Μπορούμε και είναι επιτακτική ανάγκη να ενημερωνόμαστε, να επικοινωνούμε με τους συναδέλφους μας, να ανταλάσσουμε απόψεις μέσα στο εργατικό κίνημα, με συντρόφισσες και συντρόφους, εργατικά σωματεία και συνδικάτα βάσης, οριζόντια και αυτοοργανωμένα εγχειρήματα, καθώς και αντίστοιχες ομαδοποιήσεις στο διεθνή χώρο. Να δούμε από κοινού πως μπορούμε να επαναπροσδιορίσουμε τις αντιστάσεις μας, όχι μόνο στα χρόνια του κορωνοϊού, αλλά και στις ζοφερές ημέρες που φαίνεται να έπονται.

Ανακοίνωση της ΕΣΕ-Αθήνας για τα νέα αντεργατικά μέτρα της κυβέρνησης με πρόσχημα την πανδημία

Τα έθνη-κράτη, παρά τους ισχυρισμούς τους, δε διαχειρίζονται την κρίση προς όφελος όλων, παρά μόνο προς όφελος των (εθνικών) αστικών τους τάξεων. Το κράτος ως θεσμός έχει μια βασική λειτουργία: να διαμεσολαβεί θέτοντας σε πρώτο πλάνο τα συμφέροντα του εθνικού κεφαλαίου ως σύνολο.

Έτσι και στη νέα συνθήκη που έχει διαμορφωθεί με την κρίση του κορωνοϊού, το κράτος έρχεται να εκπληρώσει το ρόλο του. Προσφέροντας και πάλι αφειδώς προνόμια στα αφεντικά και τσεκουρώνοντας τον κόσμο της εργασίας. Βέβαια τα νέα αντεργατικά μέτρα είχαν ξεκινήσει νωρίτερα, καθώς η καπιταλιστική κρίση είχε ξεκινήσει πριν από την πανδημία. Η πανδημία έδωσε μονάχα το «άλλοθι» σε κράτος και αφεντικά να στραγγαλίσουν περαιτέρω τα εργατικά δικαιώματα.

Μειώσεις μισθών, ελαστική εργασία, κατοχύρωση των απολύσεων είναι μερικά από τα «καλούδια» που με πρόσχημα τον κορωνοϊό σερβίρει το κράτος στους εργαζόμενους.

Από την άλλη, φοροελαφρύνσεις, παύση πληρωμών (ακόμα και του δώρου Πάσχα, το οποίο θα καταβληθεί ως το τέλος του καλοκαιριού και αναλόγως με τις μέρες εργασίας) και διασφάλιση της κερδοφορίας είναι αυτά που προσφέρονται στους εργοδότες.

Ήδη από το Σάββατο 21 Μαρτίου η κυβέρνηση με πράξη νομοθετικού περιεχομένου (ΠΝΠ), ενεργοποίησε το αντεργατικό μέτρο της εκ περιτροπής εργασίας, με ταυτόχρονη μείωση κατά 50% του μισθού. Μέτρα που ήρθαν για να μείνουν, όπως προκύπτει από τη δήλωση του υπουργού εργασίας, ότι τα μέτρα θα επεκταθούν για απροσδιόριστο χρόνο, μέχρι να «ορθοποδήσει» η οικονομία μετά την πανδημία.

Τα αφεντικά ωστόσο είχαν ξεσαλώσει και πριν την ΠΝΠ. Με μαζικές απολύσεις, απειλές και εκβιασμούς για μονομερείς αλλαγές στις εργασιακές σχέσεις, αλλαγές που αν κάποιος αρνηθεί απολύεται. Με πιέσεις για «οικοιοθελείς» αποχωρήσεις και για λήψη κανονικής άδειας ή ακόμα και άδειας άνευ αποδοχών, καθώς και εργασίας από το σπίτι με τηλε-εργασία, την οποία εντατικοποίησαν στο έπακρο.

Και τώρα τι;

Η κρίση της πανδημίας, όπως και η οικονομική κρίση του 2008, βρήκε τα εργατικά και κοινωνικά κινήματα απροετοίμαστα και σε καθεστώς ήττας. Οι διαδηλώσεις λίγων δεκάδων οργανωμένων πριν την έξαρση της πανδημίας μπορεί να ικανοποιούν μια εσωτερική αίσθηση καθήκοντος, αλλά δεν προσφέρουν κάτι ουσιαστικό στον ταξικό ανταγωνισμό. Ούτε όμως το “θα λογαριαστούμε μετά” έχει νόημα. Εφόσον τα κράτη συνεχίζουν να επινοούν μεσοβέζικες λύσεις για τις ανάγκες της κοινωνικής βάσης προς όφελος του κεφαλαίου, πρέπει κι εμείς να συνεχίσουμε την προσπάθεια οργάνωσης της τάξης μας απέναντι στο κεφάλαιο.

Με την κήρυξη κατάστασης εκτάκτου ανάγκης και την απαγόρευση κυκλοφορίας είναι δύσκολο να αναπτυχθούν μαζικές αντιστάσεις στην λαίλαπα των νέων αντεργατικών μέτρων.

