National demonstration "Enough is enough" on April 12 did not finish cause a stir in the
CGT. Have recently demonstrated the organization by the confederation of a study on the
relationship to the political day. A critical review is therefore required. ---- The march
was originally called by Besancenot, joined by M?lenchon, then full internal war with the
CPF about municipal PCF was reassigned post authorship of the call. Many organizations or
personalities union, associative and political world then developed a call and prepared
mobilization, including officials federations CGT. ---- First observation: 50000
participants with the demo is very limited success, it nevertheless polarized debates in
the social movement for several weeks, demonstrating a real need on the part of activists
for this type of initiative. Contrary to what has been said, the call had nothing
lightweight politically, since taclait frankly the government and its "sacrifices to the
demands of the MEDEF and the right social, environmental, family, and the right to vote
for foreigners "and austerity as responsible for the rise of the right and the extreme
right and clearly required" abandonment Pact responsibility. "
A unit call is already very good, and it allowed to define an arc of opposition forces in
government and the right. The call was also nothing electioneering, finding only "a
dynamic for ecological and feminist social, democratic alternative, based on solidarity",
although there was serious political recovery, we return.
It is in any case essential to consolidate the widest all forces to Stop austerity, trade
union, political association, as well as major events in the weekend, which does not meet
the same population as in the days Action week. We had already found during the movement
against the 2010 pension. Was seen as the CGT, Solidarity and political organizations
mobilize, but also collective of undocumented Droits Devant!, ATTAC, associations of
defense services public, etc..
What union involvement in these initiatives?
The confederation has refused to the end to fit into the construction of this initiative,
loudly proclaiming in the media, on behalf of the trade union independence. It was
primarily hampered the armholes because it contradicts his "refusal of the No camp" and
unionism proposal, negotiation and action, brief his refusal to engage firmly against the
government, which is not completely foreign the presence of PS activists Confederal Bureau.
Problem: several federal officers (Utilities, Public Finance, Chemicals, Equipment, UGFF
...) or UD (all URIF, Tarn-et-Garonne, Bouches du Rh?ne ...) committed in Construction of
12 April (see in particular the article in Humanity (
http://www.humanite.fr/contre-lausterite-pour-legalite-et-le-partage-des-richesses ).
Found among these comrades Valerie Lesage, leader confederal whose questioning of action
Lepaon widely circulated internally and externally. And identifies among these comrades
activists left the PCF.
In short, everything is intertwined. Both participation in the April 12 is a continuation
of the protest line Lepaon, without going to assume it publicly, but it's almost like. At
the same time these comrades also have a political compass: Left Front with the lead in
the wing, they look for a way through the emergence of a political union alliance
redistribute the cards, but where would a PCF instead dominant. It was in any case the
meaning of certain interventions in the preparatory meetings of 12 April. They were joined
on the first point, not the second.
The crux of the problem is the place unionism in this kind of grouping. If we consider
that unionism is political in the sense that it has a dual role of both immediate defense
of employees and transformation of society, as established by the Charter of Amiens, then
the CGT must promote the gathering initiatives that transcends. This is not contradictory
with the construction of strike in enterprises, which are the heart of the class struggle.
And this is nothing inconsistent with the union independence it is understood as the
autonomous capacity of the CGT to pay its strategy, and claims his project. The rest, and
because we can not resist a touch of irony, several members of the CEC and BC invited the
CGT militants not to hide behind a political label to share their struggle. Yes, but could
return the same advice to the very people who work for years and maneuvering within the
CGT to put on track a respectable unionism in the eyes of the state and employers.
The AG on 21 June and CGT
Walking April 12 could be such an initiative ... if the unions were openly engaged.
Obviously the fact that the initiative comes originally M?lenchon and Besancenot has not
helped. These were placed directly walking in a political color, confining associations
and unions signatures personalities. This is one of the main criticisms circulating in the
CGT against the comrades who signed the appeal personalities for April 12: they did not
allow time for the internal debate, lack of time, although often their structures
confirmed their choice.
Note that Solidarity was also very behind in the preparation of the work, for similar
reasons of political independence.
Ultimately, it is the reluctance of unions that validated their fears: the mobilization
was essentially political, with a caricature political recovery. Thus sometimes struggled
to distinguish CGT processions processions PCF. The suites seem to be the same barrel with
a local collective AG on June 21 to discuss a national platform of demands. Insofar as the
PCF is limited only to co-organize the mounted because you wonder where these local
collectives emerge, or at least we highly doubt the political overtones ... But they have
reality will include: primarily responsible for national organizations. In this sense, it
is important that UD and federations involved in the demonstration of 12 April are
initiated in the meeting from the elements mentioned above.
What can we learn from it?
