(en) France, Organisation Communiste Libertarie (OCL) - A struggle intermittent and precarious Ales: a review - Limits of democratic consensus in the fight (fr, pt)

 [machine translation]

An illustration of the limits of democratic consensus in the fight ---- The strike of 
intermittent crater surface (Ales) ---- Bribes analysis of a group of workers, the 
unemployed and precarious ---- This text tries to get back on strike and the fight at the 
crater surface Ales Festival from June 30 to July 5. It was one of the episodes of the 
movement against UNEDIC agreement. The festival was held between the Spring comedians in 
Montpellier, which was the first where the workers went on strike en masse, and that of 
Avignon. We are some of the collective Exploited upset (composed of workers, precarious, 
unemployed, RSAstes...) us be invested in this fight. This attempt to analyze from our 
point of view. ---- In the preamble, the text that follows is an attempt to analyze the 
struggle in which we have participated in the strike around Crater area. We were asked at 
the beginning of the strike (and even before the presentation of the theater season Crater 
- National Ales scene - by strikers Spring Comedians) and took full part in the struggle. 
This, like any fight (a balance of power on the back of an unemployed person, the fact of 
preventing bailiffs to evict tenants, a strike, a global movement movement type 
pension...) was crossed contradictions. There are always fights to lead in a movement that 
participants retain control of their struggle, to enlarge, to build a real power struggle. 
And various reflections are put here to serve during the ongoing struggle and those to 
come. These thoughts, if they are critical times, are for all participants, unemployed, 
precarious, intermittent...

AG issues, legitimacy and unity of the movement

The first thing that astonished us is the presence of the director and his right arm to AG 
strikers. Management had organized the secret ballot for strike action before the 
festival. This is a technique often used to regain control of movement or prevent it from 
starting (unions are customary because when they want to stop a strike). Indeed, the 
pressure of the frame on each individual is stronger and can not be offset by the 
collective enthusiasm. Non-strikers are more comfortable to express a point of view 
against the movement... By holding this vote, management wanted to keep control of the 
situation. If the Director stated from the beginning that he supported the movement, its 
position, its function were that he could not allow the strike to harden. The purpose of a 
theater director is to play at all costs and thus save a little festival. His interest is 
then opposite to that of the strikers, regardless of its sincerity about the claims. His 
presence AG is a problem: it is difficult for employees on strike to express themselves to 
the person who will use them, or not, the month or the following season. The risks of 
individual repression following the movement are not thin, especially in an area (the 
show), where by definition seasonal employment depends on the goodwill of a few theater 
directors who all know.

Striking workers can not act when its hierarchy is present. This power relationship 
inherent in the fact that one has the ability to keep the other at work or to deprive, 
created an imbalance. In addition, through its presence in the AG, management can witness 
the conflict between strikers. These disagreements are still present and require 
discussion. It is dangerous that the hierarchy can attend and use it to oppose the people 
to each other. The only way out of this situation is to meet without her. So it is more 
consistent to show a united front to management and keep the controversies between 
employees in strikes, as individuals struggle. The director, responsible com ', the 
director does not make a mistake and used the conflicts and divisions between artists and 
technicians, among directors, managers and strikers... to exacerbate and weaken the movement.

FA took place every morning, organized as follows: initially met the staff of the crater 
as a whole, strikers, non-strikers, executives, communication... then followed by an open 
AG all (unemployed, precarious individuals or groups...). The organization several times 
in the GA decision we seemed natural. It makes sense that employees find them first of all 
to decide on the strike. Indeed, they are the ones who lose their salaries and are in 
direct relation to their direction, not necessarily other people in struggle. But again, 
it's a little strange to wait for the director to start the first part of the AG when 
other people involved in the fight comes only after. Note that the existence of AG 
inclusive is a very positive point. This raises the outset for an expansion of the fight 
at all concerned. This is new compared to the previous movement of intermittent (2003) 
where the corporatist decline was strong enough.

We saw it during the AG, the strikers failed to meet up with people in struggle (ie 
without direction, without non-strikers...) this is a real problem in a fight. These AG 
were endless, with recurring debates such as the one on the legitimacy of the 96-hour 
strike voted initially mainly by technicians.

