in the framework of the "new
governance", under the aegis of the U.N., with regional divisions
in Asia, Europe, America, and Africa, based on the U.N. zones.
This organization will not have the mandate to defend the ILO conventions
or any of the conquests won by the workers.
In his last declaration, Bernald Thibault, the General Secretary of
the CGT, said: "All the discussions in the trade union movement
take place in the context of the emergence of a diverse international
social movement that brings together trade unions, environmental movements,
womens´ movements, anti-globalization movements, and NGOs."
This is not the role of a trade union organization, which must defend
the specific interests of the workers movement.
Trade unionists exist to defend the interests and rights of the wage
earners they represent -- that is, class interests, which are in contradiction
with the capitalists' interests.
Thus, a real discussion exists. I agree that we need a large discussion
in all the trade unions, to discuss how to defend our collective guarantees.
A comrade told me that another CGT federation, the energy federation,
will hold its congress in a few months, at a moment when the government
is trying to privatize electricity, gas, etc. There is a proposal to
modify the federation´s statutes. There is a proposal to replace
the phrase "collective guarantees are the base of the federation"
with the phrase "collective guarantees were the base of the federation."
In other words, it is not necessary to continue to defend collective
guarantees. This drive is against the existence of trade unions and
collective guarantees. The framework of a trade union is to defend the
specific interests of the class.
Thus, in all countries we should discuss the draft statutes of this
"world federation" on all levels. This is not a task for specialists.
This concerns all those who see what the ETUC is doing today, who are
angry about the damage done against our rights by this organization
in all countries. This is what is on the agenda.
The CGT in France must take a position on this theme on September 27.
I hope that, just as occurred in relation to May 29, the majority will
oblige the leaders to reject participating in this world organization,
which is only being built to destroy the workers, their rights, and
the trade unions in all countries.
**************************
Presentation by Mathias Rouvari (Burundi)
Confederation of independent trade unions in Burundi
I represent the Confederation of independent trade unions in Burundi.
Because the question of unification has not yet been discussed, it is
true that it will present a problem. What is the point of doing something
without participation? There will probably be an awareness campaign
and each delegate should express his opinion and then he can return
to his base to inform them.
We are messengers. We do not speak for ourselves. We have a mandate
and we can only transmit what we have been asked to say. This cannot
start with a world summit, but should be constructed at the base level,
that is, at the national trade union confederations. So we will listen
and we will see. There is no decision to be made at this time. There
is no fire.
I would like to talk about the situation in my country. You must have
heard of the civil war that is raging there.
It has been going on for more than 13 years-it is a political/ethnic
question which has pitted brother against brother, in which movements
were designed to conquer power. You can imagine what we trade unionists
have suffered. We fought for the solidarity of labor, for the ethnicities.
Imagine employers closing companies, the massive departure of workers.
At the new elections of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions
of Burundi, I was accredited by the national independent electoral commission
as an observer. We saw people fighting for power in this tiny country
of only 28,000 square kilometers. A political party won. This party
is in power now and met with us just before May 1.
We presented the trade union demands and the president has agreed to
meet with us. But the fact is that misery exists throughout the country.
First there was a 6-month long terrible drought. Then, when it started
raining, the downpours were so torrential that the dead were unearthed
from their graves.
We have appealed to the international community for humanitarian aid,
for food, something which had never before been necessary in the 90%
agricultural country of Burundi.
There is also the problem of unemployment of qualified people, the
brain drain, agronomists who cannot teach since there is no budget to
pay them and the increase in the price of gasoline which is now over
one dollar per liter. The problem of under employment is also evident.
The trade union claims there is a poor distribution of revenues: we
are not informed of what little is given by the international community
and we do not participate in its distribution.
Obviously the World Bank is present in Burundi and, as you know, it
is a bank that sells money. It works with the government. We have always
asked that the missions to the World Bank, which come every three months,
include representatives of the trade unions because we are not sure
that they are doing anything for us. This is an issue we insist on and
have had strikes over.
There have been teacher's strikes for over three months and their demands
have been met.
There has also been a strike by medical personnel for three weeks.