Both opposition to Lepaon line emerges in many forms, and that's fine. This is done
simultaneously with the emergence of a politico-social front against austerity. But this
front is still fragile, and even stillbirth. So we need to lead the debate in our
structures for the combative sectors of the CGT clearly assume the construction of such a
front, where the labor movement is dominant. This does not substitute for the construction
of resistance in companies, but complements.
Finally, the challenge of online Lepaon often comes from some left currents of PCF to
score tactical differences (April 12 in addition to the 1 st May and 15 May). While this
is also the bottom of the orientation that we have discussed: to challenge claims and
illusory union project of a social compromise with the forces of capital (where the
concepts of sustainable human development, extra cost of capital, the fight designed with
the aim of a new equilibrium and not as a means to radically change society and the
unfortunate but oh how revealing statements Lepaon on common interests that employees,
employers and shareholders in companies - see the interview here ).
----------------------------------
Unions
Thierry Lepaon, CGT: "For the emerging consensus, there must be confrontation"
He believes neither the soft nor the opposition consensus principle. In terms of
employment, he believes in the power of collective action and the strength of certain
convictions. Brutal and useful
He denies any opposition in principle deal with business leaders, union talk compromise
and pragmatism. However, there are certain topics that Thierry has Lepaon grudge, hard
tone and convictions pegged to the body. Too heavy consequences topics to meet the trend
towards "soft consensus" which, according to him, the company wins. Subjects whose mere
mention causes the new boss of the CGT to reconnect with his vision of a "combative
unionism" and to reaffirm its confidence in business as in a democracy, "there must be
confrontation."
Top of its blacklist: agreements called January 11 - that promote "the risk of competition
for employees and take the whole market down", running the lowering of labor costs - which
the threat of unemployment help, can not pay for work at fair value and thereby condemns
growth and leads us "straight into the impasse" - the solidarity pact - a "deal signed
two" without prior consultation or guarantee employment - aid to enterprises - based on a
system of equal distribution and therefore unfair because it does not take account of
differences in profiles and needs - and most importantly, the shareholder; determining,
invisible and only within the company, not to make any effort. To the point that "the only
parameter that is never questioned the amount of his salary." Even to the point now being
competitive means "pay him more dividends." All issues that today grow Thierry Lepaon to
claim the emergence of a "useful unionism" can not only protect the employee but also to
influence the world of work and stimulate public debate. To denounce, certainly, but also
to regulate.
French society is weakened, divided, fragmented itself. To the point that no one knows
what brings us together; no one knows what can still afford to "live together".
Which allows any political group, any small group itself, to appear in rallying.
Especially there is a growing distrust constituted bodies, politics and even the Republic
which is explained by the fact that employment, despite government promises, continues to
deteriorate and with him working conditions - an INSEE survey reveals that 70% of French
employees consider that the conditions necessary to do their job are not met - for
awareness much greater than in the past the inequitable distribution of wealth in our
country that the rich are getting richer, the poor get poorer.
Added to this degradation of the quality of public services which were previously a strong
element of internal cohesion and, finally, growing, for some, work is not paid its fair
value sense, in this the public and the private. Ultimately this leads to an untenable
situation which the Republic spring deteriorated.
Competitiveness agreements
are not reflected enough and it's a shame the place of business in the French society, its
role. When I was elected general secretary of the CGT, I proposed to the President to
initiate a national debate on the issue and particularly on this key issue: the work can
still pay off to work? In other words: is it wise to continue this mad rush towards
lowering the cost of labor or the real question is not she doing rather on the
distribution of the wealth created? In this regard, two curves have crossed there some
time and I find it extremely worrying for the first time, the curve dividends rose above
the investment in the company.
This means that the shareholder remuneration increases as the amount of investment
decreases and, now, what will the shareholders beyond what is spent on investment and in
particular to industrial investment. Here's what are the competitiveness agreements
negotiated with employees who are asked to do "one more effort." But competitiveness is
more investment, more value creation; it's not over pay to shareholders!
Pact responsibility
Pact responsibility does not convince me. Firstly, because, on the form, the pact does not
bind the nation represented by the elected National Assembly, etc.. but boils down to a
deal between two people: the president and the head of MEDEF, the second saying first: "If
you gave me 50 billion I could create 200,000 jobs a year." This decision solely on the
will of the President, without the ministers concerned have been consulted, without the
social partners have been informed, has a side-between the self that I believe illustrates
a new conception of politics in France. Secondly, because, on the terms of the agreement
itself, I think, without being an experienced negotiator, when you pay before the other
party has fulfilled his part of the contract, there is always a risk.
That risk is confirmed today it is 50 billion gift to companies without requiring that
they meet certain conditions in advance - and in so doing, it offers a low part of the
principle of financing social security contributions by transferring Family on the state
budget, it is committed to reducing the number of staff without specifying on which area
or on what basis, all with vague about whether it is not clear if it is 30 or 50 billion
since it was not known whether the CICE is recognized in this promise - and we feel
extremely critical MEDEF on counterparties requested. If the social partners had been
involved on the amount of aid and its objective, we could define some application
together, contribute to the development of solutions. This was not the case.
