Spanish Syndicalism (1) CGT Strike in Unipost

CGT DECLARES UNLIMITED STRIKE IN SPANISH 'UNIPOST' OVER HOLIDAYS


      The following is a translation from a Spanish language article at Rojo y Negro, the organ of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union the CGT. I have had to rather "freely translate" as the particulars of Spanish labour practices are quite different from here in the Anglosphere. Any mistakes are my own responsibility.

CGT UNIPOST CALLS INDEFINITE STRIKE FROM 13-D

     The stoppages will be for 24 hours (from 00:00 to 24:00) and Saturdays, Sundays and holidays are not included. The schedule is as follows: December 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27 and 30 and the 2 and 3 of January 2014. If the dispute is not settled we reserve the right to call further stoppages which will be conducted according to applicable legal provisions.

     There are two principle objectives of this strike. On the one hand the breaches of agreement on the part of management, salary cuts and non-payment of summer bonuses. (Such bonuses are a regular part of Spanish labour practice...mm) On the other hand an end to layoffs.

     Thus the CGT, having consulted both general assemblies and workshop assemblies, has decided to carry out the strike to show important solidarity with the workers to carry it out.

     We want to thank those who have expressed their support in favour of your decision and we want, secondarily, to encourage the rest because everyone together will have more force and power to achieve the objective marked out.

     We also inform you of the suspension of the December 2 hearing by the High Court about the pay cut that we applied for in August 2013. It was going to address three charges of non-compliance and misappliance, one of them not cited by the works council, on procedural grounds. To avoid a full trial it was decided to postpone the hearing until January 28, 2014. On that day the hearing will hear the complaint of unpaid summer bonuses. At the same time some unions have been in negotiations with the company and have reached a possible agreement to agree to the suspension (of the bonuses...mm). This is something the CGT does not agree with given the negotiating intransigence of the company.
AGAINST LAYOFFS AND INSECURITY IN UNIPOST !
FOR DIGNIFIED WORK IN UNIPOST...A SUFFICIENT CAUSE !
UNLIMITED STRIKE FROM 13D !

CHOOSE THE CGT, JOIN THE CGT - THE UNION THAT DARES !
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER @cgtunipost

VISIONS:

THE PRODUCER CO-OP OPTION:

There are basically two types of cooperatives, consumer and producer. The former is a mutual aid society of purchasers banded together to get the best possible value for their dollar by cutting out the capitalist middleman. By banding together the members of such co-ops not only avoid value draining intermediaries but also get the advantage of size and bulk purchasing power, something beyond the capacity of singular households. The most visible consumer co-ops in Canada are the gasoline co-ops active in most provinces, but this option is hardly restricted to the automobile. There are such things as food co-ops, hardware co-ops, health care co-ops and even "funeral co-ops" across the country. Our credit unions are essentially consumer co-ops, and the recent spate of financial crises has demonstrated at least one way in which such local, member controlled, institutions are better and more stable than the banks.

Cooperation, however, is not restricted to consumption. Across the world people are setting up producer co-ops, also known as worker co-ops. In this case the members are the workers of a business who own and control their workplace. In a Canadian context a good source of information about this matter is the website of the Canadian Worker Co-op Federation. In many ways this enterprise model is a living example of a model of what anarcho-syndicalists have advocated for over a century. That is that a workplace should be the property of and be controlled by those who work in said location. What is different from the traditional view of the syndicalists is that worker co-ops that are set up today have to operate within a market economy. This goes against the grain of the traditional syndicalist view which is anti-market. How to reconcile these two viewpoints is a discussion for another time.

What is important here is to note that the worker/producer cooperative model of business has been gaining more and more attraction and implementation in the last few decades. Many studies have demonstrated that worker co-ops are more efficient than a traditional business model where management either bullies, bribes or bullshits workers to produce more more efficiently. In a producers' co-op the workers are the owners and direct beneficiaries of the success of the business. They have a natural incentive to be both more efficient and more productive.