In this case, the government also accepted their demands, but not without
consequences. When there is a strike, we lose everything on the trade
union level as well as on the government level, since all that money
does not mean better care for patients.
There is also a strike of the personnel of the University of Burundi.
We continue to fight and we must unite on the ILC level to maintain
these conquests and to acquire new victories.
********************
Presentation by Rubina Jamil (Pakistan)
Secretary General of the All Pakistan Trade Unions Federation (APTUF)
First of all, I want to thank the ILC for allowing me to speak about
the situation of women workers in my country, where the present government
is a military dictatorship that is subject, as was the former government,
to imperialism, especially North American imperialism. This government
applies the dictates of the Bush government against the workers and
the peoples. They arrest and attack people in order to apply the policy
of the Bush government, especially in the north and in Belukistan, over
a so-called fight against terrorism.
The workers are deprived of everything. There is no law, and it is
the will of the 'serdars' that applies. The press does not mention what
is happening in the north.
I would also like to speak about the situation of the women, especially
those in the garment industry. They are denied everything. They work
over 16 hours a day for the national and international capitalists.
This is the result of globalization and privatization. Labor laws do
not apply to them. They are subject to sexual harassment by the bosses,
the leaders and their colleagues at work.
In Pakistan, there is Nike, Adidas, etc., that deny fundamental rights
to thousands of workers. Recently a factory that employed 200 women
was brutally closed and the bosses refused to pay four months back wages.
We defended these women, and for the first time in our country, we were
able to pursue the matter legally for these women to recover their wages.
Usually, due to the length of these procedures, no one undertakes them.
The fusion of the trade union federation is already taking place in
Pakistan.
There is also confrontation between the peasants in the region of the
Punjab and the army that has expelled them from their lands in order
to militarize the zone. They have set up barricades and refuse to let
them return to cultivate their lands. Women peasants are at the forefront
in the battle against the army.
I was happy to see on television that, despite all the problems the
workers are faced with in the world because of the governments at the
orders of the IMF and the World Bank, there was a massive movement in
France and Holland against the European Constitution and that the youth
in France gained a victory against the CPE.
We should be inspired by the youth and the people of France for obtaining
this victory. In our country, despite a military government, the bosses
and the lords of war, despite religious fundamentalism and the ostracism
of political parties in regard to women, we do our best to organize
women. Together, we are sure to surmount these obstacles.
*******************
Presentation by Francois Yao (Ivory Coast)
Secretary General of SYNASEG
I would like to briefly retrace the situation of the trade unions in
my country. You are aware of the political situation; you know that
since September 19, 2002 our country has been divided in two by a rebellion.
The north and the west are in the hands of the rebellion and the south
is under control of the government.
The trade unions at the level of confederations are modeled on this
schism. We have three confederations. One is linked to the party in
power. Another is historically linked to the former party in power and
the third, our original confederation, was divided in August 2005. We
had three assistant leaders. The third created FESACI (two) by holding
a congress on August 6 and 7 in order to be elected secretary general
of the confederation. The first assistant secretary did the same in
September. The first secretary general is close to the party in power,
and the other follows and amorphous grouping.
The SYNASEG was affiliated with the FESACI which caused a rupture with
this federation. This was because we could not support one of the two
tendencies since we had activists from both sectors.
The first secretary is a member of the CRND (National Congress for
Resistance and Democracy), which is an instrument of the party in power.
On the other hand, there is the RHDP (a gathering of 'houphouetiste'
for democracy and peace). Because we have not wanted to support this
division, we are practically working on our own.
Since August, the SYNASEG has positioned itself in favor of an institutional
reform of the electricity sector in regard to the contract that linked
the Ivory Coast state to the Bouygues group. However, this reform did
not go through and the contract was extended despite opposition.
Since then, the SYNASEG has suffered reprisals from the azimuts. It
is a witch hunt. They want the SYNASEG to disappear, so they use anti
trade union practices and interfere with trade union affairs. This is
because the employer has created a new trade union derived from their
former 'trade union' and organizes ostracism of the two existing unions.
