This section allows delegates to the Association to post reports of meetings they have attended on our behalf.
Report
TUC Trades Union Council's Conference 2009
Friday 29th May TUC JCC Pre-Conference Rally
Defeating the Far Right and Fascism
Saturday 30th May - Sunday 31 May
TUC JCC Report:
There was general concern that there was no specific feed back on action taken by the TUC JCC on the motions carried at last years conference and no comment /report on any action taken by TUC Gen Council. It was agreed that action and comment points will in the future be added.
Specifically, there was anger that no action had been taken on Motion 14 concerning MEP/ MP's expenses (Cambridgeshire & GMATUC) and that no leading Labour Party speaker had been invited to speak on the progress of this issue.
Concern was expressed on who would move the first motion coming from the TUC's Conference to TUC Congress. Historically the fraternal / sororal representative has no speaking rights. This issue has yet to be resolved formally by the TUC Gen Council.
There was a discussion on the procedure/ eligibility criteria for nomination of TUC Silver Badges.
Agenda:
See Programme of Business.
At the start of conference there was a challenge to the chair Jeremy Dear (NUJ Gen Sec) concerning Motion 1: Response to economic crisis. ( Harlow, West Midlands,
GMATUC secretary independently produced a (LINK) leaflet that was distributed at the pre-conference rally on practical steps to nationalize the banks as it was clear from reading the AGENDA booklet that the lack of any reference to banking was not simply an oversight.
The composite motion had been stripped of all reference to the banking and insurance system. The TUC's who had submitted the original motions spoke about the pressure they had been under to accept delete amendments under threat that the composite motion itself would be ruled out of order.
The challenge to the chair was defeated. Jeremy Dear explained that for motions to be accepted not only had they to comply with existing TUC policy BUT secondly, they also had to be officially endorsed as policy by the TUC Gen Council. If Motion 1 was chosen to go forward to TUC Congress for example, it would be ruled out of order. Add amendments from TUC's from the floor could not be taken at this stage either.
It became clear during the discussion that opposition to 'The People's Charter for Change' at the
Motion 1 and 2 on the 'People's Charter' was carried unanimously. All motions and amendments in the programme of business were subsequently carried.
Special reference should be made to Motion 8: 'National TUC Strategy for the defence of the TUC Unemployed Workers Centres 2009'. This motion had the largest number of speakers making a contribution, including the GMATUC secretary. Motion 8 was chosen by conference to go forward to TUC Congress.
Workshops on the themes: Trade Councils and the Organizing Agenda, Responding to the Recession and Trades Councils and the possibilities of New Media took place and repeated in the afternoon session.
The discussion and plenary session on 'Responding to the Recession' again brought up the issue of bank nationalization and the strategic response from the TUC. There was wide agreement that the TUC and trade union leaders generally had reacted to the financial crisis as though it were just another downturn and that the role of the TUC was to batten down the hatches call for skills training in order to respond to the upturn and economic recovery that would return very soon. This analysis and strategy was severely criticized as being woefully inadequate and certainly not a 'socialist' response to the crisis, let alone based on fundamental trade union principles.
The general view of delegates was that you cannot meet the needs of working people and the community in partnership with the City of London and the bosses because the interests of the workers and those of the bosses are separate and opposed.
Trade union leaders were criticized for promoting 'voluntary' redundancies and paybacks / wage cuts. All too many political and trade union leaders had taken the line that more 'understanding' of the needs and role of the banking system was required and that the bosses are vital 'partners' in the effort to get us out of this crisis.
These sentiments were expressed at conference in all debates in one form or another.
An emergency motion - composite: Reinstate sacked Unite convenor Rob Williams moved by
No. delegates attending: 65
Stefan Cholewka
Secretary GMATUC
Report
Greater Manchester Association of Trades Union Councils
By
Stefan Cholewka RMTUC delegate
Introduction
At the January meeting of the GMATUC's Stefan Cholewka (RMTUC) was mandated to prepare a report and review the impact of recent judgements emanating from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on trade union rights and employment standards in the light of a discussion on the actions of both contractors and sub-contractors at Staythorpe power station site in Newark, Nottingham, UK.
What's at Stake at Staythorpe power station?
Hundreds of union members have been engaged in a week long mass protest starting on 19th January 2009 over claims that overseas workers are being hired instead of UK staff. Industry unions UNITE and the GMB warn that the 'sustained demonstrations' will be spread to other power stations under construction in
French engineering group ALSTOM has been contracted by the privateer RWE to build the £660m gas-fired power station at Staythorpe near Newark. Two companies, MONTPRESSA and FMM, have since been sub-contracted to carry out construction work on the site. Both companies insist that they have no intention of employing any local labour to undertake the work. UNITE estimates that 600 jobs will be needed to build the power station's turbine and boiler (Montpressa will fit the turbine and FMM will fit the boiler) and another 250 to build the pipe connecting the two. None of these jobs will go to UK workers.
Unite is meeting the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and senior ministers, amid fears a decision not to employ UK workers could be repeated on similar projects elsewhere. Unite claims the situation makes a of mockery of Gordon Brown's assurance of "British jobs for British workers."