Μπορούμε και είναι επιτακτική ανάγκη να ενημερωνόμαστε, να επικοινωνούμε με τους συναδέλφους μας, να ανταλάσσουμε απόψεις μέσα στο εργατικό κίνημα, με συντρόφισσες και συντρόφους, εργατικά σωματεία και συνδικάτα βάσης, οριζόντια και αυτοοργανωμένα εγχειρήματα, καθώς και αντίστοιχες ομαδοποιήσεις στο διεθνή χώρο. Να δούμε από κοινού πως μπορούμε να επαναπροσδιορίσουμε τις αντιστάσεις μας, όχι μόνο στα χρόνια του κορωνοϊού, αλλά και στις ζοφερές ημέρες που φαίνεται να έπονται.

ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑΚΗ ΣΥΝΔΙΚΑΛΙΣΤΙΚΗ ΕΝΩΣΗ ΑΘΗΝΑΣ

https://ese.espiv.net

En un país en donde son tan pocas las convenciones colectivas de trabajo y la negociación salarial por empresa o industria es tan débil, la negociación del salario mínimo nacional es una oportunidad para llegar a la mayoría precarizada y desorganizada de la clase trabajadora y proyectar una identidad obrera y popular común más allá de marcos locales y sectoriales.

El salario mínimo en Colombia decretado por el gobierno de Iván Duque para 2020 quedo en $877.803 pesos mensuales, monto que sumado el auxilio de $102.854 pesos de transporte, llega a un total de $980.657 pesos al mes y un crecimiento del 6%. El aumento general frente a 2019 fue de $49.687 pesos y en el rubro de auxilio de transporte de $5.822 pesos, para un total de $55.508 pesos de aumento bruto. Según este esquema la hora ordinaria de trabajo se pagara entonces a $3.657 pesos y el salario diario se fijará en $29.260 pesos. Este salario sin transporte, rubro que muchas empresas burlan habitualmente, implica $266.97 dólares o 240.19 euros para el tipo de cambio de mediados de enero de 2020, lo que mantiene el país como el cuarto salario mínimo más bajo de Suramérica y uno de los más regresivos y desproporcionados en comparación con el precio la canasta básica de alimentos.

El gobierno del antiguo asesor de la banca comercial Duque y su ministra de trabajo Alicia Arango, ex secretaria privada del gobierno Uribe y administradora de personal de entidades públicas con contratos precarios como Coldeportes, ICBF e IDRD, expidió el decreto de fijación salarial, tras no llegarse a ningún acuerdo en la Comisión Permanente de Concertación de Políticas Salariales y Laborales, fijando un aumento igual que el de 2019. En las negociaciones el gobierno había propuesto la fórmula “conciliadora” del 5.2% que luego subió ligeramente. El aumento supuestamente seria del doble de la inflación estimada por el Banco de la República para 2020, es decir el 3.4%. Sin embargo, solo el año pasado la cifra real de inflación del país fue del 3.84%, superior en un 30% a la estimada por el Banco, en un tiempo en que según el DANE la cifra de alimentos de la canasta familiar superó el 6% de acumulado en el año, y por lo tanto creció mas que el pasado incremento salarial.

Para explicar su política salarial restrictiva, el gobierno Duque explico que en el paquete de reformas que instalo para combatir el paro nacional del 21 de noviembre, incluido el proyecto de ley de la precarizadora reforma laboral del senador Álvaro Uribe Vélez, se establece una prima adicional para compensar esta situación, para trabajadores que devenguen menos de 1.5 salarios mínimos, proyecto que supuestamente habría conversado con empresarios y políticos afines. En materia económica es claro que el gobierno subordina su política salarial a su objetivo hasta ahora parcialmente fallido, de control inflacionario y la estrategia general de ajuste económico implementado por medio de la reforma tributaria.

La negociación fallida

La instancia de negociación salarial de 2019 duro todo el mes de diciembre. A su alrededor el gobierno uribista desarrollo escenarios informales de reunión bilateral con empresarios y sectores sindicales, para plantear la necesidad de llegar a un acuerdo nacional en un momento político de debilidad gubernamental y efervescencia popular causado por las grandes jornadas de protestas nacional de noviembre-diciembre.

Sin embargo, el esquema de concertación salarial volvió a fallar este año, desinflando las expectativas gubernamentales. Aunque el artículo 56 de la Constitución de 1991 estableció el mecanismo de concertación salarial anual, luego reglamentado en 1996, esta instancia sufre de fuertes limitaciones de legitimidad y participación. Desde 1997 y en los últimos 23 años de negociación, representantes patronales y obreros no han consensuado nada en 16 oportunidades y solo han concertado en 7 oportunidades, incluidas los acuerdos parciales de 2018-2019, realizados solo con los sectores menos exigentes de los sindicatos.

Las 3 centrales sindicales de tercer grado a nivel nacional, esto es: la mayoritaria Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (CUT), la gobiernista Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT) y la centrista Confederación de Trabajadores de Colombia (CTC), así como las 2 organizaciones de pensionados, la Confederación de Pensionados de Colombia (CPC) y la minoritaria Confederación Democrática de Pensionados (CDP) que regresaron a la negociación en 2012, llegaron a la mesa con un acuerdo unificado y se mantuvieron en ese marco, algo bastante inusual para organizaciones como CGT y CDP acostumbradas a negociar a la baja y buscar malos acuerdos con la patronal. Las organizaciones sindicales pedían 8.1% de aumento y más adelante 8.0%, una propuesta que implicaba $600 pesos diarios más que lo finalmente concedido, aunque también esbozaron como elementos de agitación, la propuesta de un salario vital, que cubriera la canasta básica y se elevara a $1´500.000 pesos.