The existence of this option which is actually a real and immediate way of freeing oneself from authority has always been a matter of debate in libertarian socialist circles. What is interesting is just how attractive this model has become outside of the anarchist ghetto. Here, for example, is a recent article from the Vancouver Province about the co-op option.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Consider worker co-operatives
By Benjamin Gillies

As Canadians got back to the old grind last week, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives had a rather intriguing statistic for them.

By mid-afternoon on that day, our country's top 100 CEOs had already made over $44,300, what it takes the average citizen an entire year to earn.

In fact, the policy centre notes, these elite men and women took home an average $8.4 million in 2010, 189 times more than our mean national income.

Dialogue over this type of economic disparity has been ongoing for thousands of years - from Plato, who believed the income of the highest paid in a society should never be more than five times that of the lowest paid, to last year's Occupy movement.

Most recently, the major proposal for curbing inequality among many progressive politicians is for the government to raise taxes on wealthy citizens and corporations.

Those on the right of the political spectrum vehemently oppose such an approach, however, arguing that to bur-den the companies we look to for job creation is a short-sighted strategy that can only leave us worse off as businesses head to lower-tax jurisdictions.

Undoubtedly, conservatives have a point that we rely on companies to generate employment. Yet, they overlook the fact that while corporations do provide jobs for Canadians, this is not actually their main objective. Their goal is profit maximization, and stockholders can even sue managers for making decisions that hurt the bottom line.

Directors are therefore forced to do whatever is necessary to increase returns, even when their actions are detrimental to workers. Over the past 30 years, for example, executives have used the threat of outsourcing to squeeze major concessions out of employees.

Improving the financial position of the majority will always remain problematic when we acquiesce to the need for profit above all else. It is time Canadians adopted a more holistic perspective on economic inequality, and examined the potential of an alternative business model - the worker co-operative.

Though worker co-operatives are relatively well-developed elsewhere (Spain's famous Mondragon Cooperative has been rated by Forbes magazine as one of the 10 best places to work in Europe), they remain marginal here, in no small part because they do not mesh well with North American corporate law.

Nevertheless, in today's economic climate they offer a number of enticing benefits. Like conventional corporations, co-operatives are private, for-profit enterprises.

What sets them apart is workers, not outside investors, fully own the company. These owner/employees keep all profits, instead of seeing them distributed to stockholders who often have little connection to the business other than their initial investment.

Through a one-worker, one-vote system, members are responsible for steering the company, either directly through general assembly votes or, more commonly, by electing a board of directors.

Because members have a vested interest in the success of the business, studies show they work harder and require less supervision, leading to better productivity and long-term survival rates above those of conventional companies. Co-operatives operate within the market, while providing greater worker empowerment and a more equitable distribution of revenue without government intervention - which ought to appeal to those on both the political left and right.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/business/Guest+column+Consider+worker+operatives/5965733/story.html#ixzz1jIjBcr30

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

But what really is a worker co-op ? Here straight from the horse's mouth is the definition that the Canadian Worker Co-op Federation applies.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is a Worker Co-op?
Worker co-operatives are businesses that are owned and democratically controlled by the members. The main purpose of a worker co-operative is to provide employment for its members through operating an enterprise that follows the Co-operative Principles and Values. When new employees join the business, after a successful probationary period they are encouraged to apply for membership. The worker co-op is, in principle, designed to provide benefits not just to the founding members but also to all future employee/members.

To create their worker co-op, members combine their skills, interests and experiences to achieve mutual goals such as creating jobs for themselves, providing a community service and increasing democracy in the workplace. The variety of enterprises operating as worker co-ops is very broad. Virtually any enterprise can be organized as a worker co-operative. The worker co-op idea can work for you if you have a marketable product, start-up capital and a plan for organization and growth.