The employer also impedes trade union freedoms, and pushes for the suspension
of union rights: prevention of meetings on site, prevention of trade
union posters, retention of union contributions deducted by the SECOP,
refusal to meet with SYNASEG since August and with the second trade
union since November.
In view of this situation the SYNASEG and the CNACI constituted a coalition
on April 11 to gather our forces to support the demands of the workers
on a minimal platform of 11 points.
On April 9 we held a general meeting. Because of the problems that
have been mentioned, the meeting was not well attended. But the emotional
charge was strong and the resolution firm because the mandate had been
given to the coalition to use all means, including a strike, in order
to succeed with their demands.
On May 30, the coalition decided to hold a press conference at 10:30am.
The leadership decided to meet the same day at 10am, but we held the
press conference anyway.
We first discussed the institutional principle of audits between trade
unions and employers. We then decided on a blocked period of negotiations
on the same platform that was mentioned earlier. We held a press conference
at 11.30 and we announced that negotiations were open and that we remained
vigilant.
The second meeting between the coalition of trade unions and the leadership
took place on June 6. During this meeting we brought up the first point:
trade union freedoms, and decided on a blocked period of three days,
June 28, 29 and 30 to discuss our demands. This is a good chance for
a resolution to the present conflict.
********************
Presentation by Guido Montanari (Italy)
Teacher trade unionist
I am a member of the Italian trade union for public schools: the CGIL.
It is the largest trade union in Italy that has played an important
role in the battles in our country during this last period. I am in
agreement with many of the things that have been said.
I would like to draw attention to one question. I believe that the
difference between governance and government is clear, as with the difference
between consultation and negotiation. But what is incredible is the
confusion regarding these terms and the widespread usage of these terms
by leftists and those organized by the left. We would not be here to
discuss what we are discussing if it were not for trade union and party
leaders who say the same things throughout the world. They say that
governance is better than government and that consultation is a necessary
thing, because it is more democratic. These are the problems of our
time.
How can we address these people who work with us, that are sometimes
leaders that use these words in a totally false manner in good or bad
faith. This is also done by all trade union leaders. It was interesting
to hear Daniel report that Antonio Negri was at the presentation of
works at the CUT Congress. Negri was an extreme left leader in Italy
that was accused of terrorism, who is followed by a generation of youth
who he has led towards terrorism, prison, drugs and who has never made
any move toward an independent organization of workers. What does he
have to do with the workers' movement? Nothing. But he has a base in
Italy among university students at the moment.
I don't think the solution is to be a small independent island that
merely says things but that has no relation to the movement and to the
workers. One must open the discussion. We must be present with the appeals
from the base, but also with the leaders whenever the independence of
trade unions is discussed. There are movements that fight against this,
but we must deepen and widen the movement, centralize it and unify it.
For instance, I think we should have an appeal, a letter at the ILO
meeting on April 2007 that will discuss the future of the ILO.
I think we should have discussion with all the activists and the leaders.
I believe there is some confusion. It is possible to have a discussion
with the workers in the trade unions in order to re-establish a true
independence of the trade unions.
********************
Presentation by Gaston Azoua (Benin)
Secretary General of the CSTB
I am the secretary general of the General Confederation of Workers
of Benin (CGTB). For over ten years I have been present at the international
meetings in defense of ILO conventions and I would simply like to offer
examples on how this plays out in my country.
The Labor Code was created during a period of general euphoria, when
we were emerging from an autocracy founded on a pseudo-revolution during
the eighties. Actually, there were no trade unions. The measures of
these laws were made to measure and only offered a minimum to the workers
in order to give them a democratic aura. Today we are fighting for survival
because unemployment is very high and there is a counter-updating of
public employment.
For example, in education, over half the teachers are on contract and
there are teachers with a different status such as 'communitarian' teacher.
Those on contract depend on the state and their contracts can be terminated
at any time. The 'communitarian' teachers depend on the school budget.
This means that in a same school complex, two teachers can have different
wages, with a contribution rate higher in group A than in group B. In
other words, the state budget is being liquidated and the expenses are
falling on the parents of the students.
The same occurs in regard to health care. There are health agents that
depend on 'social measures', which is to say that they are paid through
the health care center, and there are also 'communitarian' agents.