El que no se hubiera repetido el escenario de acuerdo parcial los dos últimos años entre CGT-CTC sin la concurrencia de la más representativa CUT, ni se hubieran utilizado los inflados resultados del censo sindical de 2017 para cambiar el funcionamiento de la mesa, y finalmente no se hubiera traducido en la mesa la buena voluntad que ha mostrado la organización cegetista liderada por el burócrata Julio Roberto Gómez con el gobierno Duque, obedece el significativo cambio de escenario político creado por la coyuntura de paro y protesta nacional y la exigencia masiva de la población de un mayor aumento salarial, que obligo a un marco de mayor intransigencia y unidad a las organizaciones obreras.

Los empresario agrupados en el Consejo Gremial Nacional (CGN), que son como es habitual los claros ganadores de la jornada, iniciaron planteando un 4.5% y llegaron a ofrecer 5.88%. De forma clave, los representantes patronales se mantuvieron también unidos, cosa poco común, sobre todo por parte de sectores como la Asociación Bancaria y de Entidad Financieras (Asobancaria), la Sociedad de Agricultores de Colombia (SAC) y la Asociación de Pequeñas y Medianas Empresas (Acopi), defensores de los salarios más bajos posibles. Como de costumbre los empresarios sostuvieron el tradicional dogma neoliberal de que cualquier aumento salarial supuestamente derivaría en aumento del desempleo y la informalidad, tesis fuertemente contrariada por la evidencia vista en la historia reciente del país y el mundo. Los voceros de las patronales señalarón una supuesta falta de voluntad de los sindicatos, que parecen entender como la subordinación de los mismos a las cortísimas propuestas patronales, saludaron con entusiasmo la decisión gubernamental y hablaron con una fuerte arrogancia de clase de un incremento sustancial y generoso, que no se advierte en ninguna parte de la realidad económica.

Es importante señalar que sus centros de pensamiento y la prensa empresarial en bloque, volvieron a agitar la regresiva idea del salario mínimo diferencial por regiones, que supondría una baja general de salarios en las zonas más pobres y un retorno a la regresiva política vigente hasta 1983, al tiempo que cerraba filas en torno a la política económica general del gobierno y proyectos claves del ajuste como la reforma laboral y sobre todo la reforma pensional.

La necesidad de movilización

La derrota de la propuesta sindical es una lucha más que se abandona si tan siquiera comenzar. Las centrales son estructuralmente débiles en la mesa de concertación donde juegan contra la coordinación económica y política del gobierno y los gremios patronales, y lo son también en el terreno de la gran prensa empresarial que defiende las políticas económicas neoliberales. Su fuerza debería estar entonces en la calle, por lo que la pequeña concentración del 10 de diciembre en Bogotá en medio de las negociaciones, enlazada con las jornadas de protesta nacional de noviembre-diciembre, es una muestra positiva de la vía de movilización por esa demanda común que las lentas y corporativistas organizaciones sindicales, ya sean concertacionistas o clasistas, que afrontan este escenario hace ya 3 décadas, se han negado a desarrollar, aunque su urgencia hoy es clara.

El periodo de negociación del salario mínimo debería ser clave para las organizaciones sindicales, pues supone un momento de discusión pública sobre la política salarial y las condiciones de trabajo donde las trabajadoras esbozan reflexiones clasistas y una perspectiva crítica sobre sus condiciones de vida, es además un periodo donde las posturas de las centrales tienen su mayor proyección mediática y pueden despertar una importante simpatía de masas y es adicionalmente un escenario donde los gobiernos dejan ver con mayor claridad sus políticas económicas y sus muy restrictivas proyecciones concretas sobre las condiciones salariales y sociales de la población. Es en general una oportunidad desperdiciada que genera una sensación de frustración entre las trabajadoras y en contraposición forja un sentido de unidad y fortaleza entre la burguesía.

En un país en donde son tan pocas las convenciones colectivas de trabajo y la negociación salarial por empresa o industria es tan débil, la negociación del salario mínimo nacional es una oportunidad para llegar a la mayoría precarizada y desorganizada de la clase trabajadora y proyectar una identidad obrera y popular común más allá de marcos locales y sectoriales. La negociación interpela de manera viva a los 2.5 millones de personas y 11% de la población asalariada que gana el salario mínimo sobre todo concentradas en el comercio y los servicios, pero es además importante para una población obrera que por absoluta mayoría y en un 80% devenga menos de dos de estos salarios, y urgente para 12 millones de personas y el 50% del total de la población trabajadora que recibe ingresos incluso menores al salario mínimo, sobre todo en las regiones apartadas del centro y para sectores como las mujeres, la juventud y la población negra.

En ese sentido pensamos que la tarea de reconstruir la organización sindical de la clase trabajadora en clave democrática, unitaria y federalista e impulsar una tendencia sindical libertaria para ese propósito, sigue siendo fundamental.