Each member pays a membership fee, or purchases a membership share, and has one vote no matter how many shares they own. Through the democratic governance of the co-op, all members have equal opportunity to affect the way the business is run and to offer input on the decisions affecting their everyday work lives. Because they develop the policies that determine the co-operative’s daily and long term operation, trust, communication and co-operation are vital to the co-op’s success. The co-op’s assets are collectively owned and surplus earnings are allocated to the workers according to the bylaws and policies established by the co-op,often in proportion to hours worked by members and with limited return on shares and member loans.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Worker co-ops differ substantially from conventional businesses. Conventional businesses’ primary aim is to make profit for the owners who may be - but in many cases are not - employed by the business. Such an owner’s voting control and share of profit is based on the amount of money invested, not for any services that they provide the business. This is a fundamental difference, as in conventional businesses the ultimate authority rests with a single individual, or with a small group,and the business decisions are based upon maximizing their benefit as owners. Any profit sharing with the workers or with the broader community is at the owner’s sole discretion.

In summary, worker co-operatives are a radical break from conventional businesses. The worker co-op’s primary goal in operating an enterprise is for service to its employees and its community rather than in service to the owners of capital. The goal is to provide the best possible employment conditions for the members and to provide the customers and community with a service or product at a fair price that meets their needs and leads to a sustainable community.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

One of the advantages of the worker coop model is that it is an open option at any time. During revolutions it becomes almost a necessity as worker councils keep production happening despite the absence of the old bosses. It is also an option in decidedly non-revolutionary situations and in all the stages between these extremes. Rather than being a "plan z" when an enterprise is shutting down it should be a predetermined goal of the labour movement. In relation to that it is heartening to see the present collaboration of the Spanish Mondragon co-ops and the North American United Steel Workers.

In certain situations that are short of "revolution" the movement of workers to occupy and take over a business abandoned by an owner is not as difficult as trying to salvage a business that is insolvent in an otherwise healthy economy. The following article from the Upside Down World website discusses what happened in Argentina during its economic crisis in 2001.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Occupy, Resist, Produce: Worker Cooperatives in Argentina

Written by Benjamin Dangl
During the economic crisis of 2001, when politicians and banks failed, many Argentines took matters into their own hands. Poverty, homelessness and unemployment were countered with barter systems and grassroots, micro-credit lending programs. Community groups were created to provide solidarity, food and support in neighborhoods across the country.

Perhaps the most well known of these initiatives was the recuperation of bankrupt factories and businesses which were occupied by workers and run cooperatively. There are roughly two hundred worker-run factories and businesses in Argentina, most of which started in the midst of the 2001 crisis. 15,000 people work in these cooperatives and the businesses range from car part producers to rubber balloon factories. Two recuperated businesses with stories that are representative of this movement are Hotel Bauen and the Chilavert book publishing factory.

Hotel Bauen

Hotel Bauen first opened during the military dictatorship in 1978 when Buenos Aires hosted the World Cup. From that time onward, the hotel was a meeting place for big businesses owners, people connected to the dictatorship, and politicians such as former Argentine President Carlos Menem. Ironically, since the worker takeover in 2003, Hotel Bauen has been a meeting place for left-leaning activists groups and union members. Recently, the city's subway workers went on strike and much of their decision making and organizing was coordinated from the hotel.

Marcelo Iurcovich ran the hotel for years until 1997 when he sold it to Solari, a Chilean company. In 2001 the hotel went bankrupt and on December 21st, Solaris fired all of its workers. The majority of the ninety employees went without work for twelve to fourteen months. "Our decision to take over the hotel wasn't capricious," explained Horacio Lalli, a member of the hotel's cooperative. "A lot of the people here were fathers and mothers of families. There was no work. We had to do something, so after a lot of meetings we decided to take the hotel back."

On March 21, 2003 after a meeting in Chilavert, one of the first worker-run factories in the city, Hotel Bauen's workers gathered at night at the intersection of the streets Corrientes and Calloa in downtown Buenos Aires. They walked the short distance to the hotel and entered the building. Cheers filled the air. The lights were switched on. Workers hugged each other and wept. They had succeeded in the first step of the recuperation process: occupation.

