Can we beat racism by suppressing it?

Lisbeth Latham

In January, Fabien Engelmann, secretary of the Confédération générale du travail's (General Confederation of Labour - CGT) union representing workers in the Nilvange town hall, announced that he would be standing as a candidate of the far-right Front National (National Front-FN). The announcement has rocked not only the CGT but also the far-left parties Lutte Oevriere (Workers Struggle – LO) and the Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (New Anticapitalist Party – NPA), as Engelmann was a former candidate for both parties in the 2007 and 2010 elections.


The CGT responded on January 16, by initiating a vote for a new secretary in the local union, which Engelmann won overwhelming, 20 votes to 3. The CGT then gave the members an ultimatum, remove Engelmann and elect a new Secretary, or they would suspend the local union. In a joint statement, the CGT’s Public Service Federation and the Moselle Department explaining the suspension of Engelmann, these were:
Firstly, that Engelmann as a CGT militant was being a propagandist for ideas that run against the fundamental values and directions of the CGT
Secondly that Engelmann sort to use the CGT political purposes.
In its statement explaining the suspension of the local unions the Departmental Union and Public Sector Federation explained that it would remain suspended until it could be re-established on a basis consistent with the values of the CGT.

Engelmann in his public statements has explained his transition from a militant of the far-left, to a militant of the far right in terms of immigration and defence of secularism. In an interview with the website Reposte Laique (Secular Response) that he left the NPA along with other members in his branch, after the regional elections, as a consequence of the NPA standing a veiled candidate (Former NPA candidate Ilham Moussaid, wore the Hijab). Engelmann has explained his decision to join the FN on the basis that Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen is the only one “defending secularism” in France, and that he could not support the lefts support for immigration to France and support for legalisation of workers without papers in a time of high unemployment.

In response to Engelmann’s announcement both LO and the NPA have issued statements. The NPA organisation in Mosselle statement condemned the racism not only of FN, but of President Sarkozy, which legitimises FN’s policies, that “wrongly blames immigration for the majority of society’s ills. The statement also rejected the notion that FN is a defender of secularism, instead stating that the FN only targets the supposed “Islamisation of France”, which “serious studies prove is only a phantasm”, while ignoring the real privileges of other religions, while the FN allows in its organisation self acknowledged Catholic activists who have threatened doctors who provide abortions. Finally the NPA statement explains that the FN economic policies such lower corporate taxes, limiting the right to strike, increasing the defence budget while lowering the education budget, are in contradiction to the demands of the labour movement”. The LO statement described both Le Pens (Marine, and Jean-Marie, Marine’s Father and the founder of the FN) as middle class and their orientation to the working class is to shift workers anger towards immigrants, the poor and the most oppressed and away from the middle class and capitalists who are for the disaster of the crisis and the drama of unemployment”.

FN have indicated that they will launch a case in the European Court of Human Rights to seek his readmission. In 2007, Bredin Prat who was expelled from the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen for being a member of the British National Party , launched a similar case in the ECHR. In that case the ECHR found under clause 11 of the European Convention to Protect Human Rights, which protects the right of freedom of assembly, that unions have the right to determine who can be a member. Engelmann’s lawyer has indicated that their argument will be focused on clause 9 and 10 which protect freedom of expression.

Irrespective of any court ruling on the legality of Engelmann’s suspension, the FN will attempt to paint Engelmann as a victim, who has had his democratic rights impinged. Their efforts are helped by CGT regional official Denis Pesce’s acknowledgement to Free Actualité, that members of the union had wanted to keep Engelmann as secretary as they felt that he was “doing a good job”. Engelmann has said that in the coming week’s more CGT members will come out as FN members. Given the social crisis in France it is likely that there are a number of members who will at least be FN sympathisers, particularly as Pesce has acknowledged that union has not done in enough to combat racist ideas. While more members coming out will add to the FN publicity, it will create environment in which the ideas can be combated head on through an ideological struggle. Further attempts to win the battle against racism in the CGT via suppression can only drive the ideas underground and risk giving them the ring of truth by making martyrs of its advocates, making it all the more difficult to combat the ideas.