¡Arriba las que lucha!
Grupo Libertario Vía Libre

The nationwide general strike in France, now entering its record seventh week, seems to be approaching its crisis point. Despite savage police repression, about a million people are in the streets protesting President Emmanuel Macron’s proposed neoliberal “reform” of France’s retirement system, established at the end of World War II and considered one of the best in the world. At bottom, what is at stake is a whole vision of what kind of society people want to live in – one based on cold market calculation or one based on human solidarity – and neither side shows any sign of willingness to compromise.

On one side, the Macron government has staked its legitimacy on pushing through this key “reform” intact as a matter of principle, however unpopular. On the other side stand the striking railroad and transit workers, who are bearing the brunt of this conflict and have already sacrificed thousands of Euros in lost pay since the strike began last December 5. After six weeks, they cannot accept the prospect of returning to work empty-handed, and they have set their sights high: withdrawal of the whole government project.

Now or Never?
This looks like a “now or never” situation. Moreover, it seems clear that the transport workers mean business. When the government (and the union leaders) proposed a “truce” in the transport strike during the sacred Christmas/New Year vacation period, the rank-and-file voted to continue the struggle, and their leaders were obliged to eat their words.

Nor are the transport workers isolated, despite the inconvenience to commuters and other travelers. They have been joined by emergency-room nurses and doctors (who have been on strike for months over lack of beds, personnel and materials), public school teachers (protesting undemocratic and incomprehensible “reforms” to the national curriculum), lawyers and judges (visible in their judicial robes), and the dancers at the Paris Opera (visible in their tutus), among the other professions joining the strike.

Strikers and “Yellow Vests” Together
Alongside the strikers, and quite visible among them, the so-called Yellow Vests (Gilets jaunes) are a crucial element. For over a year, they have been setting a “bad example” of self-organized, largely leaderless, social protest, which captured the public imagination, and through direct action in the streets, won some real concessions from Macron in December 2018. This victory impressed the rank-and-file of the French organized labour movement, which after three months of disciplined, but limited, stop-and-go strikes in the Spring of 2018, failed utterly to wring any concessions and went back to work poor and empty-handed while Macron pushed through a series of neoliberal privatizations and cuts in unemployment compensation.1

Although their numbers diminished, the Yellow Vests continued their spontaneous protests throughout 2019 despite savage government repression, distorted media coverage stressing Black Block violence, and snubbing on the part of the union leadership, but their “bad example” was not lost on the union rank-and-file. January 13th’s general strike was originally sparked last September by a spontaneous walkout by Paris subway workers, who, contrary to custom, shut down the system without asking permission from their leaders and management.

Meanwhile, the Yellow Vests, initially suspicious of the unions but isolated in their struggle with Macron, had begun to seek “convergence” with the French labour movement. Finally, at the Yellow Vest national “Assembly of Assemblies” last November, their delegates voted near-unanimously to join the “unlimited general strike” proposed for December 5 by the unions. Reversing his previous standoffishness, Philippe Martinez, head of the CGT labour federation, immediately welcomed their participation.2

Government Provocation
The January 13 intractable nationwide confrontation over retirement – a sacred cow, like Social Security in the US – is best understood as a deliberate provocation on the part of Macron, both in its form and its substance. There was no urgent reason for pension reform, nor for abolishing the venerable system outright and hastily replacing it from above with an abstract neoliberal plan based on “universality.” The pension program was not in debt, and the alleged need to replace the twenty-odd “special” retirement funds – negotiated over the years with the representatives of different trades and professions – with a single “point system” in the name of fairness, efficiency, and rationality was only a smokescreen.

In fact, these “special funds” cover only about one percent of retirees – a million or so miners, railroad workers, transit workers, sailors, ballet dancers, and such – who get to retire early because of the physically or mentally taxing nature of their specific labours. (Even if you include the four million public employees as “special,” the figure rises to under 25%). Moreover, Macron has himself recently violated this principle of “universality” by giving special exceptions to the police and army (whom he cannot afford to alienate) and the ballerinas of the Opera (whom no one can imagine toe-dancing at the age of sixty).

Behind this confusing smokescreen of “fairness to all” is an old con: equalize benefits by reducing them to the lowest common denominator. Indeed, according to independent calculations, under Macron’s point system the average pension would be reduced by about 30%. And since these “points” would be calculated over the total lifetime number of years worked before retirement, rather than on the current criterion of 75% of the worker’ best or final years, Macron’s point system would particularly penalize those whose careers were irregular – for example, women who took off years for childcare. Yet the government brazenly claims that women will be “the big winners” in this so-called reform!

A Pig in a Poke
However, the biggest con embodied in this point system is that the actual cash value of each accumulated point would only be calculated at the time of retirement. The sum in Euros would then be determined by the government then in power on the basis of the economic situation at that moment (for example in 2037 when the plan goes into full effect). Thus, under the present system, every school-teacher, railroad worker and clerk can calculate how much s/he will receive when they retire at 62 and plan accordingly (for example, opting for early retirement). Macron’s point system would leave them in total darkness until it is too late. His system resembles a gambling casino where you buy 10 chips for a certain amount (say 10 Euros each), place your bets, and later take your winning chips to the cashier’s window only to discover that your chips are now worth only 5 Euros each. Surprise! The house wins!