Yet the hotel was far from being in working condition. A lot of the material and equipment had been sold by the previous owners or stolen. The workers still faced months of cleaning and repairing in order to get the hotel back on its feet. "Throughout this time businesses and students in Buenos Aires helped us out by gathering money for us so we could eat," Lalli explained. "Yet we were afraid the hotel bosses would come back and kick us out. This period of time was full of fear."

It took the workers until August of 2004 to reopen the hotel. To this day, a verdict has not been reached and the fate of the hotel remains in the hands of the judge. According to Lalli, the judge will probably decide that the workers need to pay rent or buy the business from the previous owner.

In the meantime, the hotel is back in business. Though it is still not entirely in working order, it is a bustling center for political and cultural events and generates enough profit to keep the operation going. The workers are running their business as a cooperative. Not everyone receives the same salary, but all major decisions are made in assemblies attended by all the hotel's workers.

Fabio Resino has been working at the hotel since it was taken over by the workers in 2003. "If the hotel had been run as a cooperative for all these years it would not have closed," he explained. "There was a lot of corruption and bad management with the previous owner. You could ask all ninety people that work here today and they'd all respond that they prefer this system to working for one boss. It takes more time this way, you have to work for more hours with fewer resources, but it's worth it."

"Before, we worked for a boss," he continued. "Now we work for ourselves. And when it is a cooperative you want to work better because it is your business, your own process. Before workers were numbers. Now we are people."

Chilavert

The Chilavert book publishing factory is located outside the center of Buenos Aires in a quiet neighborhood. On the front of the building is a colorful mural which contains the slogan of the recuperated business movement: "Occupy, Resist, Produce."

The factory itself is divided into offices, a kitchen, a cultural center and a large area full of printing and book binding machines. The machines vary in age; some of them are from the 1950's, and the newer ones are from the 1970's. When I visited, people of all ages were in the factory, either working or helping to organize community events. One woman was working in the cultural center on the second floor; another was sorting articles for a journal Chilavert produces. A musician stopped by to use the computer to print a flier for one of his concerts. Teenagers who worked in the factory as interns listened as another worker explained the intricacies of book layout and design. Towards the end of the day, dozens of people showed up for salsa classes in the cultural center. The factory had a festive, communal feel to it, but work was still going on and the machines were printing away. While I was there, a book of poetry and a science text book were being published.

When the factory was started in 1923 it was called Gaglianone, after the family who ran the business for decades before the worker takeover. After the takeover, the workers renamed their factory Chilavert, after the street it is on. Gaglianone was well known in Buenos Aires as a producer of high quality art books and materials for the major theaters in the city. However, in the 1990's the business had less work and a lot of the equipment was sold off, salaries were lowered and people were fired. In April of 2002, the factory closed its doors.

Out of necessity and a desire to keep their place of work functioning, the workers decided to occupy the factory. At the beginning of the occupation, they clandestinely produced books, (as illegal occupants of the building, it was against the law to do so). After producing them, they snuck the books through a hole in the factory's wall and into the neighbor's house. Though the hole has since been repaired, Chilavert workers have proudly placed a frame around this exposed brick section of the wall.

A climactic moment came on May 24th 2002 when eight police patrol cars, dozens of policemen, eight assault vehicles, two ambulances and one fire truck showed up at Chilavert to kick the workers out. Though there were only eight workers occupying the building they were accompanied by nearly three hundred other people, including neighbors, students and workers from other cooperatives who were there to help defend the factory. The massive group intimidated the police and when it became clear that blood was about to flow from both sides, the police retreated. The workers had won.