Therefore there are several statuses in the liquidation of the ILO
Conventions. Even in the heart of public administration there are employees
who depend on the PIP (public investment program) who do not earn even
the minimum wage, that is to say less than 39 Euros a month (around
200 French francs). Today, the problem is how to work for the application
of the ILO Conventions.
Then there is the question of freedoms. We have fought constantly in
regard to the eight fundamental conventions in order to settle the application
of other conventions-- Conventions 98 and 97, the convention on child
labor, as well as the question on payment of wages. The negotiations
have not been discussed but we debate this in order to make us believe
that democracy is on the go.
I can confirm today, that after we talked about the defense of conventions,
the international financial capital developed an offensive against the
conventions via structures, laws and the Labor Code. This form of offensive
has passed into the practical phase which is the destabilization of
all structures.
A law establishing a ceiling for wages was voted for in my country
but has not been applied because of the fight among the trade unions.
Today we are told to regroup under one roof. Things are hidden. The
debate does not take place, but continues under different roofs. Whether
you are affiliated with the ICFTU or the WCL you are asked your opinion
and then you are told: there is a world organization and therefore all
the national organizations are linked in order to create unity. If you
don't agree you are against the consensus, you do not deserve to be
integrated into the negotiations. This is what we fear today.
What is happening at the ILO is awful. It is the complete hegemony
of the ICFTU. It is predetermined before you arrive. When we come to
Geneva it is a means of entertainment for us. You do not speak. You
simply settle.
If the ICFTU and the WCL are fused, it will mean there is no longer
a place for workers at the ILO. They are simply lobbies that will make
agreements from afar and the dice are loaded against us.
What should we do? Should we submit? What we think about in our country
is how to create a new international. If they create their own international,
can't another international exist? I think that consistent workers and
their representatives, linked to labor traditions should think about
creating a new international. If the WFTU can no longer play its role,
historically we have responsibilities.
We think about calling for the constitution of a sub-regional organization
that is truly labor-based so as not to be at the mercy of what is happening.
We must face this fight against us in the practical phase. It is about
the liquidation of trade unions, about labor conquests and from this
point of view we will be duped by financial capital. How can we open
a perspective in order to survive, to create another framework in opposition
to what is being created? That is what we must think about, and we are
getting down to it in our country.
********************
Presentation by Roberto Giarocco (Belgium)
Trade unionist
Dear Comrades,
I am a member of the Movement in Defense of Workers (MDT), but I am
also a member of the "Committee against social regression imposed
by the European Union," that we created last November in our struggle
with Jean-Maurice Dehousse, former vice president of the socialist group
in the European parliament.
This committee sent a delegation to the European labor movement in
Berlin in February. Recently, the Belgian delegates to this meeting
called for the continuation of the fight of the Berlin conference by
making a practical proposal: to gather information from each country
about the facts that indicate the impact of the European Union's decisions
on the social a political situation in each country, in order to collect
the information and present it in a memorandum to the European Commission,
eventually supported by a demonstration or a meeting. I invite you to
follow and respond favorably to this appeal.
There are two large trade union organizations in my country. The first
is the FGTB, of which I am a delegate from the municipal services sector.
My trade union has 1,300,000 affiliates in a country with ten million
inhabitants. The other large trade union organization is the CSC, confederation
of Christian trade unions that has 1,700,000 members. It is a part of
the CMT and one of its biggest backers. Therefore, we are concerned
about the consequences the fusion of these two organizations will have.
The FGTB just had its statutory congress and renewed its leaders. André
Mordant was replaced. There were, however, two primary questions at
this congress. The first was that of wages. Trade union organizations
are being asked to negotiate wage increases below the level of inflation.
Up until now, there has always been a guarantee of a wage increases
at least at this level.
The second question was maintaining the national unity of the FGTB.
Belgium is on the map published by the Times: the country is threatened
by a crisis of dismemberment. There is no doubt that at the next legislative
elections in the spring of 2007 will prelude new negotiations in order
to continue regionalization.