Today, thanks to their existing pension system, French people live on the average five years longer than other Europeans. Moreover, according to the New York Times: “In France the poverty rate among those older than 65 is less than 5 percent, largely because of the pension system, while in the United States it approaches 20 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In France, life expectancy is increasing, while in the United States it is diminishing in significant sectors of the population.” And although the pro-government French media have presented Macron’s confused and confusing reform in the best possible light, it is a hard sell. So why change it?

Not an Ordinary President
When Emmanuel Macron took power in 2017, he vowed he would not be “an ordinary president.” From the beginning he has openly proclaimed his iron determination to revolutionize French society in order to bring it into line with the neoliberal Thatcher/Reagan revolution of the 1980s, and his methods have been authoritarian. He has imposed his program of privatizations and counter-reforms from above, mainly by decree, deliberately circumventing negotiations with “intermediate bodies” like the parliament, the political parties, the local authorities, and above all, the labour unions, who have traditionally been the “social partners” (official designation) of government, along with the employers’ associations (who are Macron’s main base of support).

Backed by the mainstream media (controlled by the government and three big corporations), Macron has so far been largely successful in steam-rolling through his neoliberal program, openly designed to improve French “competivity” (i.e., corporate profits) by lowering living standards (thus increasing inequality). If successful, his proposed “reform” of pensions would open the gates to his ultimate goal, the “reform” of France’s socialized healthcare system (Medicare for all), already on the road to privatization.

Naturally, all these moves have been unpopular, but until now, Macron, whose executive style has been characterized as “imperial,” has been successful in dividing and destabilizing his opposition – if necessary, through massive use of police violence. This has been the fate of the spontaneous movement of Yellow Vests, who have been subjected to routine beatings and tear-gas attacks as well as hundreds of serious injuries (including blindings, torn-off hands, and several deaths) – all with police impunity and media cover-ups. Now the government’s savage repressive methods – condemned by the U.N. and the European Union – are being applied to strikers and union demonstrators traditionally tolerated by the forces of order in France.

This repression may turn out to be like throwing oil on the flames of conflict. On January 9, at the end of the peaceful, legal mass marches (estimated half-million demonstrators nationwide), members of the particularly brutal BAC (Anti-Criminal Brigade) in Paris, Rouen and Lille were ordered to break off sections of the marches, surround them, inundate them with teargas, and then charge in among them with truncheons and flash-ball launchers fired at close range, resulting in 124 injuries (25 of them serious), and 980 sickened by gas.

These brutal attacks, which focused particularly on journalists and females (nurses and teachers), were captured on shocking videos, viewed millions of times on YouTube, but pooh-poohed by government spokesmen. Far from discouraging the strikers, this deliberate violence may only enrage them. And, what with the “bad example” of the Yellow Vests, the labour leaders may not be able to reign them in.

The Center Cannot Hold
Why is Macron risking his prestige and his presidency on this precarious face-off with the labour leadership, traditionally viewed as the compliant hand-maidens of the government on such occasions? Historians here recall that in 1936 Maurice Thorez, leader of Communist-affiliated CGT (General Confederation of Workers), brought the general strike and factory occupations to an end with the slogan “We must learn how to end a strike” and that at the Liberation of France in 1945, the same Thorez, fresh from Moscow, told the workers to “roll up your sleeves” and rebuild French capitalism before striking for socialism. Similarly, in 1968, during the spontaneous student-worker uprising, the CGT negotiated a settlement with De Gaulle and literally dragged reluctant strikers back to work.

Not for nothing are today’s government-subsidized French unions officially designated as “social partners” (along with government and business), yet Macron, loyal to neoliberal Thatcherite doctrine, has consistently humiliated the CGT’s Martinez and the other union leaders, and excluded them – along with the other “intermediary bodies” – from the policy-making process.

Something’s Got to Give
France’s “not-an-ordinary-President” has from the beginning remained consistent with his vision of an imperial presidency. Although seen by many abroad as a “progressive,” Macron, like Trump, Putin, and other contemporary heads of state, adheres to the neoliberal doctrine of “authoritarian democracy,” and he is apparently willing to stake his future, and the future of France, on subduing his popular opposition, particularly the unions, once and for all.

Thus, what is at stake today is not just a quarrel over pension rights, which would normally be negotiated and adjudicated through a political process including political parties, elected representatives, parliamentary coalitions, and collective bargaining with labour, but a question of what kind of future society French people are going to live in: social-democratic or neoliberal authoritarian. The seasoned Paris bureau chief of the New York Times, Adam Nossiter, put it simply in his revealing January 9 article: “A fight between the rich and the poor amplified by 200 years of French history.”

A technocrat and former Rothschild banker, Macron rose to power unexpectedly in 2017 when the traditional Left and Right parties fell apart during the first round of the presidential election, leaving him alone as the lesser-of-two-evils candidate in a face-off with the proto-fascist National Front of LePen. Considered “the President of the rich” by most French people, Macron must remain inflexible because he has nothing behind him but the Bourse (Stock Exchange), the MEDEF (Manufacturers’ Association), and the police.