FMM told union officials that because they had no direct employees themselves, they would supply their workers directly from abroad. This would mean that there would be no consideration given to employing local construction workers with years of experience in building power stations throughout the Trent Valley. The national agreement for construction workers, which both the employers and trade unions are signatories, states that consideration should be given to available local labour.
Unite's joint general secretary, Derek Simpson, said "This is an absolute scandal. The country is in the grip of a credit crunch and the construction industry is one of the worst hit sectors. We know there are qualified people in the local area who are out of work and are more than ready and willing to do the job.
"Unite is demanding that RWE and Alstom put pressure on the sub-contractors to end this scandalous situation. Give
"The UK needs to upgrade and build new power stations and there are huge opportunities to create thousands of well-paid and highly-skilled jobs. It will be a disgrace if UK workers are shut out from building their own power stations.
"It is time for the government ensure that
"Unite would never insist that a company should only employ workers from the UK for a job, we would consider this to be discriminatory. But in this case the contractor will not even consider the skilled local labour on their door step."
The regional officer for Unite, Mr Steve Syson, said the union was advised that Alstom intended to employ 150 of its own Polish workforce."In today's difficult economic environment our local construction members will be at a loss as to why the employer is taking this stance," he said."Staythorpe is in a good catchment area for construction workers and the fact that the employer is not utilising this labour pool in the first instance is incredulous, as it would most definitely be cheaper for the company to use local labour."
The secretary of the Newark branch of Unite, Mr David Smeeton, said a Spanish company tendering for Staythorpe was working on another Alstom Power project in Plymouth, where, he said, there was a sudden influx of Spanish and Polish workers.
An unemployed rigger from Bancroft Road, Newark, Mr Stephen Pride, who will be at the protest, said: "We are gutted. For once we were looking at being able to work without travelling away and we would have been spending the money we earned here in what is a very difficult time for the economy."
Labour's prospective Parliamentary candidate for Newark, Dr Ian Campbell, who lives near Averham, said people had contacted him about concerns over Staythorpe.Dr Campbell said: "I have been informed of the likelihood of the contract going to a Spanish firm which will undercut the UK tenders by employing foreign labour.I intend to raise an official protest with the chief executive of RWE npower and possibly draw up a petition. RWE npower have pledged to put the local community and its needs first but to me they are falling at the first hurdle."
The MP for
The area's county councillor, Mr Bruce Laughton, said he would prefer that jobs went to the local working population."The companies should do everything within their power to make sure this is the case," he said.
A statement by a spokesman from the Department for Business and Enterprise gave the game away when he said, 'The EU enables companies from one member state to bid for contracts in another and bring their own workforce with them on a temporary basis'.
This oblique reference to the EU stands at the heart of the issue.
Everyone is trying to play down the consequences of the ECJ judgements that are sending shock waves across the EU.
UNITE joint secretary Derek Simpson and GMB national secretary Keith Hazlewood have made no reference to the ECJ judgements
that underpin the actions of Alstom and the two Spanish sub-contractors, Montpressa and FMM.
The silence is deafening given that UNITE joint secretary Derek Simpson spoke on the ECJ judgements at the TUC Congress 2008 saying:'This is the biggest issue in my lifetime'. He went on to say, 'This decision (Ruffert case) effectively means that foreign companies working here in the UK, or in any other European country, can flout domestic laws and collective agreements with regard to pay. This is a recipe for disaster and, if applied in the UK, will cause massive industrial unrest and threaten the delivery of major infrastructure projects including the Olympics site.'
The ECJ effectively challenges the scope for member states to secure decent wages for all workers on its territory, demand respect for collective bargaining and devise effective mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of workers' rights.
The court is effectively saying that any national laws that bloc "free movement" within the EU must be struck down as they conflict with EU rules on the free movement of goods and services.
The court is, in effect imposing through case law the hated "country of origin principle" that was supposedly dumped from the European Union service directive in 2005.
Regarding the Rüffert case ( Germany) : "Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, interpreted in the light of Article 49 EC, precludes an authority of a Member State, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from adopting a measure of a legislative nature requiring the contracting authority to designate as contractors for public works contracts only those undertakings which, when submitting their tenders, agree in writing to pay their employees, in return for performance of the services concerned, at least the remuneration prescribed by the collective agreement the minimum wage in force at the place where those services are performed."
Regarding the Laval case ( Sweden ) : "Article 49 EC and Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services are to be interpreted as precluding a trade union, in a Member State in which the terms and conditions of employment covering the matters referred to in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g) of that directive are contained in legislative provisions, save for minimum rates of pay, from attempting, by means of collective action in the form of a blockade ('blockad') of sites such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to force a provider of services established in another Member State to enter into negotiations with it on the rates of pay for posted workers and to sign a collective agreement the terms of which lay down, as regards some of those matters, more favourable conditions than those resulting from the relevant legislative provisions, while other terms relate to matters not referred to in Article 3 of the directive".