Occupy, Resist, Produce

Candido Gonzalez worked at Chilavert for forty two years before participating in the worker takeover. After a recent heart attack he attributes to stress and overwork, he said he plans to take it easy. That didn't stop him from recently attending the fifth annual World Social Forum in Brazil and participating in a recent city-wide subway strike. Throughout my visit, he joked with many workers in the building and seemed perfectly capable of talking forever. Our interview lasted a couple of hours and though he focused on Chilavert, he touched upon everything from earthquakes to whiskey.

"Occupy, resist and produce. This is the synthesis of what we are doing," Candido said, as he passed me a glass of iced tea. "And it is the community as a whole that makes this possible. When we were defending this place there were eight assault vehicles and thirty policemen that came here to kick us out. But we, along with other members of the community, stayed here and defended the factory."

He recalls this fight with tears in his eyes, "It is normal for you to fight for yourself, but when others fight for your cause it is very emotional."

Part of the local economy in the neighborhood depends on Chilavert for business. "We get our transportation, ink, food, coffee and paper - there is a paper factory fifteen blocks from here - all in this neighborhood. Chilavert helps the economy and if this factory closes, the neighborhood suffers."

Twelve people work at the factory and unlike other cooperatives in the city, everyone has the same salary. Major decisions are made in assemblies and community based activities play an important role in the weekly agenda. On the second level of the building there is a cultural center which is used for dance classes, movie screenings, discussions, poetry readings, parties and art exhibits.

Since the worker takeover, Chilavert has produced numerous books on social and political themes, with titles such as "The Unemployed Workers Movement," "What are Popular Assemblies?" and "Piquetera (Argentine activist group) Dignity."

"Every decision, every assembly, every book published, has something to do with politics," Chilavert worker, Julieta Galera explained. "The idea is to make books and works of art that have something to do with our political vision. There is a lot of prejudice against recuperated factories in Buenos Aires. People think we don't work hard enough. But Chilavert does some of the best work in the business."

Though Chilavert is one of the most famous of the recuperated businesses, its story is still unknown most Argentines. "We almost don't exist in the newspapers or the TV programs because we aren't with the government," Candido explained. "There are some two hundred recuperated, cooperative businesses in Argentina. That's not a lot compared to all the others that are not run this way."

Candido didn't think much of current president Nestor Kirchner, and didn't attribute Chilavert's success to any politician. "We didn't put a political party banner in the factory because we are the ones that took the factory. All kinds of politicians have come here asking for our support. Yet when the unions failed, when the state failed, the workers began a different kind of fight…If you want to take power and you can't take over the state, you have to at least take over the means of production."

Candido pointed across the room to a giant safe in the corner. Across the top of the safe was the name, Gaglianone. He laughed and shook his head. Perhaps that's where the old boss horded all of his money. "Now," Candido explained, pulling out a bottle, "this is where we keep the whiskey."

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Summing up it can be said that the producer co-op model is almost everywhere and always an option for labour. It should not be reduced to a salvage operation when a business is in trouble. In better times it should become a long range project of progressive unions. Rather than simply reacting to what the boss is doing unions should be active in gradually increasing their control of an enterprise. Pension funds are one source of the funds needed to do this. So are voluntary subscriptions and a dedicated portion of union dues. With labour at the table management would actually be far more reasonable in the wages and benefits area than they are in this age of cutbacks.

CANADIAN POLITICS:

CONSERVATIVES ATTACK UNIONS ONCE MORE:

Well, this probably counts as non-news as nobody should be suprised that a Conservative Party wants to gut the power of organized workers to fight back. The following articles (English and French) from the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union (CEP) warns of this desire. I think the most significant point made below is that union books are already open to members, the only openness that should count. The government, of course, sees this as merely an opening salvo in a long term campaign to deprive the NDP of union support. Now I'm also not too thrilled by the chains of gold that tie unions to the NDP, but my idea of union independence would be from the ground up, with more democratic and active unions. NOT by repressive measures on the part of government. Here's the CEP's article.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
The Harperites are at it again, another attack on unions
12/09/2011

By Dave Coles
On December 5th Russ Hiebert, Conservative MP for South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, B.C. introduced Bill C-377 an act to make union books public. You might remember in early November his previous bill C-317, on the exact same topic had to be withdrawn due to parliamentary procedures and didn’t even make it to second reading. It must have been a big defeat for Mr. Hiebert given he had the coveted 1st spot on the private members bills priority list and now it’s back again (at the bottom of the pile) with a new name and a few changes (he can’t introduce the same thing it’s against the rules).