Jobs
To create jobs, we need growth. Or two criteria are necessary for the return of this
growth: confidence - which implies a clear vision of the future - and the purchasing power
to consume and do not take refuge only in savings. None of these two essential criteria
are met today. Yet these are two levers that must operate. For now, employees could spend,
invest, etc.. do not because they feel a threat to their jobs and thus their future and
that of their children.
Faced with this they set up a savings strategy that is the worst that can happen to the
economy because it means that people give for consumption. That is why I stress the fact
to sacrifice purchasing power by not increasing the minimum wage and index point for
officials for the fourth consecutive year prevents release and condemns consumption
growth. That is why the pact of responsibility, without growth, I do not believe it.
Aid to undertakings
To restart the job I think we start by stopping to help companies equally. In twenty
years, there has been a policy of aid to enterprises in a political case for businesses.
The CGT, contrary to what we think is good for aid to companies on condition that they be
granted to those who need it. Not all are facing the same difficulties, all do not have
the same support. Yet the political denial of these differences and the fact that the same
amounts are available to all regardless of need leads to an unfair system. I want to show
that the main beneficiaries of 20 billion CICE are not the most troubled companies but
large retail chains, gaming machines ... so that the first beneficiaries of the device
should be actors industry which are subject to international competition, companies are
struggling to make an economic or social change, those whose activity is relocated ...
This is why the new pact between Pierre Gattaz Hollande should be an opportunity a
rethinking of all aid to enterprises: order that accompanies those who strive to maintain
employment, which penalizes those who do not and they are not given to those who do not
need it.
"Shareholder"
Today the first threat to employment lies in the place that gives the work in our
civilization, to the fact that apprehends it as a constraint, as an adjustment variable.
And during that time, the only parameter that is never questioned, never even discussed is
the role of the shareholder and the amount of his remuneration. To the point that it is
conspicuously absent from any negotiation; we never see him as it is he who guides the
strategy of the company and, I stress, the curve of dividends which are paid progresses
while the investment decline.
Companies are all aimed at lowering the cost of labor supposedly to be more competitive,
but be competitive today simply means pay more dividends to shareholders. So I think it
would force them to take responsibility. To impose more transparency, more visibility and
more importantly, ask their effort as we asked patrons and employees. Why do not they
could reduce their demand for compensation? Is it normal today some may require in the
industry rate of return of 10% or 12 without, moreover, the company has the capacity to
increase its production, invest, recruit ? This dimension of the equation is never
discussed, and I think it's time that changed.
Labor costs
Number of firms in difficulty employees have the feeling that even when the health of
their business is improving their working conditions and pay are not progressing. In this
respect, it is true that unemployment is a weapon: the bosses would be less arrogant if
there were not five million unemployed: it allows them not to pay for work to its fair
value. Fear of unemployment is such that employees are willing to accept everything.
Including in terms of remuneration.
You should know that in the selling price of a car produced and marketed in France, the
weight of the gross salary is now less than the discount given to the customer. This means
that we have entered a new phase in the obsession of lowering the cost of labor which
leads us straight into the impasse; all countries in the world who had the ambition to
overcome the crisis by lowering the pay conditions of the employee, such as Spain, Greece
and Portugal, we paid dearly. But our current policy can pretend to draw the German model,
it is nevertheless similar to that which has been implemented in the countries of Southern
Europe and all indications are that it will produce in us same effects.
Europe
The problem of European integration is that it is made on economic and monetary bases
without social issue is resolved. Hence the fact that many French are now seeing a
compulsion, unable to meet their needs remote instance. That is why I fear a clear
rejection of Europe and a rise of the FN in the next European elections. Because in France
as in other member countries, we feel that charge up "it is the fault of Europe" address
the challenges of the moment. This is however not the Europe that dictates the rigor; it
is the political parties that make up the European policies.
For other countries and the fact that some are described as the crisis out, I am wary of
figures and meaning given to them. Germany is continually cited as an example and yet I am
not sure that the German people is doing so well. Same for Britain: the contacts I have
with my counterparts in trade unions suggest that the situation is extremely degraded for
employees. As for Germany, it is no more account the number of working poor.
Social dumping
Although secondment agreement allows a partial response to the risk of social dumping, the
possibility of competition of French employees with other European workers still exists.
This contributes to the fact that we are now witnessing a precarious employment through,
inter alia, increased at ever shorter CSD remedies. This is why, unlike many unions, I
refused to sign the agreement of 11 January 2013: because they imposed an increasing
flexibility for employees, that the employment acted as an adjustment variable and they
allowed to waive his right to individual or collective, which increases the risk of
competition between employees and takes the entire job market down. This is why we are
opposing us.