Read more...

French Workers Sentenced over Redundancy Protests

Lisbeth Latham

On September 1, French courts sentenced six workers to suspended sentences of between three and six months as a consequence of union protests in April against Continental’s decision to close its tyre plant in Clairox. More than 1,100 workers had been employed at the plant and the closure announcement sparked protests by workers. The six workers, along with a seventh who was acquitted, had all played a leading role in workers resistance to the closure, and had been charged with “destruction of property to influence the state” over the damage to occupied local government offices.


The charges emerged from a protest on April 21, where 200 Continental workers stormed the sub-prefecture office of Compiegne. It is estimated that some €50, 000 in damage was caused during the protest which was part of a four month campaign against the plant closure, which had included 30 different protest actions. The campaign was successful in securing payouts of €50, 000 per worker.

At a court hearing on July 17, General Confederation of Workers (CGT) delegate Xavier Mathieu, who received the longest sentence, had admitted the action was a “slippage” but that it “was not premeditated”.

The sentences have drawn widespread condemnation from across the French Labour movement and the far-left. Following the sentencing, an impromptu protest was held in the town centre by 250 workers and supporters with shouting “we are not thugs”. AFP reported that Mathieu told the crowd that the sentence was “a prime example of the assault of a state that would deny the working class a voice”, he continued “it’s disgusting, there is no justice in this country. I’m angry, they fought with dignity and the government has decided to make an example”.

The protest was also addressed by Olivier Besancenot, Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste spokesperson, who said he was “outraged” at the “provocation” of the sentences. Lutte Ouvrière’s spokesperson Arlette Laguiller said it was unacceptable that workers pay while the company’s leaders brought ruin to the region.

French unions have been unanimous in their opposition to the sentences. The CGT have described the trial as “profoundly unfair” and that while the government is “criminalising those who fight against the unilateral decisions of the shareholders” it is “lenient, even colluding with management who impose their strategic decisions sacrificing plants and employees”. AFP reported Force Ouvriere Secretary General Jean-Claude Mailly’s statement warning against litigiousness in resolving social issues. The Union Solidaires in a statement condemned the sentences, arguing that it was “revenge against activists who had led weeks of struggle” and it was an attempt to “make an example to deter others facing redundancy from fighting”.

The convicted workers have been informed that they will also now face civil proceedings in November to determine whether they will have to pay damages.

Read more...

Wage rises don’t mean job losses

Lisbeth Latham

Almost immediately after the Rudd Labor government’s Fair Work Australia came into effect on July 2, the Australian and other News Ltd newspapers launched a sustained attack on the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union’s (AMWU) wage claim for the manufacturing industry.

Business associations, the government and corporate media have been running a concerted campaign for more than year to convince working people that they have to show wage restraint if they want to avoid losing their jobs.

This is part of a campaign to foist the brunt of the global economic crisis onto working people and protect the interests of big business. However, the historical lessons the Australian draws on to back up its claims do not show a necessary relationship between wage rises and job losses.

On July 2, the Australian featured front-page headlines reading: “Unions defy PM Kevin Rudd’s restraint call as New IR Era Begins” and “Lost lessons of the 100,000 `dead men'”.

These articles followed a statement by AMWU national secretary Julius Roe, reported in the July 1 Australian: “If companies are performing well, workers should get some share of those outcomes. In some cases, yes, we are achieving (6 per cent), and we will achieve that in the future.

“The fairest thing to say is where companies are performing well, we should be able to achieve real wage increases. Elsewhere, we want to at least maintain real wages. This year, it's probably around [a] 4 per cent [pay rise].”


Pattern bargaining
The articles raised fears of a return to pattern bargaining — under which unions lodge identical claims across industry and campaign for employers to provide minimum improvements in conditions by using sites of union strength to support workers in less well organised or less strategic workplaces.

It also raised the potential of a broader “wages breakout”.