So, did anyone out there think his first shot across the bow, was it? Does anyone actually really think this is about so called transparency or accountability? This has absolutely nothing to do with fairness or ethics or about making bad legislation better. This is a calculated attack on unions, unfair in its segregation of labour organizations and discriminatory in its disclosure requirements.

What the Harperites don’t understand about unions is that our books ARE open to All our members – it’s the basic premise under which we operate. Furthermore, there are provisions under the existing labour legislation and the Canadian Revenue Act.

Let’s be honest the real crux of the bill is political activity of labour organizations. They don’t like what we do and how we do it. But Mr. Hiebert ‘Political Action’ is one of the founding pillars of trade unions-whether you like it or not. Our members know this, vote for this at all our conventions and support our actions. Furthermore the Lavigne Supreme Court decision of 1991 affirms the rights of Unions to engage in political activity without restrictions that a charity is subject to. So this begs the question, how is it fair that you want us to disclose such information on political activity and lobbying to the tax authority when it’s perfectly legal?

Labour must be on alert and mobilizing now to counter a clear and present danger. As long as Harper encourages and coordinates actions like 377 there can be no business as usual with this government.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Les partisans de Harper recommencent à attaquer les syndicats
12/09/2011

Par Dave Coles
Le 5 décembre, Russ Hiebert, député conservateur de South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, en C.-B., a déposé le projet de loi C-377 , dont l’intention est d’obliger les syndicats à divulguer leurs états financiers. Vous vous souviendrez peut-être qu’au début du mois de novembre, son projet de loi précédent C-317, sur le même sujet, avait dû être retiré en raison de procédures parlementaires et ne s’était même pas rendu en deuxième lecture. Ce fut sans doute toute une défaite pour Russ Hiebert étant donné qu’il avait la première place tant convoitée sur la liste prioritaire des projets de loi d’initiative parlementaire, et ce projet est maintenant de retour (au bas de la liste) sous un nouveau nom et avec quelques modifications (il ne peut déposer le même projet, ce qui est contraire aux règles).

Alors, est-ce que quelqu’un là-bas pense que son premier projet était un coup de semonce? Est-ce quelqu’un pense vraiment que ce projet porte sur une soi-disant transparence et reddition des comptes? Ce projet n’a absolument rien à voir avec l’équité ou les principes éthiques, ou même à améliorer une mauvaise législation. C’est une attaque calculée contre les syndicats, une attaque injuste sur le plan de la ségrégation des organisations syndicales et discriminatoire sur le plan des exigences de divulgation.

Ce que les partisans de Harper ne comprennent pas à propos des syndicats, c’est que nos états financiers SONT ouverts à TOUS nos membres – c’est la prémisse de base sur laquelle nous oeuvrons. En outre, des dispositions existent en vertu de la législation actuelle du travail et de la Loi canadienne de l’impôt sur le revenu.

Soyons honnêtes, le vrai nœud du projet de loi porte sur l’activité politique des organisations syndicales. Ils n’aiment pas ce que nous faisons ni comment nous le faisons. Mais monsieur Hiebert, « l’activité politique » est l’un des piliers fondateurs des syndicats, que vous soyez d’accord ou non. Nos membres le savent, votent en sa faveur à tous nos congrès et soutiennent nos actions. En outre, la décision Lavigne de la Cour suprême en 1991 confirme les droits des syndicats d’entreprendre des activités politiques sans les restrictions auxquelles un organisme de bienfaisance fait l’objet. Ce qui soulève la question, comment pouvez-vous souhaiter que nous divulguions de tels renseignements sur les activités politiques et de lobbying aux autorités en matière fiscale lorsqu’elles sont parfaitement légales?