Regarding the Viking Line case ( Finland) : "Article 43 EC is to be interpreted to the effect that collective action such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which seeks to induce a private undertaking whose registered office is in a given Member State to enter into a collective work agreement with a trade union established in that State and to apply the terms set out in that agreement to the employees of a subsidiary of that undertaking established in another Member State, constitutes a restriction within the meaning of that article."
It is clear that the ECJ is not guided by rules laid down by democratically elected national parliaments, but is an unaccountable and politically driven body designed to implement EU laws and extend the "internal market i.e. privatisation, and committed to the concept of "ever closer union" regardless of national laws. The recent Viking, Laval and Ruffert rulings by the court has demonstrated that it was taking upon itself the right to judge the legitimacy of a dispute and its effect on the employer's "freedom" to compete in the internal market, with dire consequences for workers. The Luxembourg ruling even attacked the right of EU member states to set decent minimum employment standards.
All these rulings and judgements on free movement are enshrined in the renamed EU Constitution, the
After the ECJ judgements: Viking, Laval & Ruffert
The judgements in effect outlaw any industrial action to prevent service providers from other Member States of the EU paying low wages and having poor terms and conditions, as long as the wages and terms are above the bare minimum.
The details of the Viking and Laval cases have been given elsewhere, but let's review the issues at stake.
Due to the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) being based in London, Viking was able to initiate proceedings before the British High Court. As in the Laval cases, the employer's claim was based on EU law: that the industrial action had violated employer's freedom of establishment and to provide services, as provided in the EC Treaty Articles 43 and 49. As the unions did in the Swedish Labour court in the Laval case with the Swedish Constitution, the FSU in the Viking case invoked the Finish Constitution, which protects the fundamental right to strike. At first instance in the English High Court in June 2005, the judge upheld the employers complaint: EU law overrode any national law, even the national constitution of a
However, the EC Treaty provisions on free movement are not absolute. Free movement is limited by public policy considerations, both in the Treaty and as developed by the ECJ through its extensive case law. The reference to the ECJ by the English Court of Appeal in Viking highlights the issue of the limits to free movement may (sic) be limited by collective action which is lawful under national law. One specific issue raised is whether EU law includes a fundamental right to take collective action, including strike action, as declared in Article 28 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed at the summit held at Nice on 7th December 2000.
It has been clear from comments and official statements from the British TUC and the ETUC that they were hoping that the ECJ would adopt interpretations of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights that would be consistent with international labour standards, where national labour law - particularly in Britain - fell short.
In sum the ETUC and TUC have taken a view - wrongly - that the EU Charter would promise a renewal of labour law, both at European transnational level and within the Member States of the EU. It is now clear in the mind of many trade union activists that the smoke screen of a Social Europe has been completely dissolved and that the EU assault on workers is in full flow:"Right to strike...and the European Union are irreconcilable".
The myth peddled by the TUC and the ETUC over the past years was that the law on free movement in the EU is to be interpreted in the light of the five principles of what may be called ordre communautaire social: labour law is not a commodity (sic) like others (goods and capital), free movement is subject to the objective of improved working conditions, respecting the fundamental rights of workers as human beings, acknowledging the central role of social dialogue and asocial partnership at EU and national levels, and adhering to the strict principle of equal treatment without regard to nationality. (See chapter 10: The Right to Strike: From the Trade Disputes Act 1906 to a Trade Union Freedom Bill 2006).
Before the ECJ judgements workers were told by the ETUC that collective industrial action was not subject to EU law on free movement where the exercise of freedom of movement involving workers (not a commodity ) has the intention and / or effect of undercutting workers conditions, denies the exercise by workers and their organisations of fundamental rights, undermines the central role of social dialogue and social partnership, and / or promotes unequal treatment based on nationality of the workers. In other words, the four freedoms of transnational free movement (of goods, services, establishment and workers) are to be interpreted in light of a corollary fifth element: freedom, the freedom of workers and their organisations to take collective action to combat social dumping.
Today the reality of the European Social Model (ESM) so important for pacifying left-wing opposition within the Labour Party and trade union movement in Britain has been revealed for what it is: an assault on workers right to strike that is sending shock waves across the entire EU.
Everyone was trying to play down the importance of the ECJ judgement. In the end the ETUC had to admit in its 31st March 2008 response to Laval, Viking and other decisions that were pending i.e.. the so-called Ruffert case (see below) that the ruling was "a major challenge". The ETUC pleaded: "How [are we] to establish and defend labour standards in an era of globalisation?
The ETUC statement went on to say: "The idea of a social Europe has taken a blow...it reinforces critics of Europe who have long argued that the single market would inevitably threaten social standards". Rather than coming to the conclusion of the chair of the Swedish Left Party who said: "Sweden must leave the EU...the right to strike...and the European Union are irreconcilable".
The ETUC ended its response with the following words: "The ETUC supports the EU Reform Treaty, and that's why urgent action is necessary. Because it would be naive of the European and national authorities to conclude that these cases will not be increasingly in the minds of workers and trade unionists".
All three decisions by the EU Court of Justice give the answer. Article 43 on freedom of establishment, Article 49 on free provision of services collide head-on with workers' rights. And, among all the EU institutions, the Court of Justice plays its full political and anti-democratic role: it was not elected by anybody, but in decision after decision it erects the entire EU jurisdiction on the ruins of labour laws and social gains that were fought for by class struggle methods throughout Europe.