Compromise
There is no CGT to principled opposition against the employers. The company is a community
of leaders and employees - again, I regret that the shareholders do not present figures
eternal - and these people must be able to think and act together in the interest of their
community. In this regard, it is clear that the union pragmatism is required. This
perspective does not bother me any more than the compromise that fits into the realities
of the business has always: again, when we are forced to live together, we must find the
conditions of this live -assembly. That is why I believe that the purpose of a union comes
down today to protect employees but is to act to change not only the world of work but
also the perception of it; to embody a form of social control.
Useful unionism
That is why we want a CGT accessible oriented employees better represented. If you want to
create solidarity between employees must provide a tool and this tool is unionism. For us,
then, to embody a useful unionism. Not only when difficulty arises but permanently, as a
lever capable of acting on the world of work in a broad sense, to influence policies
remuneration, conditions of employment and work Final stimulate public debate. For this we
need to restore a sense of community. The world of work, as the company is increasingly
lacking and there is an urgent remedy. Too many people in France think that putting a kick
to the other will allow them to sustain their employment. That is the death of living
together and also any effective action as it is obvious: we can not do it against each other.
CGT
CGT plays a combative unionism is undeniable. Unionism worn by a real working-class
culture and solidarity in which the word has a meaning. It is also a unionism that uses
individual intervention, the ability of everyone to take charge, to act in his own cause.
You never said "Vote for us, we take care of everything" but "Vote for us and decide what
is good or not for you, what is acceptable or not." A union should never impose anything
to employees. It is their life, their choice. Can not supplant.
Goodyear
I know the industrial world to have spent thirty years and having lived 17 social plans.
Whenever I see employees faced with situations of this kind, I know what they live and
what they feel the fear of the future - their own, their children, sometimes their parents
- the shame that, for many, the termination of work is experienced as a real tear.
Goodyear tear it lasted 7 years. The shareholder was totally absent, he ordered the
company to move towards a settlement and was never able to speak with him. Goodyear
employees have invested heavily in their work - evidenced by the amount of dividends paid
to shareholders - Titan's attitude towards them - and against French employees as a whole
- was revolting; all eventually cause extreme reactions.
It is clear that sequestration is not a normal mode of execution of the union office,
trade unionists are not terrorists and deprive someone of their liberty is unacceptable,
as far I understand how these people were able to get there : because a liquidation,
especially when it drags on, it's a lot of individual suffering. That's why when I arrive
in a company I asked to see the social report and medical record: when you see the curve
of work stoppages grow strongly, we understand that the company is doing poorly. Many
forget but the economic assessment of a company is the translation of its social policy.
Not the reverse.
Soft consensus
I believe in consensus. But that consensus emerges, there must have confrontation. But I
think we live in a society where there is not enough feedback. A society marked by
increasing passivity, where does not face sufficiently. On ideological grounds, economic,
social, we see emerge a kind of soft France where good manners is to be in tune,
regardless of the tone. I think we should leave it. That to move forward, we must know
confront ideas, dare to disagree. That is why there must be, in businesses, clashes on the
meaning of work entrusted to us, how to do, do it differently, to do better ...
Can not always be in the acceptance: soft consensus we bury each other. That is why I
think that the disastrous world of intellectuals is absent from the public debate and
incredible that in a country like France, which this diversity, history, culture, we do
not find a voice to rise and we speak not what is wrong but it could be done.
Intellectuals have a duty to take us to reflect on what it means to live together, the
contradictions that we must solve, how all these cells - work, family, social, religious
... - can s' grant. And also the value of the confrontation, for me, is the very basis of
democracy. After all, as we do not rub two stones are not sparking.
Retreats
I expected Fran?ois Hollande and government left it makes a left-wing politics. In short,
I expect him to implement the policy for which he was elected. This is not the case. When
I look at the campaign commitments and policy since the election, I measure lags on almost
every point. I understand that a head of state can change some positions in other reorient
according to the international economic, environment, etc.. The problem is that today it
is no shifts but renunciations.
Two aspirations are we generally vote left: a different capital-labor ratio and the desire
to see society evolve on some points. But in these two areas, the government back on all
that had been promised. Brittany bosses do not want the eco-tax, three porticos are
burned? Government response: we packed up everything and we lose 800 million euros. Of
extreme-right groups shout "Holland resignation"? The President replied "Well, I commend
the law later." However, when employees gather, manifest, express propositions and
oppositions, they are not listened to. Such a treatment gap suggests to me that the
government is strong with the weak and weak with the strong. And that is just the opposite
of his vocation.
Interview by Caroline Castets
Home »
» (en) France, Communistes Libertaires CGT - April 12: what action and what the CGT debate? (fr)