There has been a lot of regionalization in Belgium. Education, regional
development and assistance to companies have all been regionalized,
but not social security, the right to work or collective bargaining.
These are things that represent the strength of the labor force, its
unity. However, what is in question now is having regional collective
bargaining.
An important event took place from this point of view: the scission
of the federation of metalworkers of the FGTB-two wings were formed,
the francophone and the Flemish-speaking. There was a distribution of
property and funds and the end result was that the Flemish-speaking
wing has just negotiated a project of collective bargaining on automobiles
that increases flexibility. The fact is that with the division among
metalworkers, the trade union is not united before the government, since
the francophone wing is demanding that the government refuse the collective
bargaining project because it must me translated into a royal decree
and have the force of law.
The climate of dismemberment is increasing. An extreme right proposal
in the Belgian parliament demands that the dismemberment of the Belgian
state be examined, while saying that it is the European Union that considers
the existence of the country superfluous-this is written in black and
white. On the francophone side, the democratic parties are committing
blackmail, saying that this has gone too far, that the rights of the
Flemish-speaking minority will be undermined in Brussels (the central
region that has remained bilingual with rights for the Flemish-speaking
people.)
The FGTB congress has truly expressed that it is against these elements
and has reaffirmed the unity of the FGTB, the need to maintain national
collective bargaining and a federal social security system. There were
many declarations from the other FGTB federations, with the exception
of the metalworkers, that reaffirmed the need to maintain their unity.
It is evident that there is unity in the FGTB. This means that there
is a refusal from the trade union point of view of to accept responsibility
for regionalization measures, especially of the right to work.
A regional president of the FGTB went even further than the simple
defense of the trade union point of view. He demanded that the political
world unite in order to defend Belgium's national conquests-this requires
a union between the two socialist parties, the flamand and the wallon,
who broke up in the early 80's. Therefore, we have the question of a
national government that defends labor conquests and the unity of social
security and collective bargaining.
What I understand from this morning's report is that it is not really
a question of fusion between two organizations. In Belgium, we say this
is not the problem. We are not going to fuse the two trade union federations
because, in essence, the problem is more about the dissolution of the
two trade unions into something larger that would integrate the NGOs
and associative movements, so one must pay attention to what will develop
from the influence of the social forums.
In Belgium we have been faced with the policy of the CSC apparatus.
There was a strong demonstration last October against the government's
plan to reduce the wages of laid-off older workers-what are called pre-retirement
pensions. The CSC was active against the general strike organized by
the FGTB on a national scale. It was only through the drive of the CSC
base, the Christian trade union, that it rallied to the general strike
on October 7. It is obvious that if we had had a CSC apparatus in our
trade union organization, the conditions would have been harder and
there would have been a serious threat to the dissolution of the FGTB
into something larger because the workers would not have had the means
to defend themselves.
********************
Presentation by Djibrine Assali Hamdallah (Tchad)
Secretary General of the Union of trade unions of Tchad
I would like to report on what is happening in my country as well as
on the creation of a new world organization.
Firstly, I would like to salute and encourage the work and the struggle
that the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples is undertaking
as regards the preservation of the ILO conventions and their application
as concerns our countries. The ILC newsletter is an important instrument
for us in the formation of our activists and our framework.
Our trade union organization has always been considered an opposition
organization for the simple reason that when the government came into
power in December 1990, it had wanted to dissolve our organization on
the pretext that it had collaborated with the previous regime. We were
opposed to this arbitrary decision, stressing our strikes and the commission
on trade union freedoms of the ILO and on Convention 87. Finally, our
federation was recognized and we simply consented to modify the name
from National Union of Tchad trade unions to Union of trade unions of
Tchad.
In the meantime, the government had tried to create two other trade
union organizations that had no base since no other federations had
accepted becoming affiliated. Nevertheless, three trade union federations
exist and we are considered as an opposition organization. This is because
last April the president called on the leaders of the different federations
and the independent education trade unions to declare that our organization
had always opposed him and that we are his declared enemy.