Speaking as the ETUC does of a "Social Europe" in the framework of EU institutions is meaningless and deceptive. For years, from euro march to euro march, the ETUC has constantly harped on about "Social Europe" and demanded "better balance" between economic interests and social rights within the European Union. All these claims have just vanished into thin air, blown away by the EU Court of Justice decisions that cannot be appealed against. The EU has also revealed it no longer requires the support of the ETUC to implement its authoritarian, and anti-working class project enshrined within the Lisbon Treaty.
As the UNITED CAMPAIGN Newsletter says: "Their interpretation of EU directives - giving business such free rein is at odds with the ILO and other international conventions on the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining".
The ECJ's ruling in the so-called Ruffert case has triggered angry reactions among left-leaning politicians and organisations across Europe. The Court struck down a law in the German state of Lower Saxony, which states that public contracts can only be awarded to companies which pay their employees the minimum wage as agreed in a regional collective agreement.
The law also encompasses sub-contractors. The case was brought before the ECJ because a Polish company had paid according to the national minimum wage, which amounted to 46.5% of the wage prescribed by Lower Saxony. The ECJ ruled that the law imposed restrictions on free movement.
The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) called the ruling "another destructive judgement" and called on the EU to confirm that it "is not just an economic project."
PA reports that Derek Simpson, joint leader of British trade union Unite, called the judgement "by far the most damaging" of a series of ECJ rulings seemingly undermining the unions. He said, "This decision effectively means that foreign companies working here in the UK, or in any other European country, can flout domestic laws and collective agreements with regard to pay. This is a recipe for disaster and, if applied in the UK, will cause massive industrial unrest and threaten the delivery of major infrastructure projects including the Olympics site."
The case appears to confirm the recent ruling in the similar Laval case, which ruled against a Swedish union that tried to hold a Latvian construction company to a voluntary collective agreement, and pursued a blockade to that end.
The European Court of Justice has struck down a law in the German state of Lower Saxony, which states that public contracts can only be awarded to companies which pay their employees the minimum wage as agreed in a regional collective agreement. The law also encompasses sub-contractors. The case was brought before the ECJ because a Polish company had paid according to their national minimum wage, which amounted to 46.5% of the wage prescribed by Lower Saxony. The ECJ ruled that the law imposed restrictions on free movement.
The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) called the ruling "another destructive judgement" and, bizarrely, called on the EU to confirm that it "is not just an economic project."The case follows the recent ruling in the similar Laval case, which ruled against a Swedish union that tried to hold a Latvian construction company to a voluntary collective agreement. The court has also found against the Finnish seafarers' union for trying to prevent ship-owners displacing Finnish shippers with lower paid Estonian crews. British Airways has also threatened their pilots with a similar court case if their union took strike action against the company employing lower paid staff to replace them.
The LINK / PFI NEWSLETTER has long warned that the renamed EU Constitution would give huge powers to the European Court of Justice, which is designed to promote 'ever closer union' within the EU and complete the single market. This court views trade unions and collective bargaining agreements as a barrier to the 'free movement' of goods, services, capital and people (meaning labour).
This latest ECJ judgment reveals once more that this court, which is an EU institution, operates in the interests of the architects of the euro federalist project, big business and the most powerful corporations in Europe.
ECJ makes another ruling attacking workers' rights
One question is posed: CAN THESE RULINGS BE ACCEPTED?
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg has issued its judgment in a case brought to the Court by the European Commission.
The ECJ upheld the Commission's complaint on all points, considering that the way in which Luxembourg has implemented the Posting Directive is an obstacle to the free provision of cross border services.
The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) considers that this is another hugely problematic judgement.
This latest judgment following Viking, Laval and Rüffert shows, according to the ETUC leader John Monks, that that the ECJ and the European Commission are demanding "the primacy of the economic freedoms over fundamental rights and respect for national labour law and collective agreements". He said the Posting Directive is being used as "an aggressive internal market tool".
In other words Luxembourg's national labour laws protecting foreign workers are restricting the right of firms to extract profits and should be done away with.
The seriousness of the judgement can be seen from the comments made by the general secretary of the ETUC John Monks who is an arch-europhile. He goes on to admit that the posting of workers directive is being used an an instrument by the ECJ, asserting the primacy of the economic freedoms over fundamental rights and respect for national labour law and collective agreements.
Yet the posting of workers directive was designed to remove obstacles to the freedom of firms to operate and not to protect vulnerable foreign workers, as europhiles have claimed in the past.
In the latest Luxembourg case, the ECJ does not recognise the autonomous right of Luxembourg to define national public policy provisions to counter unfair competition on wages and working conditions of workers by cross-border service providers.
This latest ECJ judgement is likely to have enormous impact far beyond the Luxembourg borders and increases the likelihood that we shall see the spectre of social dumping for all workers.
It effectively challenges the scope for member states to secure decent wages for all workers on its territory, demand respect for collective bargaining and devise effective mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of workers' rights.