A moment of discussion between people fighting would have to organize actions faster 
outwards and not spend hours cloistered in the back of the theater and thus isolate the 
unemployed, workers who they should go. It would also have to learn from every action, to 
take stock and consider the following. At this point, the AG would have been real AG 
control, especially as each day saw mounting pressure and that, contrary to what could 
tell the management, the public welcomed rather these actions.

The first day, rain interrupted the show but interventions have been made. The second day 
at Rochebelle was allowed to play the first performance with an intervention and 
interaction with the audience at the end. The second performance was canceled with the 
agreement of the troop (Dutch) despite the manipulations of the administrator. On the 
third day, it was decided to completely block the shows. By talking directly with the 
companies, it appears that mostly ended up understanding the situation and refused to 
break the strike. For others, it was necessary to put a little pressure. In talking with 
the public at the end of a show, it showed itself receptive to issues of unemployment and 
reform UNEDIC. When the shows were canceled, people were disappointed but not hostile, and 
most understood very well that when we went on strike, the festival can not stand still. 
All the strikers were not present at these actions and in those moments and the sharing 
his impressions together would have shown everyone the positive aspects of these blocks 
and these advances.

While every action showed that the fight grew, that management and certain artists posing 
in GA is that the struggle was violent, it was against-productive... If the strikers and 
people struggling s' were found between them, they could capture the positive aspects 
rather than talk forever about what the troops and the festival lost by not playing. This 
would have to be more efficient both in discussions and in the implementation of actions. 
Besides the action of Brouzet (cancellation of shows in the evening) was not decided in AG 
but when strikers met them and outside of this framework.

It would therefore have to be two parties in the AG, one where employees decide to strike 
and how then another where people struggling discuss and decide on action (without 
direction, without non-strikers!). Some people (intermittent and precarious) defended it 
from the beginning.

The questions of the legitimacy of the struggle and democracy returned to repeatedly in 
the AG. Democracy has taken the form of a secret ballot organized by the management, it is 
not trivial. It's a way to limit the right to strike. It's propaganda on passengers from 
the train hostage is childcare in schools on strike, the minimum service, the majority 
vote and a turnout sufficient to England for a strike to be legal. These measures aim to 
prevent social movement. Through a pseudo democracy (where all are not equal because some 
have the power to set wages or unemployed), the state and the management of companies 
looking to break all possibilities to act.

The strike is the strength of workers to prevent the goods, that is to say, the benefit of 
bosses, can not get out. It is in this struggle that raises the possibility of the fight. 
Minority or not, a strike or a struggle, responds to inadequate living conditions or 
threatened. Here, the agreement UNEDIC is clearly a setback for the popular classes 
(unemployed, precarious, temporary or intermittent). This agreement is part of a broader 
policy of austerity. The state takes on the backs of the poor, he will give the money to 
the bosses (50 billion). It is necessary that the persons referred to react. The 
legitimacy of all movements from the inherent inequality in this society, operating 
reports, governing classes.

Prevailing seek to undermine any reaction by a democracy can not exist in this unequal 
society. To be more concrete, when the employees went on strike for 96 hours, they involve 
their lives, their wages... It is their choice and no one can blame them. Artists who 
arrived later had only to determine they too, or they fall into the strike they break! No 
one has chosen for them! You still have to remember that if there had been no strike, no 
one would be found to discuss and take action. The speech of some interest to the shares 
in new forms but not to strike is naive or villainous. There would have been no action if 
there had been no prior strike. It is thanks to the strike there had AG, that other people 
were able to join the fight, we could discuss that actions have been implemented...

The question of legitimacy leads to another equally recurring, that of the unity of the 
movement. Artists often non-strikers called for unity at any price. That does not make 
sense, there are strikers, non-strikers precarious fighting... The unit is on some bases, 
namely the fight against the agreement UNEDIC. The value of the unit was the junction 
between the unemployed, precarious, other workers in struggle and intermittent rather 
sterile debates between strikers and non-strikers! Especially since these calls for unity 
were made on behalf of the desire to play some troops. Blocking would be an action of 
division, but the fact of playing despite not strike! A unit is not done in the air, be 
united, yes, but with whom and why? Some could be against the movement, others do not want 
to lock, others wanted to play... In this case, the unit just means immobility and 
non-action. The unit can be done by persuasion, discussing, arguing, but not at any price, 
weakening the movement. It is also built on an objective basis, the interests we defend. I 
do not have the same interests that a business owner or a politician and I have no unit to 
build with them!