There was an attempt to dissolve our organization. The president modified
the constitution in 1996 in order to run again for the presidency since
there was an agreement at the sovereign national conference in 1993
to limit the number of mandates from five years to two years. We were
opposed to his modification. He also changed a law relating to the management
of oil revenues. This is because Tchad had solicited the approval of
the World Bank for its support in obtaining credits so that Tchad could
explore its own oil deposits.
At the outset, we were opposed because we were cognizant of the method
of operation of this regime and we said the oil could be explored but
it would not benefit the people, only its managers and the president's
entourage. We subsequently negotiated with the World Bank in Washington
in order to obtain guarantees and through this the adoption of a law
that regulates the management of oil revenues by setting aside one part
for operations and the other part for future generations.
Wages, retirement benefits and scholarships are not paid regularly.
We asked for a 5% increase in wages for 2005, but the government did
not apply it. Since June 5, all public sector workers are on strike
in order to reaffirm their demands and also to demand that the government
respect their commitments.
Regarding the creation of a world organization, considering that my
organization is affiliated with the ICFTU, my feeling as an African
is that all we do is go along with an evolution because in reality our
point of view will probably not be discussed on the base level. This
is because it is already sufficiently advanced since the congress for
its creation will take place in November. I do not think we could influence
the course of events in order to modify them substantially, even if
we consulted our bases. I deplore the fact that we are not sufficiently
well organized. But here we are and we will fight from inside and hope
that our points of view will be taken into consideration.
********************
Presentation by Jacques Paris (France)
Teacher Unionist
I would like to continue the discussion on the anticipated fusion in
this extremely brief time slot. I think we must put quotation marks
around the word "fusion" of the ICFTU and WCL, because we
are confronted with a special responsibility. The congress is planned
to take place in November of this year. In the name of my federation,
the Educators Federation, affiliated to the CGT-FO in France, I participated
in the congress of the International Federation of Education, which
discussed a fusion between the sector of the WCL and the Education International.
What is important in the discussion today is that it is clear that
this fusion has consequences not only in the education sector, but at
that time was explicitly presented as an anticipation of the process
of the ICFTU-WCL fusion and as a step toward the European Trade Union
Confederation (ETUC) model.
One of the slogans raised and often repeated was: "Unions are
united and ready for change!"
I would like to discuss this slogan, which is raised in many different
forms. Unity, ok, but for what goal? United to remain independent or
to be integrated into the international institutions? Concerning change:
it was said earlier that American unionists have the nice tradition
of saying things clearly. I think that the WCL also says things clearly.
For the preparatory congress for the fusion with the International
and Education, they call for "A Change for a New Social Pact."
The WCL writes: "This new pact demands that we all contribute something
for a better social order."
I don´t think this is a radically break of the leaders of the
WCL with their traditional policies. But in any case, we must understand
that these are the conceptions upon which the future Trade Union International
is supposed to rest.
We have spoken of the ETUC model. The Executive Committee of the ETUC
met this week and I think this meeting was very eye-opening. As you
know, the European Constitution was massively resisted. You know that
the directive "concerning services" and the Bolkenstein directive
which aimed to completely deregulate and privatize was massively rejected.
You know that the workers and youth of France fought, with their organizations,
against the CPE and forced the government to retreat.
And of course, it is eye-opening to read a few quotes from the discussion
of the Executive Committee of the ETUC, which, for example adopted a
resolution titled: "Europe is in Need of a Better Monetary Regime."
In this resolution, the ETUC supports an agenda of structural reforms
on the condition that "these reforms promote flexibility for the
better, and not for the worse" and that these reforms (of Social
Security, pensions, and the labor code in the countries of the European
Union) "be fair."
Fairness, if I understand, means that everybody receives what they
are due. In the literature of the WCL, we are told that the reforms
should "reduce to a minimum the number of people who lose out."
Here is a union organization that clearly throws out the workers' slogans.
I would also like to note that the ETUC, through its General Secretary,
affirmed right after its EC meeting that: "We need a stronger social
dimension in the constitution." In other words, when the European
Constitution is on its deathbed, the ETUC fights to revive it.
In the same way, it supports the directive on services, the famous
Bolkenstein directive.