The court is effectively saying that any national laws that bloc "free movement" within the EU must be struck down as they conflict with EU rules on the free movement of goods and services.
The court is, in effect imposing through case law the hated "country of origin principle" that was supposedly dumped from the service directive in 2005.
An unelected commission is now actively acting against the interests of workers and the sovereignty of member states. The Irish people's stance to defend democracy and workers rights by voting NO to the Lisbon treaty has been proven again to have been the correct decision.
Workers and their organisations across Europe must act now as the implications of allowing EU institutions to ride roughshod over democracy and workers' rights are very grave indeed.
Conclusion
The evidence submitted in this report together with the names of British trade unionists who have signed up to the 'The Report on the European workers delegation to the European Commission' (See Appendix) calling for a conference on these very issues, leads the author to recommend sending the report and fraternal greeting to the European Workers Conference being organised in Paris, Saturday 7th - Sunday 8th February 2009 in order to add our voices and broaden the international campaign to overturn the ECJ rulings.
Overturn the European Court of Justice rulings!
We deny the institutions of the European Union the right to put any gain whatsoever into question!
We deny our governments the right to transpose those rulings into national law!
Reject all supranational legislation that puts our rights into question! Defend and win back all our rights, gains and guarantees!
Defend the independence of our organisations!
European Workers Conference
Paris - February 7 & 8, 2009
150 delegates from 21 European countries attended last February 7th and 8th European Workers' Conference in Paris.
While the European Union and the governments of the various countries have decided to give out billions of Euros to bankers and speculators in the name of so-called stimulus packages, hundreds of thousand lay-offs are announced every week, thousands of workers are forced into part-time unemployment. No economic sector is spared: car-making, banks, construction , but also public services.
Everywhere, the working classes are moving into action, together with their organisations, to stand up against that destructive agenda. Faced with such resistance, the European Union and each government are trying to forcefully co-opt labour organisations and make them take charge of the counter reforms. The issue was widely discussed at the Conference. But, in every country, it is the resistance movement engaged by the working classes that is the determining factor; from that derives the part played by the European Conference that Per Sorensen (Trade Union Commission of the People's movement against the European Union, Denmark) analysed as a "defence front against European Union institutions"
Exactly; a "defence front" in order to take a step on the way towards genuine cooperation between peoples and a free union of entire Europe's free workers and peoples, to solemnly call on all the workers and labour activists across Europe: "Let us unite to demand the return of the hundreds of billion Euros which, in each one of our countries, have been handed out to the bankers, speculators and capitalists, so we can re-direct them to our schools, universities, hospitals, public services!" The delegates decided to set up a co-ordination committee to organise gatherings, rallies, joint campaigns in each of the countries and, especially, an international delegation to the European Court of Justice and an international rally in Dublin to support the Appeal of the Irish TEEU to vote NO at the new referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Two introductory reports opened the conference. Jan-Erik Gustafsson, Chair of the Movement to say NO to the European Union in Sweden, analysed the joint campaign that has been waged during the past year by labour activists from all over Europe and the European Liaison Committee of Workers, for the repeal of the European Court of Justice's rulings that pose a deadly threat on the right to strike and all the rights and guarantees wrenched by the class struggle in every one of our countries.
Christel Keiser, mandated by the executive committee of the POI, insisted on the consequences of the crisis of European Union institutions whose function is increasingly obvious: to destroy working classes, nations and democracy. That crisis, which is part and parcel of the world crisis that is disrupting the capitalist system, is causing a head-on collision. Workers everywhere are standing up against this destructive agenda.
In France, last January 29th, millions of people, responding to the call of their organisations, engaged in strike action and flooded the streets to defend their demands among which an end to lay-offs and job-shedding in public services came as top priority.
This mobilisation is spreading across Europe. "In Portugal, teachers have been mobilising for months against the new status for teachers' careers", Carmelinda Pereira (a trade union activist from Portugal) explained. "In Serbia, workers are multiplying strike actions against lay-offs and to have the privatisation of firms cancelled", Duro Velickovik (EPS Electrical workers' union, Serbia) explained. In France, Pascal Samouth (trade union activist) reported "workers are organising to mobilise against the Bachelot bill that challenges the healthcare system and the statuses of hospital staff." Workers are also mobilising to defend public hospitals in Germany, as Ingo Röser (trade union activist, chair of the workers council of a psychiatric clinic, Germany) noted: "130,000 took to the streets in Berlin last September against the closure of hospital beds and against hospital staff redundancies". But also against the privatisation of the underground railway system, since "The European Union is determined to force competition on the public transport system" Monika Wernecker (trade union activist Ver.di Germany) explained.
In Ireland, "after the Prime Minister announced his intention to impose a 2-year pay freeze and a 10% cut in pensions, an emergency meeting of my trade union federation has been convened for next week: a discussion on calling a general strike in on the agenda." Eamon Devoy - TEEU-warned.