The Australian quoted former head of the Metal Trades Industry Association Bert Evans, saying that the AMWU’s claim, if successful, would lead to jobs going overseas.

The articles further argued that the huge job losses in Australian manufacturing during the recession of the early 1980s were a result of the AMWU’s (then the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union — AMWSU) 1981 campaign for pay rises and a 35-hour week with no loss in pay.

The Australian’s articles are part of a wider campaign to shatter the confidence of AMWU members in pursuing collective bargaining and undermine support for the AMWU. The campaign aims to build and reinforce the argument that wage rises during an economic downturn would result in job losses, and the AMWU, in pursuing its “unreasonable claim”, is threatening the livelihood of all workers.

But did the AMWSU’s 1981 wage campaign really cause the collapse in employment? And, more broadly, is there really a connection between wage levels and employment?

What happened in 1981
After its election victory in 1975, the Liberal Coalition government of Malcolm Fraser moved to “fight inflation” by, among other things, seeking to cut real wages by limiting the extent to which wages were indexed with inflation in the centralised national wage cases.

As a result, real wages fell through the late 1970s, but the government’s policy was unsuccessful in reducing inflation.

In response to falling real wages, debates began to emerge at the 1979 Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) congress to move away from centralised wage fixing. At the 1981 congress, the militant pace-setter unions, led by the AMWSU, won support for a partial break from centralised wage fixing.

In July 1981, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission abandoned wage indexation entirely as unions began to win wage increases outside of indexation.

In 1980, the AMWSU launched its campaign to “defend and extend working and living standards, workers’ rights and quality of life”. This campaign included a push for a 35-hour week with no loss in pay. The AMWSU’s claim was aimed at defending workers’ buying power and creating jobs through the reduction in the working week.

It was also motivated by the Fraser government’s predictions of a looming minerals boom. Employers and the government united to reject outright reducing ordinary working hours below 40 hours a week.

Despite this, the AMWSU led a wide-reaching campaign, which included a 48-hour strike in 1981 involving 400,000 manufacturing workers. As a result, the union won an increase of $20 a week and a 38-hour week. The agreement also allowed for a second increase of $14 in 1982, based on projected inflation for the next six months.

However, part the deal was that, in exchange for the improved conditions, the AMWSU agreed to a 12-month “no extra claims” clause, through which all future claims for increased wages or reduced hours were held back for 12 months.

One year after the AMWSU won its new agreements, the global economic downturn hit in full force, driving down demand for consumer and capital goods. This downturn had already begun to be felt in Australia before the wage campaign, but the AMWSU had been protected from it initially due to residual demand for skilled workers.

In response to the crisis, manufacturing employers started to rapidly shed jobs, and about 90,000 workers were sacked. In the face of this assault the AMWSU’s leaders abided by the “no strike” agreements and did not take industrial action to try to protect jobs.

At some shops, workers tried to secure jobs by agreeing to reduce their hours to a four-day week at four days’ wages.

While this experience would appear to support the Australian’s claim that wage rises lead to job losses, it only indicates that a wage rise occurred at about the same time as large-scale job losses during an economic downturn.

To sustain the Australian’s argument, there would need to be a consistent pattern that wage rises during recession result in job losses while wage restraint during recessions result in job creation.

No link
The pattern of wages and employment in manufacturing over the past 30 years does not indicate the direct link argued by the Australian and other supporters of a wage freeze in the current period.

Indeed, there are periods of significant job losses during the downturns of the late 1980s and early 1990s. During this period, real wages remained at best stagnant, and what wage rises were won were tied to productivity gains or loss of conditions, which limited the cost for capital for wage gains.

Moreover, if the decline in jobs was a result of wage gains and economic decline, as the economy recovers you would expect to see a significant recovery of jobs. However, such employment recovery has been more limited.

This reflects the extent to which capital has used periods of economic decline to restructure and force through increases in labour productivity at the cost of employment.