This is not organizing the workers to defend their specific interests,
but an institution that is an auxiliary of the European Union. And in
some way, I think we can tell the workers and activists -- and our respective
organizations -- that the future trade union international would be
a type of world ETUC.
A conference recently took place in Latin America where the ETUC was
represented and promoted the model of the European Union and the ETUC.
Because this discussion is not taking place in the workers´ organizations,
it is up to us to lead the discussion and warn the workers and activists
of what is at stake. I think this is in conformity with our mission.
********************
Presentation by Norbert Tétévi Benissan (Togo)
General Secretary of the UNSIT
I would like to salute this 13th Annual Conference of the ILC. The
conferences of the ILC are becoming more and more important. Here we
exchange information and experiences in a context marked by the offensive
of globalization.
We have seen here how the offensive affects each of country. This allows
us to remain vigilant and identify the precise points where we should
resist and struggle.
Togo is the country of dialogue. Today we face what is called "inter-Togo
dialogue," which is a political dialogue between the party in power,
the RPT, the opposition parties, and "civil society," which
is not very organized because it is only represented by two small women's´
organizations.
This is really a mechanism to impose the 22 plans that the European
Union would like to push through, particularly through the increase
in assistance, that is, the agreement on sharing the crumbs. They call
this alternance.
I would primarily like to speak of the "social dialogue"
which came after this "political dialogue" -- these two terms
have been confused, due to political manipulation. This "social
dialogue," which only lasted close to three months, was hailed
by the governmental website as a "social victory."
Our African trade unions should reflect on this type of experience.
In Togo, what it's the process? It was first of all the establishment
of an inter-union coordination, then "social dialogue" itself.
The rule has been consensus -- which clearly is not democratic.
The result was that consensus was imposed on a trade union level, then
on a workers´ level, then on a tri-partite level between the government,
the employers, and the workers.
The results? We face 132 different engagements. Concerning the delays
in pension payments, the government decided to pay the wages of the
last year, the revalorization will take place in 2007 if the 35% devolution
takes place.
What are we faced with?
This is a drive to reach a tri-partite agreement of the government's
problems and we have seen the employers call on the government to favor
the implementation of the "enterprise governance" and "corporate
responsibility" directives, taken from the Medef seminar.
They want us to only have trade unionism which accompanies all these
policies. It is clear that this is not a social victory and that the
workers are not fooled. The workers have seen that social dialogue will
not resolve their problems, in a country where the life expectancy has
fallen from 55 to 49 in the last 10 years, where half the population
lives under the poverty line, which is close to 1.5 Euros a day; the
minimum wage (about 20 Euros) is the lowest in the region.
We could truly improve the living conditions of the workers and peoples
if we stopped paying the debt, which receives most of the budget and
represents more than 104% of the GDP. This would allow us to build schools,
hospitals, and infrastructures. We could also improve the lives of workers
through ending the privatizations.
There are struggles and resistance movements. For example, a union
that belongs to our confederation is opposed to the privatization of
the National Pharmaceutical enterprise. The price was terrible, because
the General Secretary of the union was beaten up in 1998.
The government just ended its contract with a private electricity company.
This is a victory for the unions.
The perspective for the struggle is as follows: What is social dialogue?
It is necessary, in the framework of the defense of the independence
of the unions, to struggle for the payment of the debt, the end to privatizations,
in defense of the labor code, labor rights, etc. There will be important
meetings of the public sector unions in August: It will be necessary
to explain the truth about the planned international trade union confederation.
The future will be difficult and the threats come from among our own.
In our organizations there are cleavages on social dialogue. During
the congress, there are risks of an explosion. They are destroying the
ICFTU, piece by piece. The ICFTU in September will begin a kind of poll
of the national organizations to ask them if they want to individually
enter into the new organization.
There is no doubt that trade unionism must, more than ever, defend
the real interests of the workers. It is necessary to cut through the
confusion and lies and explain what are our class´ interests.
Long live the ILC! Long live the world solidarity of the defense organizations
of the working class.
********************
Interview with Christian Carmelin, trade unionist in the French chemical
industry
ILC: You participated in the ILC conference last June 11 in Geneva.