Albert Anor (a trade unionist and member of the Swiss Socialist Party) gave details of the fight taking place in his country, which is not in the European Union, for a No vote in the referendum on the renewal of the agreement on the so-called free movement of people. Tony Richardson (a Labour Party activist from Britain) spoke about the spontaneous strike by energy workers against a new Laval-type situation and insisted on "the responsibility of European institutions as they try to stir up division among workers. This position received the support of Marc Gauquelin (POI, France) as he introduced the amendments that had been put forward about the draft manifesto and list demands that pose, on a political level, the question of a break with the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties.
In fact not only does the European Union seek to destroy rights, it also intends to destroy nations, the framework in which those rights were won. Jeanine Chaineux and Rik Steeland (two Belgian trade unionists, one of whom spoke in Dutch while the other spoke in French) explained that "at the centre of the attack aimed at breaking up Belgium there is the In de Warrande group, which campaigns for an independent Flanders within Europe." They stressed the role of the FGTB union, which fights for the unity of federal gains because "even if there are two peoples in Belgium, there is only one working-class."
In Eastern Europe we can witness a similar offensive aimed at dismantling nations and also a similar resistance to this attack. Jacim Milunovic (who sits on the executive committee of the union of hotel and retail trade workers) had this to say:" Imperialism has split up the Yugoslav federation into 7 small puppet states and thereby destroyed most of the social gains won by Yugoslavian workers". He highlighted the fact that somehow or other the questions of rebuilding Yugoslavia was back on the agenda.
Rights are also undermined in Hungary where "the Bologna process meant the end of free higher education in spite of a referendum in which a majority of the people rejected the plan" said Fruszina (she is a student and an activist of the Democratic Left Youth Front in Hungary).
Petr Chnur from Czechoslovakia emphasized that "war and the destruction of nations go hand in hand". He gave explanations about the fight launched in his country against the installation of military radars, "which is supported by the pseudo-left plus the European Union on the one hand, and the quasi-right plus NATO on the other." He added that a return to the Czechoslovak union was an inescapable objective of the working-class movement. H.W. Schuster (SDP Workers Committee of Düsseldorf, Germany) commented on the joint statement made by N. Sarkozy and A. Merkel on February 4th, which said that "Europe must be more deeply committed to a defence policy, in partnership with the USA."
As the Conference went on, a discussion developed on the proposal of a social protocol to be appended to the Lisbon Treaty. Franck Keogan (People's Movement against the European Union, Ireland) asked:"Since the ETUC has proposed a social protocol, is it not appropriate to launch a campaign in support of this demand?" But Daniel Gluckstein, National Secretary of the POI and Coordinator of the International Liaison Committee Of Workers And Peoples observed that "there is no escaping the fact that any 'social clause' appended to the Maastricht treaty ,or those that came into force later, have always aimed at breaking the working classes. That is part and parcel of the existing treaties."
In that respect, Jean-Charles Marquiset (a French trade unionist) stressed the role of the ETUC, which, by aligning itself with the measures decided by the European Union, accompanies the attacks on rights and guarantees.
Should we accompany or fight those measures? The question was raised throughout the discussion. Is it not the case that today the responsibility of the working-class organizations is to refuse to take charge of counter-reforms?
Maïté Monformez (UGT Public Services Federation, Spain) explained: "In the name of 'social dialogue' our unions are required to wreck the gains won by the labour movement. On the contrary, our trade unions should be responsible for demanding a ban on lay-offs." Dogan Fennibay (Labour Brotherhood Party, Turkey) said that Turkish workers are faced with the same problem: "Confronted with workers' protests, the government has restored the Economic and Social Council whose goal is to co-opt the trade unions." However the independence of the labour movement is alive and well, as Ivan Boulgakov ("Defence of labour" Trade Union Confederation, Kazakhstan) pointed out: "The workers are ready to fight; they are looking forward to it. In our republics the problems arise from the unions that are a legacy from the Soviet era, unions whose leaders bribed their way into governments. But this period is full of opportunities if we help the working-class to make use of its independent organizations. This analysis was confirmed by Alexandre Lomakine (Popular resistance, Moldova): "After many quiet years workers have begun to regain confidence and in the factories have gone on strike again to be paid wage arrears."
Christel Keiser
European Workers Conference of 7-8 February 2009
APPEAL
We, delegates from 21 European countries, gathered in Paris on 7-8 February 2009 in a European Conference, have decided to launch a solemn appeal to all our comrades, workers labour activists, and exploited people throughout Europe.
Comrades,
We are today faced with a new and terrible turning-point in our history.
At a time when all our countries have been plunged into a major crisis by the bankrupt leaders (industrial employers, bankers and speculators) of a capitalist system in the full throes of decay, we now see those ladies and gentlemen - not content with throwing hundreds of thousands of workers into the street, in addition to those thousands (youth and pensioners) it is abandoning by the wayside - trying to provoke the most disgusting kind of war, a war between the workers themselves, in order to safeguard their system of exploitation
Gordon Brown has just dared to launch accusations of "nationalism" and "racism" against British workers who have gone on an illegal strike in defence of their trade union rights and to ensure that all workers, irrespective of their origin, are covered by those same rights. But it is that same Gordon Brown who is entirely responsible for a situation in which he condemns those British workers to unemployment for life, by implementing the European directives and the ECJ rulings which allow the capitalists to shamelessly super-exploit thousands of immigrant workers who have had imposed on them shameful working and pay conditions that go against all national laws.