Second Thoughts
On the other hand, as the struggle enters its seventh week, it occurs to me that if this were a true general strike, if all the organized workers had walked out on December 5, if the railroads, the subways, the buses, the schools, and the hospitals – not to mention the refineries and the electrical generators – had been shut down, it would all have been over in a few days.

But this is not the US where in September-October 2019, 48,000 members of the United Auto Workers shut down 50 General Motors plants for more than six weeks, and where not a single worker, not a single delivery of parts, not a single finished car crossed the picket lines until the strike was settled.

In France, there are no “union shops,” much less closed shops, few if any strike funds, and as many as five different union federations competing for representation in a given industry. Here, picket lines, where they exist, are purely informational, and anywhere from 10% to 90% of the workers may show up on the job on any given day during a strike. Today, for example, seven out of ten TGV high-speed bullet-trains were running as many railroad workers returned to the job to pay their bills while planning to go back on strike and join the demonstrations later in the week. How long can this go on?

“When an irresistible force meets an immovable object, something’s got to give,” goes the old saying, and a showdown seems to be in the offing. With his arrogant intransigence over the retirement issue, Macron is apparently risking his presidency on one throw of the dice. Only time will tell. And Macron may be betting that time is on his side, waiting for the movement to slowly peter out so as to push through his reforms later in the Spring.

Update: French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe’s much ballyhooed January 12 declaration of a “provisionary” withdrawal of his proposal to extend the “pivotal” age of retirement from 62 to 64 is yet another smokescreen designed to divide the opposition and further prolong the struggle, as suggested above.

Although denounced as such by the CGT and other striking unions, the government’s promise was immediately accepted by the openly class-collaborationist (“moderate”) CFDT union, to their mutual advantage. The CFDT will now be included in the negotiations over the financing of the proposed point system, which the CFDT, having collaborated with previous governments in earlier neoliberal reforms, supports.

Philippe’s declaration is obviously an empty promise, as there are only two ways of increasing the retirement fund: either by extending the number of years paid in or by increasing the amount of annual contributions, which are shared by labour and management. And although labour has signaled its willingness to raise its dues, the MEDEF (manufacturers’ association) has adamantly refused to pay its share, ruling out the obvious solution to this manufactured crisis. Even if the official “pivotal” retirement age is retained, if the value of their pensions is reduced, employees will be obliged to continue working past age 62 in order to live. •

Endnotes
For details on 2018 strikes, please see my “French Labour’s Historical Defeat; US Teachers’ Surprising Victories.”
Please see “French Unions, Yellow Vests Converge, Launch General Strike Today” by Richard Greeman.

Here Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) offers the first of what we hope will become an ongoing series of interviews with workers from various sectors who are having their well being and livelihoods damaged. We begin with an educator in Southland, South Island. Due to the attitude and actions of his employers, he has asked to remain anonymous.

---

AWSM: Thanks for agreeing to this interview would you like to tell us something about your work.

WORKER: Hi, I’m an educator with adults, young and the not so young, looking to upskill their literacy

AWSM: Do you enjoy your work?

WORKER: Immensely. It’s making a useful contribution to society, and while I am aware really the main demands of my job are to make people fit for capitalism in terms of being upskilled to join the employment force, l like to embed a lot of critical thinking skills around for example, checking sources of news articles and what bias may come from them, interpreting the difference between facts and opinions, and seeing through advertising. In this way I like to think at least I’m giving people tools to deal with the capitalist media system, or at least attempting to.

AWSM: Is there anything you don’t like?

WORKER: Well yes, my terms and conditions leave a lot to be desired. For example, I was on a contract for a maximum of 20 hours, but if I had no students I had no pay. So in reality because of the vagaries of the people we teach, who often have chaotic lifestyles, my hours could vary anywhere between 10 and 20 in a given week, so obviously my pay reflected this. Also we have to take leave around the school holidays. So effectively, because you can’t earn enough annual leave to cover this amount you are without pay for around 8-10 weeks a year.

AWSM: Is the pay good?

WORKER: On paper it looks ok. I won’t go into the exact figures, but it is $30+ an hour and seems generous. The reality however is very different. I get paid what is known as an inclusive rate. This means I get deductions for my holiday pay, which I know isn’t that unusual, but also I have to pay the kiwisaver employer contributions out of my pay, which was a new thing for me and totally surprised me as I didn’t even know that was a thing. Also we don’t get paid for any time we spend preparing lessons or marking, and it is expected we are in the building at least half an hour before any class that we are teaching starts. Another thing that winds me up is once a month we are expected to attend staff meetings, without pay, that can drag on for over 2 hours, thanks to two managers who will talk and talk interminably about nothing much – of course they will be getting paid as they enjoy the luxury of 40 hour contracts.

AWSM: In the previous question you said you were on a contract with a maximum of 20 hours, did this change?

WORKER: Yes, at the end of Term 2 last year I was asked if I would like to take on a new course that involved 40 hours per week teaching. I accepted and they put me on a salaried contract which actually saw my pay drop by about $8 per hour. The course actually involved a lot more than 40 hours a week with gathering resources and marking, and of course, such is the lot of a salaried worker, you don’t get overtime – but of course if you ever leave early then it is seen as theft of time. I got reprimanded once for leaving an hour early for a doctors appointment – this having worked for the previous 4 saturdays above my 40 hours to catch up with my workload.