Blocking the production, cultural background and social categories

The central question which we have just talked about is that of blocking the production 
that is to say, in a festival, performances. Since the strike is a power struggle, it 
relies on the ability of workers to not work and therefore do not produce. If production 
comes out anyway, it's a failure, the strikers went on strike for nothing.

In all sectors of the economy it is valid. The State and the MEDEF (in fact, all 
capitalists) have nothing to do with a strike where shows play even without technicians. 
But in fact, it would be even can save money managers of the theater!? The question arises 
as in any factory, it is not necessary that the production so, we must work to prevent 
scabs (often framing or syndicates) and block the production site. The question of the 
right to work is not an excuse ideological used by some to limit the strike. This is a 
frequently wielded by the employers, the media or the political struggle to weaken and 
blame the workers in struggle argument. Acceptance or rejection of this idea by people in 
struggle and their entourage reveals the state of the balance of power. The director also 
modula positions on letting play or not companies based on the positions expressed in the 
AG and actions. The article in the Midi Libre "Crater Surface plays with the strike" is 
characteristic of the futility of a strike that did not take into production. And 
technicians on strike and precarious present have understood they passed almost complete 
AG to discuss this article and question. As another example, in an article Online World 
dated 07.17.2014, Aur?lie Filipetti crossing Avignon, explains: "We see the balance sheet. 
But the losses will be much more limited than during the movement of 2003 My priority was 
that the shows are playing and the public to come because in the face of declining public 
finances it was not possible to end up with debt mop ".

Indeed, blocking the production has economic consequences, the main lever of striking, 
workers. This is the only language that can understand the government and employers. 
Besides, everyone (the strikers, the media, government...) scrutinized the Avignon 
festival and it was going to be blocked or not, seeing it as crucial in the continuing 
struggle for weight and that would have been!

The presence of management as the idea that we should let another play comes between an 
illusion. The middle of the show seems a "big family" all (artists, technicians, theater 
management) are there for Culture and Art. In fact, workers of culture are increasingly 
operated in conditions more precarious.

This idea of a great family to work is spread across all job sectors. In the retail sector 
in particular, propaganda of management revolves around this paternalism and "corporate 
culture". It should sell as much as possible and sacrificing weekends for the good of the 
company.

In the show, there was actually a notion of cultural background. People know each other, 
moving from one festival to another, is familiar terms with coaching, come together 
outside of work... despite job insecurity. This is both a strength and a problem. The 
strength lies in the ability to mobilize that do not occur in scattered unemployed and 
under various conditions, or among workers regularly changing jobs... Communication is 
faster, especially as cultural workers are movable. However, it is also a problem of 
believing on an equal footing or "friendship", the "same boat" with her boss and think the 
show is the most important, as it is an expression almost sacred! Working conditions, 
wages, contracts are extremely diverse. The technician is not in the same situation as the 
artist, the commissioner, that the direction that the employee service providers...

The technician has been with the artist on stage and this fact leads to a certain 
inferiority which had its expression in the strike. The strikers technicians were 
reluctant to speak in GA and more to the world. As strikers, they had more to express that 
non-strikers artists. In the AG and public expressions, their word was often confiscated 
by the ego and the interests of some shabby artists talkers who monopolized the debate! 
Finally, many categories appear in this environment and it is an illusion to believe in 
the "big family" of Culture. Class relations are present here as elsewhere.

There are not any illusions about any environment whatsoever, although it may be useful to 
use the benefits of certain connections. The strikers, in all cases, must be able to 
speak, must communicate on the move, a move that should remain theirs!

Actions and broadening the fight

This movement included an early commitment to enlargement towards precarious but of all 
those concerned that this reform.

Whatever the struggle, it can not be confined in a place. Dissemination of information on 
the strike saves new people to this fight. It helps out a framework that is the 
brutalization at work. This question is especially important when fighting against a 
reform that affects many sectors.