That same Gordon Brown, with the support of Vladimir Spidla, EU Commissioner for Employment, dares to defend - in the name of the free movement of workers and of the free and undistorted competition which are the foundations of the EU - the legitimacy of the French oil company Total's hiring Portuguese and Italian workers for the Lindsay refinery, and having them cooped up in containers parked on wharves, in order to reduce even further the cost of labour-power and therefore their wages.
We ask these questions:
Who is stoking jingoism, xenophobia and nationalism, if not the EU itself, its directives, its ECJ rulings (Laval, Viking, Ruffert and Luxembourg) and the widespread deregulation of employment which they inevitably entail?
Who but the EU is threatening to drag - in the name of free movement and the flexibility of the labour market, regionalisation, etc. - the workers of our countries into a bloody downward spiral that in many ways reminds us of the drama that was played out in the Balkans war barely 15 years ago?
Who, for example, previously encouraged Dell to import Polish workers for its Irish factory?
Who today is encouraging Dell to lay off 1,900 Polish and Irish workers in Ireland, in order to offshore its production to Poland and Ukraine?
And the problem is not to be found only in Ireland, but also in Britain, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, France, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, and so on.
Who is encouraging the bosses of the big corporations in the car industry, the chemicals industry, in construction, in banking, to play this gigantic and deadly game of Monopoly across the whole of Europe?
Our answer: The European Union itself.
We accuse the European Union, its treaties, its institutions and directives, of having only one goal: to deregulate, to privatise public services, to eliminate the social security and public education systems and to organise competition without any limits between workers in order to reduce even further the cost of labour.
We accuse the European Union, which today is confirming its total failure to produce even the slightest trace of a harmonious European entity, of having just one function: to be a market, to coordinate - under the pompous title of "stimulus package" - the plans for plundering the public funds of each one of our nations, in the exclusive service of the capitalists, the bankers and financial speculators who are driving us towards catastrophe.
For what reason should the organisations that the working class has built to defend itself, its trade unions, its political parties, the entire labour movement, accept being forced to submit to these diktats?
We call on all our colleagues, on all labour activists in every country, to invite them to join us in reappropriating the old founding slogan of the international labour movement: "Workers of all countries, unite!" This slogan is truer today than ever before for the workers of Europe and the whole world, whose gains are all under attack.
Let us unite against the policies of the European Union and its institutions.
Let us unite to give our support to the struggle of the Irish workers and trade unions to say "No" to the Lisbon Treaty.
Let us unite to take up in each of our countries the demand for all job-cuts to be banned, the demand for employment for all, and to make these the central axis for achieving unity among the workers and their organisations.
Let us unite for the return of the hundreds of billions of euros that have been handed out to the bankers, speculators and capitalists in each of our countries, so that those funds can be reallocated to our schools, our universities, our hospitals and our public services.
Let us unite to achieve the slogan of "equal pay for equal work" in line with the existing standards applied in the workplace, and therefore to repeal the directives for deregulating and flexibilising the labour market and to re-establish respect for collective agreements and recognised job grades for public sector workers in our countries.
This is a matter of great urgency, if we want to guarantee a future for the generations to come.
It is in this direction that, faced with the failure of the European Union, the workers of our countries together with their organisations will take a decisive step on the path to a genuine and free collaboration of the peoples, a Free Union of Free Workers, Peoples and Nations of Europe.
It is by following this path that peace will reign in Europe, because it will be based on the fraternity between the workers and peoples liberated from the deadly demands of capital.
In order to achieve these objectives, we hereby agree, in this European Conference of 7-8 February 2009, to co-ordinate our activity and to organise in each of our countries: rallies, mass meetings, joint campaigns, etc. Top of the agenda will be the organisation of an international delegation to the European Court of Justice, as well as support for the campaign organised in Spain to put a stop to the legal action against the trade unionists at Barcelona Airport.
|
Name |
Forename |
Address, e-mail, tel.no. |
Organisation |
signature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First endorsers :
Belgium : Jeannine Chaineux, CGSP (pers.cap.) ; Roberto Giarroco, CGSP-FGTB ;
Rudy Janssens, CGSP-FGTB ; Philippe Larsimont, Movement in defense of working people (MDT) ; Henri-Jean Ruttiens, SETCa-FGTB (pers.cap.) ; Rick Steeland, BBTK.
Britain : Peter Collier; Nick Philipps, BETCU (pers. cap.) ; Tony Richardson, BFAWU , Labour party.
Czech Republic : Jela Jurickova, Czechoslovakian Bulletin ; Jan Tesar, Czechoslovakian Bulletin ; Petr Schnur, Czechoslovakian Bulletin
Denmark : Eva Hallum, trade union commission People's movement against the EU ; Per Sorensen, trade union commission People's movement against the EU ; Kirsten Annett Christenssen, LFS ; Bent Langesen, building workers union .