AWSM: Things like that must drive you mad?

WORKER: Honestly, I have been in the workforce for a long time now and I have no expectation of being treated differently. I really don’t think I have ever had a boss who I had any respect for and would treat you decently.

AWSM: Are you still on that contract now?

WORKER: No. As soon as my course finished they put me back on a 20 hour/Zero hour contract. Presumably so they don’t have to pay me fully for public holidays. When I return at the beginning of next term I will be offered the 40 hour contract again.

AWSM: How do your colleagues view their working conditions?

WORKER: No-one really talks about it. I try and get others involved in conversations but they really don’t want to rock the boat at all.

AWSM: Have you ever suggested organising your workplace?

WORKER: Ha, yes, and the response was mostly bemused looks. The place I work is one branch of a nationwide organisation and I tried reaching out to others around the country. The company has an intranet with a messaging service as part of it. I tried to start a topic on there to see how other tutors felt about the working conditions. It literally lasted less than half an hour and was taken down by management at the head office, followed by a phone call from the CEO to my line manager to tell her to have a word with me not to do this again. A few of us did start up a Facebook group to chat away from the eyes of management, and they were eager to try and organise, but they all found better jobs and left before we got very far.

AWSM: Thanks for chatting to us, is there anything else you would like to add?

WORKER: Not really, I think you can see what I have to put up with, but the saddest part is that it’s not unusual to have such poor conditions. A lot of the people I teach get seasonal work in the local pack houses. They are mostly on zero hour contracts, and can be called in or cancelled with very little notice. At busy periods they can work 14 hours a day for over 7 days at a time. I think that a whole generation has grown up since the economy was given a dose of neo-liberalism, and they can’t really remember a time anymore when proper contracts with decent conditions were considered the norm. The working conditions they have now are just seen as the way things are. Hopefully, one day things will change as people get pushed ever harder for less return.

END

January 8, 2020 will go down in the history books as the world’s largest 24-hour general strike to date. In India, more than 250 million workers went on strike during the general strike or “Bharat Bandh”, which was joined by ten major unions as well as a number of independent associations. Associations organising bank employees, farmers and teachers, but also the student movement played a leading role. The electricity supply was also affected, with up to 1.5 million people going on strike in the power stations. The same applies to local and long-distance public transport. Across the country there were also rail blockades.

The strike had the biggest impact in the politically leftist state of Kerala, where the “communist” party CPI traditionally receives the most votes. Here, but also in many other places in India, traffic and public life were virtually at a standstill.

The strike was directed against the policy of the ruling Hindu Nationalist Party (BJP), which not only tries to split the population along ethnic and religious lines with classic nationalist policies, but also to severely restrict workers’ rights, to massively promote precarious employment and privatisation of public institutions (such as rail transport) and to provide tax breaks to large corporations.

Core demands of the unions were the creation of new jobs for the unemployed (currently 8% unemployment in India, that is 73 million people), basic workers’ rights for all workers, the increase of wages and the minimum wage, as well as a five-day week. They also called for the withdrawal of the discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which makes naturalisation easier for Hindu immigrants (or Jains, Sikhs) but excludes Muslims, Tamils or Tibetans. The law had already triggered massive protests across India in 2019. In addition, their demands were also directed against the biometric registration and counting of the entire Indian population, which also has special racist regulations, which are explicitly directed against Muslim citizens, for example.
More about the protests against the CAA for example here: anarkismo.net/article/31703

On the one hand, the right-wing BJP government tried in vain to enforce sanctions against strikers – for example, in the state of Tamil Nadu there were mass arrests of strikers; in Delhi, BJP youth organisations attacked striking students. On the other hand, the BJP publicly played down the importance of the protests.

In vain – the organized Indian workers yesterday demonstrated their enormous strength and raised the bar for the rest of the world. However, it remains to be seen whether they can sustain a prolonged confrontation with the government at this level of strength. From an anti-authoritarian point of view, the question also arises whether the strikers will allow themselves to be hitched to the cart of the parliamentary opposition parties, which ultimately only want to use the dynamics created by the mass struggles to come to power themselves – or whether the workers will succeed in taking their cause into their own hands…

The Indian anarchosydicalist organisation “Muktivadi Ekta Morcha” (Libertarian Solidarity Front) from Bhopal is rather skeptical in this respect. In a short statement (https://www.facebook.com/muktivadi/) it writes: “general strikes like these are for the most part electoral political facades at cost of genuine workers grievances. Most, if not all unions affiliated with “left” parties treat their workers as infants in these demonstrations controlling them more severely than they are in their workplace. There are some independent unions that are less authoritarian but hardly any genuinely democratic workers organization. We are working to change that.” – It is of course difficult for us to judge from a distance to what extent this assessment is correct, but we generally find it important to point out contradictions and limitations of social movements with the aim of overcoming them. In any case, we wish the Indian comrades a lot of success in their cause!

Either way, the success of the mobilization alone is a symbol that the organized, oppressed and wage-dependent class has the potential to unhinge the world!

