|
|
In this message we reprint the concluding remarks by Daniel Gluckstein, ILC Coordinator, to the 13th Conference of the ILC In Defense of the ILO Conventions and Trade Union Independence, which met in Geneva last June 11.In his remarks to the Conference, Gluckstein noted that the responsibility of this conference was to organize on an international level this debate on the following themes: "-- Should the workers' movement integrate itself into world and workplace governance? -- The stakes of the international trade union regroupment of November 1 in Vienna. -- The question of trade union independence in relation to states, governments, and regional institutions. -- The question of the threats to the ILO and its conquests, as well as all the rights and conquests won by the working class. -- The question of nations, regarding the threats of dismemberment and the need to defend the unity of the nation. -- The question of the practical consequences of all this in each one of our countries." In line with the mandate of the Conference, the ILC International Newsletter has published all the proceedings of this conference. ------
Concluding Remarks by Daniel Gluckstein, Coordinator of the ILC I would like to make a few comments concerning the discussion. First of all: This is an indispensable discussion, which we have only begun. A comrade from Italy said: "This is a discussion that must be led everywhere we are present in the workers' movement." That is completely correct. I don't think there is a single country where most trade unionists, let alone the working class as a whole, are informed of the real content of the international trade union fusion of next November. Not a single country. This fact leads us to a conclusion: All those present today who agree on the importance of this discussion should continue and deepen this discussion wherever they organize, in all the organizations to which they belong, and in whatever forms they deem most useful. If we agree that there exists an extremely serious threat to the workers' movement and to democracy, then we must warn all those who will be affected. The first to be affected will be the trade union members in our countries. We must discuss with them what will be taking place. The role of the ILC is not to raise slogans. But we do have the role of suggesting what seems best for the working class and its independence. It is important for this discussion to be organized, so that the workers and their organization can find the appropriate answers to the situation. There are organizations that say: We will not participate in this fusion. Some say: We are not in favor of it, but how can we not be there? This remains to be seen. But for now, the most important thing is for the discussion to be organized. I found today's discussion to be extremely rich. One of the things I took away from it was the formulation of a comrade who said: "We should not separate from the list of difficulties facing the working class an objective fact: the profound crisis of decomposition of the capitalist system. He was right to raise this issue. Evidently, the root of all the attacks against the working class is the fact that the regime based on the private ownership of the means of production is no longer able to function with "business as usual" and thus resorts to anti-democratic attacks to lower what it calls "labor costs." The principal way to lower labor costs is to destroy the collective rights and the organizations of the working class linked to these rights. The comrade was right to underline this and underline the fact that everywhere the conquests of the workers are being undermined, if not destroyed. A comrade was right when he said, "Let's not be naive: let's not idealize the ILO conventions." But this applies to everything. In my country, there is an important conquest called Social Security, which unfortunately has been undermined, making it much worse than when it was created. This is true. In my country, as in all countries, the labor code is worse than it was 10 years ago. A whole series of conquests are being undermined. There is certainly a negative evolution, but this doesn't mean that because the offensive against the working class and democracy is more violent than ever, putting into question all the conquests, the working class must accompany this decomposition. To the contrary, I think that in a more difficult situation than ever, the working class must fight to preserve what exists and reconquer what it has lost. This is the discussion we must lead. Of course, very contradictory elements exist. I was struck by the number of comrades who spoke of important strikes in recent weeks and months. I had heard of some, others not. In Bangladesh, Germany, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, France, Italy, and Chad extremely important strikes have taken place. To all those who say that the class struggle is a thing of the past, we say no. The working class, confronted with exploitation and the undermining of everything constituting it as a class, has no choice but to defend itself. To survive it must fight back. Several comrades indicated that the strikes obtained a certain number of results, winning a few demands. These are the laws of the class struggle. I place a great deal of importance on the strike which Rubina spoke of, in which women were principally involved, in the extremely difficult situation of the country. In France, also, the movement was led principally by the youth. In both cases, women and youth, it was the sectors apparently less directly organized by the working class that played a central role. Taking into account these facts, we have the right to say: We have not lost. The workers fight back. We have not lost, but we have not won. For example, in relation to France, many comrades have said: The movement against the CPE was outstanding. That's true. It was a movement of millions and millions. The youth brought in the parents, the professors, all the workers organizations and it's true that the government was forced to retreat. The government was forced to retreat only when this seemed to be the only way available to prevent a general strike, which threatened to smash not only the CPE, but all the attacks against the working class and the youth that have been imposed in recent months and years. It is necessary to tell the truth: If the leaders of the main union confederations had launched a united call for a general strike throughout the whole country, the government would have been forced to retreat much farther than it did regarding the CPE. The fact that this didn't happen means that the government retreated on the CPE but later redoubled its attacks in other domains, to implement all the destructive plans dictated by the European Union. Thus, it is a very contradictory situation. It's true that the movement of millions forced the government to retreat. But that's not the whole story. The government is still attempting to destroy all conquests, and many organizations still say: "There is no alternative, we have to accompany this." The internal structural reforms in the workers' organizations accompany this process. But it would also be false to say: They're destroying everything, there is no resistance. Millions have been in the streets. They will be ready return to the streets tomorrow. I think this is true everywhere. I heard the German comrade, who spoke of an extremely powerful strike that wasn't able to prevent the negotiation of contracts commune by commune. This