Les syndicats doivent être en état d’alerte et se mobiliser maintenant pour confronter un réel danger. Aussi longtemps que Harper encouragera et coordonnera des actions comme le projet de loi C-377, nous ne pourrons agir comme si de rien n’était avec ce gouvernement.

CANADIAN LABOUR:

ORGANIZING IN THE RETAIL SECTOR:

The nature of employment has changed dramatically over the past few decades. Nowadays the classical industrial "proletariat" comprises a small minority of the population. Growth in jobs is strongest in the "service" sector, of which retail is a branch. Workers in this sector face precarious employment, low pay and erratic hours. Because their workplaces are small they often find it more difficult to organize unions that might better their conditions. Unions, in turn, find it difficult to reach out to these workers because of the high turnover in personnel at many (most ?) retail outlets, but reach out they will indeed have to do if they want to remain relevant.

In the USA the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) has been very much at the forefront of organizing with their Starbucks Workers Union and the Jimmy Johns Workers Union. Here in Canada there have been attempts with the most successful being in large grocery chains. Here's an article from the Canadian progressive magazine 'Our Times' about organizing in retail. Even though the IWW has often been in the forefront this issue is a problem that all unions should be confronting.

RWRWRWRWRWRW
RETAIL MATTERS
Challenges & Opportunities for Retail Organizing
By Kendra Coulter


Fifteen years ago, two young women made history. Debora De Angelis and Wynne Hartviksen united with their retail co-workers to fight for better pay, basic rights and respect through union protection. Hartviksen led a drive to organize a chain of street-front retail stores in Toronto. The Suzy Shier store in the North York Sheridan Mall became the first women's clothing store in a mall to be unionized in Canada, thanks to the leadership of De Angelis.


Today, retail is the most common occupation in Canada for both women and men. Yet, only about 12 per cent of retail workers are union members and these are concentrated in warehouse and grocery work. Overall, retail work continues to mean low wages, few, if any, benefits and virtually no job security. Retail workers deserve better, today and tomorrow.

If workers learn from their history, and use this knowledge to organize, they can create better futures. Looking back at the history of retail organizing provides valuable lessons about unionizing this growing group of workers. I recently interviewed De Angelis and Hartviksen as part of my research on retail organizing. Many of the issues they confronted as they organized their workplaces in the 1990s persist, and some challenges have intensified. Organizing retail is no easy task, but there are possibilities.

DIGNITY AND RESPECT
While going to school in the early 1990s, Wynne Hartviksen worked for both the student newspaper and a chain of futon stores. Her pay was the minimum wage and benefits were minimal. Working conditions in the stores troubled the workers, most of whom were working part-time hours at various locations. The boss would arbitrarily fire people with little or no warning. In addition, being based in stores along downtown streets, the women had safety concerns, particularly when forced to work alone.

Hartviksen believes that her co-workers wanted respect and dignity, as much as, if not more than, higher wages.

Although her father was unionized, forming a union was not something Hartviksen immediately considered as a solution to her own workplace woes because she thought unions only represented workers in the manufacturing sector and other large workplaces. One evening when out for a beer, a co-worker suggested unionization as a joke. They discussed the possibility more seriously and decided to try, feeling they had nothing to lose. At the time, Ontario had card-check certification. Workers would indicate their desire to join a union by signing a card. If 60 per cent of employees signed a card and a hearing at the Labour Board was successful, the union was recognized. Every worker but one signed a card, and the futon chain workers quickly became members of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union.

The workers negotiated their first contract, and the collective agreement was in effect for two years until the stores were closed during the height of the 1990s recession.

ORGANIZING SUZY SHIER
A few years later in the mid-1990s, Debora De Angelis began work at Suzy Shier, a women's clothing store, while in high school in Toronto. In addition to receiving low wages and no raises, workers were required to show up at work 15 minutes early for their shifts to apply make-up and prepare their appearance for the sales floor. A stack of resumes was kept by the phone, which the workers saw as a deliberate reminder that they were easily replaceable.