Here, the fight against the agreement UNEDIC, one of the acts of austerity policies, 
concerns intermittent, temporary, seniors, the unemployed and all insecure and all sectors 
are affected workers. Reform UNEDIC part of austerity measures, such as 50 billion savings 
expected by the government. Public servants (teachers, hospital...), pensioners, 
precarious regardless of their status, workers who suffer the consequences with increased 
pressure on revenues, reduced opportunities to fighting (even defensive: even the months 
of shortcomings if supra statutory compensation...). In this context, limited to 
intermittent struggle has no meaning and strikers Crater have understood.

However it has been difficult throughout the movement out of the theater. We have already 
discussed the contradictions between personal festival that blocked the dynamics. Yet it 
would have been nice to stop and come into contact with other people involved. We have 
repeatedly offered to go hand out leaflets to the FCA or job center or fill them. Some 
have heard us, but these actions have not been implemented. However, there would have been 
plenty to do. We could have gone in the CAF, the Pole Jobs in secu, hospitals, see 
seasonal in bars and restaurants, in clubs acting in factories, neighborhoods... and it s' 
was not to come into contact with a "public" or explain the "public" but to build bridges 
between people undergoing the same attack in the state. There were some leafleting in 
front of businesses in the area and a supermarket but that's it.

Popular assemblies proposed since the beginning could also be used to that. Despite the 
attempt to retrieve the direction they have been tried. Management would have liked to 
turn these popular assemblies in citizen forum. What amounted to a strike, a struggle, a 
new form of entertainment and keep his festival. In short, it was used to prevent the 
fight takes place and to keep the situation under control of management.

The presence at the Crater of a table explaining the strike took time but it was a step. 
Thus the struggle was visible and possible encounters. At the same time a popular assembly 
was proposed to 18pm. We did not initially been clear since it was publicly announced 
almost from the start but the assemblies have (more or less) that took place on Friday and 
Saturday.

A bouncer took the rather festive or more cagey direction downright irritating away or 
fight against. His presence could have been avoided if more people fighting had been 
present. His uncritical show (this is the least we can say!), Was the expression of this 
position (opposition) between spectator and actor. The organization of space-a stage, 
devant seats made the situation close of the show, not the assembly of struggle. Yet after 
his show directed (consciously or not) by management, some people in the congregation and 
people in struggle have managed to speak again. Of those who remained, many seemed to 
support the movement and were willing to participate. But, again, we have not had anything 
to offer them... because we did not speak, because we just threw the words "popular 
assembly" without looking neither forms nor prospects, because management still held the 
reins and she did not want to see his theater occupied by a crowd of people wanting to 
take part in the struggle... On Saturday, worse, the shows played quietly and for the 
organization of the festival, the the biggest night was saved! This idea of assembly was 
not a panacea, it would have affected only a few people but it allowed to leave the 
theater, make visible the fight and could have to share perspectives of struggle more widely.

During this struggle was always a debate between those who talked over the issue of 
"Culture" and others who spoke of reform UNEDIC and austerity policies. If the strikers 
wanted to expand their struggle as workers Comedians Spring before, he had to get out of 
the cultural claims to seek other sectors against the agreement UNEDIC. The railroad could 
be sensitive to these issues, nurses or midwives of the hospital as well as civil 
servants, unemployed... The workers of the factory where a leaflet distribution took place 
were almost all aware of the Agreement and all stopped to talk.

This struggle can be successful when they leave the middle of the show, that widening the 
question of austerity, the government and employer policies and therefore, addressing all, 
finding bridges between sectors, expanding coverage in different places...

These reflections do not want to givers of lessons, we include these findings widely. A 
group of unemployed and precarious workers in the current period, very difficult to mobilize.

The role and possibilities of collective precarious

We are some of the collective Exploited annoyed to have participated daily in the fight 
which took place at Crater area, while others followed critically, according to their 
availability. Here it seems necessary to present a little this group: it includes people 
with multiple statuses (workers, precarious, unemployed, recipients of social minima...) 
on the basis of class solidarity against capital and the state. Much of its work is the 
defense of particular administrations face situations (CAF, PE, CG...), but also some time 
on a pay dispute. Well aware that the problems that affect everyone are the fruits of an 
economic system and managers accompanying policies, we are also involved in campaigns, 
social movements, we express our solidarity with specific strikes and struggles, always on 
a of class solidarity.