strike was able to push through victories, but at the same time it was not possible to maintain the unity of the working day hours throughout the Federal Republic. Both aspects are there. This is why this discussion has been important. We have said: Let's not idealize the ILO conventions conventions. True. The ILO is a tripartite system, in which the bosses work together with the bosses. Its harder and harder to defend things there. This is all true. But, is there still something to defend in the ILO system or not? Are there still conventions to defend or not? That is the discussion. The ILO has been attacked and weakened. This is true. But is there something to defend or not? This problem is posed in other domains as well. In one of the reports presented this year to the ILO, there is a passage which I had not read to you because it apparently had no relation to our discussion, but because the question came up, here it is: "In China, the dismantling of the public sector was one of the principal causes of unemployment." This is completely correct. We know that the conquests of the Chinese Revolution have been weakened, deformed, and bureaucratically confiscated as much as the ILO. But is there something to defend in the conquests won by the struggle of millions of workers and peasants, yes or no? Yes, there is something to defend. Social property. In France, is there something to defend in Social Security? Yes. Fighting to defend conquests can permit us to reconstruct all the rest. Is there something to defend in the rights and guarantees won by the workers in each of our countries? Absolutely, because if we don't defend these elements that have not been destroyed, we won't be able to win new ones. This is the discussion needed to enable to know what to do. On the one hand, there are serious problems of dislocation. What the comrade from Belgium told us concerning the division of the metal workers' federation is very serious. I did not know this had been decided on. The main element for unity in Belgium is the unity of the working class and its organizations. If the workers movement capitulates to the pressure to divide the country, then the situation in Ivory Coast will become that of Belgium tomorrow. These are problems that are present not only in Africa. In Belgium, there is now a division between the Flemish metal workers and the metal workers of Walloons. This is extremely serious. This offensive exists in other countries, even where it may be not as strong. Patrick Hebert spoke of a candidate for president who proposes mandatory unionization. He also proposes to give all power to the regions. But mandatory unionization with all power to the regions means regional unions, financed by the regions. There is nothing to envy about the situation in Belgium. Giving all power to the regions means breaking up all the rights and guarantees won on a national level. Thus, the situation is serious. I agree with what a comrade said concerning the role played by Ver.di concerning the division of the strike, putting into question the existence of the DGB as a trade union confederation in Germany. We must not underestimate this. But I also heard that a union leader who had been in favor of regionalization now says that it has gone too far, that it is necessary to reexamine regionalization. And in the CUT congress in Brazil, there was expressed concern with the international trade union congress. Comrade Shuster explained the resistance of Ursula Egelen Keffer in the last DGB congress in Germany. There is no set answer for the situation. One more thing concerning unity. We're not for unity for its own sake. I heard a comrade mention that it was unfortunate that the unions of the WFTU were not invited to the Vienna congress. Would their presence there change the nature of the congress? I doubt it. I don't think that the solution for all the problems facing us is to enter this new framework and re-orient it. I think the proposed framework is subordinated to world governance, a framework that will threaten all workers' organizations. On a certain level, it is better to have more organizations outside because, to a certain degree, this will preserve a certain form of union pluralism and, thus, democracy. We are for unity, because unity is needed for the workers to struggle. But unity means the unity of the class organizations around workers' demands. Unity with the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the European Union, and MERCOSUR is not the unity of the working class. Unity with the corporations is not the unity of the working class, it is the unity of governance. So, how can we move forward? I think that we have the responsibility in this Conference to make a proposal that may seem modest in form but, in my opinion, is important in content. This proposal - as made by several comrades - is to organize this debate on an international scale. Here are the three proposals: - The first is to note that a debate has begun among us and that this debate concerns vital questions for democracy and the workers' movement on the following themes: -- Should the workers' movement integrate itself into world and workplace governance? -- The stakes of the international trade union regroupment of November 1 in Vienna. -- The question of trade union independence in relation to states, governments, and regional institutions. -- The question of the threats to the ILO and its conquests, as well as all the rights and conquests won by the working class. -- The question of nations, regarding the threats of dismemberment and the need to defend the unity of the nation. -- The question of the practical consequences of all this in each one of our countries. That was the first point. The second proposal is to use the International Newsletter of the ILC to publish from now to next November 1st, and maybe later, a special weekly section concerning the discussion of the independence of the workers' movement and the anticipated international trade union recomposition. This should begin through the publication of the speeches of today's conference and should continue through contributions by labor activists here and elsewhere on this important discussion. Of course, this proposal is not exclusive and to it can be added local and regional proposals, other bulletins or publications that the comrades would like to develop in their countries, under the aegis of open discussion. I repeat: The ILC is not in competition with any existing organization. As Guido Montari said, comrades who had a certain point of view 5 years ago, think differently now. Thus, we are not here to condemn or support this or that, we are here to discuss with all who come from the workers' movement. The third proposal would be to mandate the Bureau of the ILC to propose (I'm not sure yet under what form) and write what could be a letter to all the delegates of the congress, which raises these problems (a type of synthesis of our discussion here) and allows us to discuss with them. I would like to insist on this last point. The calendar concerning the decision-making on this process is, in general, not known. Even the available information is not distributed to workers' activists. Thus, there is lot's of work to be done. I think we will be able to make an important contribution. In the framework of the Vienna congress, another conference is set to take place: In March 2007, a conference will aim to "reform" the ILO. These are the three proposals I make to this conference today.
|
Open
World Conference of Workers