For you, what were the stakes of the Conference?
CC: This was the first time I participated in this Conference. As a
trade union activist, I am conscious of the importance of the independence
of trade unions. The will of the governments and the capitalists has
always been to smash the interests of the workers, through repression
or through integration. History does not lack examples of this.
In France, as in all countries, attacks are reigning down on us to
integrate the trade union movement into so-called governance.
Alas, in Europe, we are also obliged to fight the ETUC. The ETUC supports
governance and the Constitution rejected on May 29 2005 by the CGT,
the CGT-FO and the French people. Its Executive Committee declared on
June 6 and 7 2006: "The ETUC reiterates its support for an inter-sectorial
directive-framework concerning general interest services."
The only trade unionism that I recognize is that which recognizes the
contradictory interests present in the class struggle.
On an international level, the danger is underlined when we learn that
the ICFTU and the WCL are in a process of fusion and that the General
Secretary of the CGT is the spokesman of this process.
We heard the testimonies of our African comrades, who explained that
unionists were beat up during recent strikes. It is clear what the capitalists
understand by governance.
Even if the ILO is not perfect, as a comrade explained in his intervention,
for the moment it remains a bulwark upon which the workers of the world
can lean.
Our task remains to defend trade union independence and freedom, to
defend our confederate structures, the ILO, the ICFTU, and to aim to
reconstruct on a European level a trade union confederation based on
the defense of the specific interests of the workers.
ILC: An extensive debate took place. What is your opinion?
CC: I think we learned of the difficulties facing unionists throughout
the world.
It is clear that nothing on a world level takes place randomly: It
responds to a liberal logic. Whether it is in Europe or the other continents,
the technique is implacable. Each time that a comrade spoke, the same
problems were raised: the destruction of the social gains, the norms,
the laws, and the conventions protecting workers´ rights, in the
benefit of more free and deeper competition. This gave each of us a
wider perspective on trade unionism, which can only be effective through
internationalist consciousness.
ILC: What were the conclusions of the Conference?
CC: Simply that we can only depend on our own forces and that the unionism
built by our predecessors is more necessary than ever. The French militants
of the independent organizations can contest to the damage caused by
the co-management of certain trade unions: the destruction of the collective
conventions, the Labor Code, the public services Š and the list goes
on. And all these conquests are being destroyed with the support of
the "social partners."
I think it is important to inform the activists and members of our
organization of the real meaning of the struggle we must lead to conquer
workers´ rights and defend our confederations, the ILO, and the
ICFTU. I think that the objective set by the old CGT has not yet been
reached.
********************
MESSAGE FROM GREAT BRITAIN
Dear Geneva Conference Organizer
The Greater Manchester Association of Trades Union Councils (GMATUC)
discussed the ILC Geneva appeal at our delegate meeting on Saturday
3rd June. Trade union mergers are now on the agenda in many countries
around the world. This process cannot be dissociated from the planned
merger between the ICFTU and the WCL to take place in Wien on November
of this year. This merger at a world level poses a series of problems
concerning the defense of basic trade union principles. Not least the
recognition that society is divided into antagonist interests. The draft
constitution for the reconfiguration of world trade unionism proposes
that national trade unions can affiliate directly to the new body. Such
a move seems to call into question the legitimacy and authority of national
trade union federations.
This is the framework within which new mergers of national unions are
now on the agenda in the UK with the proposed merger between the T&GWU,
GMB, Amicus. This problematic doubling of merger activity - on a world
level and nationally --increases the potential to undermine the legitimate
authority of the TUC and the registered network of local trades union
councils. We are deeply concerned that the proposal for a single giant
union of 2.6 million workers on the model of VERDI in Germany will impact
in a detrimental way on TUC structures locally as well as nationally.
The GMATUC agreed in principle to send an observer to Geneva. Unfortunately
we do not have funds available at the present time. We do however wish
to be kept informed about the debate on trade union mergers and send
fraternal greetings to all delegates and visitors for a successful conference.
Yours in solidarity
Derek Clarke
Secretary
* * * * *
Back to Home Back
to Trade Union Independence
|
Open
World Conference of Workers