We then could only join with the workers' strike-Crater area, especially given the current 
context. Indeed, it is essential for us to develop resistance against the policies (lower 
labor costs - that is, wages, allowances and various aids) austerity policies. Especially 
as the fight against agreements UNEDIC affects all recipients, present or future job 
center. Finally, we have read or heard, from many intermittent fighting they wanted to be 
joined by the unemployed and precarious to conduct a common struggle. Ales, technicians on 
strike wanted to meet the collective in this perspective.

So we joined the struggle of workers Crater-surface. We have fully participated, involved 
in discussions AG, participating in the drafting of leaflets, flyers or diff to the demo 
and actions during the evening shows. Our place was one of our comrades in struggle 
without the legitimacy of our presence or our speech be questioned. While some (especially 
management) did not see these "excesses" of the issue of intermittency very good eye, they 
were careful to say apart from small groups or reduced face-to-face.

If this desire for equality between casual and intermittent was consensual, in practice, 
the differences in conditions persisted. Positively: we were not employed by the Crater, 
its management had no leverage over us, which gave us a specific position. We were able to 
support the conflict against the leadership that sought to maintain control over the fight 
for the festival can be held despite the strike. We could, in AG and actions, relaying the 
word of technicians who did not dare to take it and support those who were exposed, 
supporting positions who wanted to make the strike effective by preventing the shows take 
place.

However, we have "melted" in the workers' struggle crater-free surface show we can 
initiate discussions and actions to other categories of unemployed or precarious. During 
this week, taken by a fight that was organized difficulty, we have failed to deliver on 
initiatives to expanding the fight. We were able to relay through internet information 
about the ongoing struggle, giving appointments strikers but suggest others. There has 
been some diffs on plants agglomeration then we could propose actions and meetings to try 
to raise the precarious and unemployed of the city and its surroundings. FYI, the Ales 
sector are more than 16% unemployment since the last quarter of 2012.

We did not even manage to get together within the group. We exchanged onsite at random, 
with the comrades of the collective and the people we know who passed. Mobilization of 
precarious and unemployed at that time would have changed the balance of power. She could 
have supported the strikers isolated and mired in internal conflicts, allowing them to go 
out and make themselves visible. It would also have given a permanence to the fight was 
immediately bounded between the start and end of the festival: a week!

The finding of this difficulty to mobilize as unemployed or precarious is not new. It is a 
constant feature related to the conditions of existence of these categories. Contracts and 
statutes are numerous (CSD interim, CAE / CUI, trainees, unemployment benefits or RSA...), 
employers are changing and with colleagues (with wage hierarchies within boxes for 
different types of contracts ) and if all done through job center, it is difficult to meet 
and dematerialization does not help. In this sense, insecurity or unemployment does not 
create is a community of interest. The unemployed are kept in availability for the needs 
of employers but isolated from each other. There is no place to get together, or 
production block for pressure. The living conditions of this population group (which, we 
repeat, includes different realities) limit opportunities to regroup and to lobby for 
their interests. To these difficulties must be added the discouragement and resignation of 
those who already have a daily struggle to access the benefits to which they depend: worn 
by these struggles, there is little energy to take collective battles of especially in 
recent years, few battles have resulted in "victories." The State did not make a mistake. 
The government, after several weeks of mobilization, proposed to intermittent facilities 
of UNEDIC reform, only the schedules for them. They continue to say "that we defend, we 
defend for all," but they can not keep if they are joined by others concerned. Ales, as in 
other cities, collective precarious and unemployed have joined the fight against reform 
UNEDIC. If meetings and exceedances occurred, a movement of the unemployed and precarious 
workers has not emerged. We need to weave everyday solidarities and power relations in the 
defense of our interests in the hope that more struggles to develop. We must find common 
ground and places to gather, across our multiple statutes, our atomization and our 
invisibility.

Operated upset

___

Mail: exploitesenerves@riseup.net

Site: http://exploitesenerves.noblogs.org/