Indien: bislang größter Generalstreik der Menschheitsgeschichte

Der 8.1.2020 wird als der bisher weltgrößte, 24-stündige Generalstreik in die Geschichtsbücher eingehen. In Indien streikten über 250 Millionen Arbeiter*innen anlässlich des Generalstreiks oder „Bharat Bandh“, dem sich zehn große Gewerkschaften wie auch eine Vielzahl unabhängiger Assoziationen anschlossen. Tragende Rollen spielten Verbände, die Bankangestellte, Bäuer*innen und Lehrer*innen organisieren, aber auch die Student*innenbewegung. Auch die Stromversorgung war betroffen, in den Kraftwerken streikten bis zu 1,5 Millionen Menschen. Ebenso der öffentliche Nah- und Fernverkehr. Quer durchs Land kam es zudem zu Schienenblockaden.

Am stärksten wirkte sich der Streik im politisch links geprägten Staat Kerala aus, in dem traditionell die „kommunistische“ Partei CPI die meisten Stimmen erhält. Hier, aber auch an vielen anderen Orten in Indien, standen Verkehr wie öffentliches Leben quasi still.

Der Streik richtete sich gegen die Politik der regierenden Partei der Hindunationalist*innen (BJP), die nicht nur versucht, mit klassisch nationalistischer Politik die Bevölkerung entlang ethnischer und religiöser Linien gegeneinander aufzuhetzen, sondern auch Arbeiter*innenrechte stark zu beschränken und prekäre Beschäftigung und Privatisierungen öffentlicher Einrichtungen (etwa des Bahnverkehrs) massiv voranzutreiben, sowie großen Konzernen Steuererleichterungen zu verschaffen.

Kernforderungen der Gewerkschaften waren die Schaffung neuer Stellen für Arbeitslose (derzeit in Indien 8% Arbeitslosigkeit, 73 Millionen Menschen), grundlegende Arbeiter*innenrechte für alle Arbeiter*innen, die Erhöhung von Löhnen und des minimalen Mindestlohns, sowie eine Fünf-Tage-Woche. Sie forderten auch die Rücknahme des diskriminierenden Citizenship Amendment Acts (CAA), das zwar die Einbürgerung für hinduistische Einwanderer*innen (oder Jains, Sikhs) erleichtert, aber Muslim*innen, Tamil*innen oder Tibeter*innen ausspart. Das Gesetz hatte bereits 2019 massive Proteste über ganz Indien hinweg ausgelöst. Ausserdem richteten sich ihre Forderungen auch gegen die biometrische Erfassung und Zählung der gesamten indischen Bevölkerung, die zudem auch rassistische Sonderregelungen aufweist, die sich z.B. explizit gegen muslimische Bürger*innen richtet. Mehr zu den Protesten gegen den CAAetwa hier: www.anarkismo.net/article/31703

Die rechte BJP-Regierung versuchte einerseits vergeblich, Sanktionen gegen Streikende durchzusetzen – so kam es etwa im Staat Tamil Nadu zu Massenverhaftungen von Streikenden, in Delhi attackierten BJP-Jugendverände streikende Student*innen. Auf der anderen Seite spielte die BJP die Bedeutung der Proteste öffentlich herunter.

Vergeblich – die organisierten indischen Arbeiter*innen haben gestern ihre enorme Stärke demonstriert und die Messlatte für den Rest der Welt ein gutes Stück höher gelegt. Allerdings bleibt abzuwarten, ob sie eine längere Konfrontation mit der Regierung in dieser Stärke durchhalten. Aus antiautoritärer Sicht stellt sich zudem die Frage, ob die Streikenden sich vor den Karren der parlamentarischen Oppositionsparteien spannen lassen, welche die von den Massenkämpfen erzeugte Dynamik letztlich nur nutzen wollen, um selbst an die Macht zu kommen – oder ob es den Arbeiter*innen gelingt, ihre Sache selbst in die Hand zu nehmen…

Die indische, anarchosydikalistische Organisation „Muktivadi Ekta Morcha“ (Libertäre Solidaritätsfront) aus Bhopal ist diesbezüglich eher skeptisch. In einem kurzen Statement (https://www.facebook.com/muktivadi/) schreibt sie (Übersetzung – die plattform): „Generalstreiks wie dieser sind hauptsächlich wahlpolitische Fassade auf Kosten tatsächlicher Anliegen der Arbeiter*innen. Die meisten, wenn nicht alle Gewerkschaften, die mit „linken“ Parteien verbunden sind, behandeln ihre Arbeiter*innen auf diesen Demonstrationen wie Kinder und halten sie noch strenger unter Kontrolle als sie es an ihren Arbeitsplätzen wären. Es gibt einige unabhängige Gewerkschaften, die weniger autoritär sind, aber so gut wie keine wirklichen demokratischen Arbeiter*innenorganisationen. Wir arbeiten daran, das zu ändern.“ – Wir können aus der Ferne natürlich schwer beurteilen, inwiefern diese Einschätzung zutrifft, finden es aber generell wichtig, auf Widersprüche und Beschränkungen sozialer Bewegungen hinzuweisen, mit dem Ziel, diese zu überwinden. Jedenfalls wünschen wir den indischen Genoss*innen viel Erfolg bei ihrem Anliegen!

So oder so, allein schon der Mobilisierungserfolg ist ein Symbol dafür, dass die organisierte, unterdrückte und lohnabhängige Klasse das Potential hat, die Welt aus den Angeln zu heben!