The Australian’s articles are part of a broader offensive in Australia and internationally to ensure that workers bear the brunt of the current economic crisis and to ensure bosses are in a position to reap the greatest share of the next recovery.

With this in mind, workers and unions must struggle to maintain and extend wages and conditions, and they should be supported by all working people.

This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly Issue #803

Read more...

Rio Tinto announces it will sack 14 000 workers globally

Lisbeth Latham

Rio Tinto, one of the world’s largest mining companies announced on December 10 that it would shed 14, 000 jobs from its global workforce as part of an effort to reduce its $38.9 billion debt by $10 Billion by the end of 2009. This move reflects the impact of the global economic downturn on the mining industry, which faces not only declining demand but also falling commodity prices. As a consequence miners who in the last year have looked to expand their production capacity are now lowering output.


Under the plan 5,500 of Rio Tinto's of 97, 000 core workers will be sacked along 8, 500 of the comapny's 15, 000 contractors. Rio’s projected future savings also includes a rapid acceleration in the outsourcing and off-shoring of the company’s IT and procurement during 2009 it likely that there will be more shifts in the structure of its workforce. Rio Tinto expects to make an annual saving from the current round of job cuts of $1.2 billion annually. Their total payout to redundant workers is estimated at $400 million.

In addition to the job cuts Rio Tinto is other cost cutting mechanisms. These include:

• Reductions in operating costs by $1.3 billion per annum in addition to the savings made from shedding job;
• A reduction its capital expenditure in 2009 from $9 billion to $4 billion resulting in the company cancelling or delaying projects;
• Holding the dividend payment at the 2007 level of 136 US cents and stopping the 20% increase in 2008 or 2009;
• Selling off some of the companies assets
  

A significant factor in the difficulties facing has been the rapid decline in the Chinese economy. Australian Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens on December 9 said “China’s economy has slowed much more quickly than anyone had forecast. Our own estimates suggest that Chinese industrial production probably declined over the four months to October”. While Stevens, acknowledged that some of the weakness could be attributable to the Olympics, “more than that seems to have been occurring. I am not sure that many economic forecasters have fully appreciated this yet. There is every chance that the rate of growth of China’s GDP is currently noticeably below the 8 per cent pace that is embodied in various forecasts for 2009”.

During November, China’s imports and exports had fallen from the previous months figures 17.9 and 2.2 percent respectively, compared with analysts estimates of growth of 12 and 15 percent. In October, China’s imports had grown 15.6% while exports had grown 19.2% over the previous 12 months.

On December 10, The Times reported that Rio Tinto’s senior management is predicting that the Chinese government will be able to stimulate its economy sufficiently next year to allow the demand for raw materials to rebound in the second half of last year. Stevens, also argued that as a consequence of the Chinese government, who had been previously attempting to cool the Chinese economy, have begun to implement expansionary policies, “so there is a good chance that China’s economy will be looking stronger in a year’s time than it does today”. Whether any improvement in the Chinese will sufficiently boost the commodities market to boost Rio Tinto’s financial situation remains to be seen.

Not all of Rio Tinto’s problems are a consequence of the global economic downturn. While all mining companies will be looking to reduce production which may include not just reducing the output at individual mines, but the closure and mothballing of entire mines – particularly those with poor grade quality, which were only viable while commodity prices were at their highest. However a substantial component of Rio Tinto’s debts are the consequence of its attempts to re-position itself within the commodities market through its acquisition in late 2007 of Canadian Aluminum producer ALCAN for $38 billion while the market was at its highest. It is the ensuring high debt levels, some of which are due for repayment by late 2009, that have forced the current round of job shedding.

It is unclear how these job losses will be spread across the company’s global work force, ABC News reported on December 11, that the specifics of the cuts are expected in the New Year. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, which covers workers at Rio Tinto's hugely profitable Coal and Iron Ore mines, has indicated that it will fight job losses in Australia. CFMEU Mining Division President Tony Maher, telling the Sydney Morning Herald, "There's no justification of cutting back the workforce, it shows the folly of taking on tens of billions of debt”.

Read more...