France : Frank Arnold, POI ; Jean-PierreBarrois, POI ; Pierre Besse, trade unionist rail sector ; Daniella Bettenfeld, Moselle region's cross-borders workers defense committee ; Daniel Chalier, trade unionist health sector (pers.cap.) ; Daniel Collin, trade unionist rail sector ; Francis Coudeville, trade unionist ; Jean-Claude Denis, POI Executive Committee; Jean-Louis Destenay, POI Executive Committee ; Claire Dreidemy, POI ; Jacques Girod, trade unionist ; Daniel Gluckstein, POI National Secretary ; Pierre Jeanneney, POI National Secretary ; Claude Jenet, POI National Secretary ; Christel Keiser, POI Executive Committee ; Abdou Koté, Manifesto for trade union independence ; Jean-Charles Marquiset, POI National Secretariat ; Jean Mennecier, POI ; Adélaïde Marine-Gougeon, RYI ; Pierre-Axel Montermier, RYI ; Marika Kovacs, POI ; Sandra Renda, The Greens ; Pascal Samouth, trade unonist ; Marie-Claude Schidlower, POI ; Gérard Schivardi, POI National Secretary ; Daniel Shapira, POI ; Patrice Sifflet, Manifesto for trade union independence ; Dominique Vincenot, POI.
Germany : Michael Altmann, Ver.di, SPD's Workers Commission ; Heinrich Becker, GEW - trade unionist education sector ; Carla Boulboullé, trade unionist education sector; Gaby Brandt, Staff Committee Ver.di, ; Kerstin Bunz, Ver.di; Udo Eisner, IG Metall; Ellen Engstfeld, SPD, Ver.di; Elke Falk, Ver.di ; Henning Frey, SPD, trade unionist education sector ; Eva Gürster, SPD, Ver.di; Julian Gürster, Ver.di, RYI; Mirco Kischkat, Ver.di, SPD; Peter Kreutler, Ver.di, SPD ; Gotthard Krupp, Ver.di, SPD's workers commission ; Hans Jürgen Mees, Ver.di; Norbert Müller, Ver.di ; Lothar Ott, trade unionist education sector, SPD ; Ingo Röser, Ver.di ; Schüller, Klaus, DGB local secretary , SPD's workers commission ; Anna Schuster, Ver.di ; H.W. Schuster, Ver.di, SPD's workers commission ; Günter Schwefing, Ver.di ; Beate Sieweke, Ver.di, SPD's workers commission ; Christiane Treffert, GEW- trade unionist education sector ; Dirk Weiß, SPD, IG BCE; Mechthild Wellems, Ver.di ; Monika Wernecke, Ver.di ;
Greece : Loukas Korfiatis, OLME.
Hungary : Klara Anyiszonyan, European Workers Liaison Committee ; Pàl Aradi, BCKSz ; Eva Kiss Aradiné, FIBU-MIK ; Laszlo Asztalos, trade unionist « Workers Councils » ; Fruszina Balta, student , member Hungarian Left Youth ; Janosne Bàràny, trade unionist « Workers Councils » ; Judit Somi, European Workers Liaison Committee
Italy : Ugo Groce, Tribuna Libera editorial board ; Elisabeth Raineri, « No to the EU, yes to democracy and public services » ; Lorenzo Varaldo, UIL-education Turin (pers.cap.) ; Vanna Ventre, « No to the EU, yes to democracy and public services »
Kazakhstan : Ivan Boulgakov, « Defence of Labour » trade union confederation .
Moldovia : Alexandre Lomakine, People's resistance .
Poland : Helena Wolska.
Portugal : Carmelinda Pereira, POUS.
Romania : Constantin Cretan, National federation of Labour ; Marian Tudor, Association for Workers emancipation .
Serbia : Pavlusko Imsirovic, Workers Political Alliance ; Jacim Milunovic, trade unionist food industry ; Djuro Velickovic, EPS trade union .
Spain : Maria Baena, UGT (pers.cap.) ; Jesus Bejar, trade unionist metal industry , CCOO Madrid; Pablo Garcia Cano, trade unionist metal industry , CCOO Madrid ; Luis Gonzalez, trade unionist health sector , CCOO Sevilla ; Micky Gonzalez, tradeunionist education sector , UGT Barcelona ; José Antonio Iniesta, PSC-UGT ; Manuel Iniesta, CCOO-IU ; Koldo Mendez, PSE-EE-PSOE (pers.cap.) ; Mayté Montaner, UGT (pers.cap.) ; Javier Moro, UGT ; Blas Ortega, FSP-UGT (pers.cap.) ; Rosaura Perez, UGT (pers.cap.) ; Baltazar Santos, UGT (pers.cap.).
Sweden : Gösta Torstensson, People's movement No to the EU ; Jan-Erik Gustafsson, People's movement No to the EU .
Switzerland : Albert Anor, PSS, trade unionist public services (SSP-VPOD) ; Sébastien Fabregas, trade unionist public services (SSP-Santé) ; Andrea Riman, AGT, Party of Labour ; Max Robert, PSS, SSP ; Eric Voruz, PSS, UNIA .
Turkey : Mustafo Cubuk, Party of labour brotherhood (IKP) ; Dogan Fennibay, Party of labour brotherhood (IKP).