Managers made schedules and would allocate shifts based on their own personal preferences or prejudices, and on past sales performances. Some managers required sales associates to stand at least one metre away from each other so that they wouldn't talk too much.

Unionization was suggested by De Angelis' father, who worked for the Toronto Transit Commission and was a member of the Amalgamated Transit Union. De Angelis wasn't sure unions represented retail workers, or small workplaces dominated by young women, single mothers and workers of colour. After doing some research, she decided to pursue unionization and called the Union of Needle Trades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE).

But the rules for organizing had changed. In 1995, the Conservatives were elected in Ontario. They changed provincial labour legislation to a mandatory vote model, an approach that continues today under the Liberal government for the vast majority of sectors. In Ontario, the mandatory vote model requires two steps. First, at least 40 per cent of the employees must sign union cards and the union must file for certification with the Ontario Labour Board. Then, one week later, there is a secret ballot vote, and 50 per cent plus one of the workers must vote in favour of unionization. The effects of this two-stage process, with a built-in delay, are significant, particularly for small workplaces like retail stores.

RESPONDING TO WORKERS' CONCERNS
De Angelis spoke confidentially to workers in six stores across the Greater Toronto Area, explaining the unionization benefits and responding to the workers' concerns. Many were nervous and uncertain because they had no union experience, while others were keen to try and fight for dignity. When a manager from one of the locations found out about the drive, the union suggested only submitting the cards from the three stores with the strongest union support.

During the week before the vote, the company sent senior representatives in to try to dissuade the workers from supporting the union. The powerful corporate women would talk to each worker for at least an hour, often for longer. When the ballots were counted, only De Angelis' home store had voted for the union. During the five days of head office involvement, the key women workers in the other locations had spoken to De Angelis about their co-workers' fears of being identified as union supporters. Precisely because the company representatives had spent so much time talking to each worker, some workers had been convinced that things would improve without a union, while others were afraid that they would lose their jobs for having been open to unionization. They felt that in such small workplaces, they were too easily identifiable. The result
was that the other two stores voted as a block against the union.

The workers at the Sheridan Mall location negotiated their first collective agreement, which provided the workers with a raise, new rights and basic fairness for two years, until that Suzy Shier store was closed down. It has not been re-opened.

LEARNING FROM OUR PAST
These are two of a small number of retail drives in Canada, but they raise important issues of enduring significance. The value of workplace relationships and dialogue among workers is clear, particularly in sectors where company loyalty against competing stores is emphasized by bosses promoting corporate "community," an approach intended to minimize worker solidarity and class consciousness.

To be taken seriously, unions must be seen as the best strategy for workers. Harviksen and De Angelis had fathers who were in unions, but the young women had not seriously considered unions as a possibility for their own workplaces. Both women saw unions as representing groups of workers who did not look like them or do what they did, and they knew little about the building blocks needed to form a union. This is a telling reminder that unionized workers need to speak to their families, friends and neighbours about labour politics and possibilities. It also emphasizes that education campaigns that inform youth about their rights and how to organize are important, and should be expanded.

The experiences of Hartviksen and De Angelis also show that while workers can complain, that anger needs to be channelled into organizing. Frustration is a start, but it isn't enough. Social media and other communication strategies can be used to shame bad bosses, but these should be tools, not ends unto themselves. Organizing workers is a lot of work and requires time, emotional
investment and energy, but it is essential.

If small workplaces like retail stores are going to have a chance of being unionized, the two cases suggest legislative change is very important. Card-check certification, something the Canadian labour movement has been actively calling for, makes a difference. Workers feel safe and their identities are not known to their employer. With mandatory-vote legislation, workers feel vulnerable. Companies exploit the one-week delay, using promises, intimidation, or both.

Certainly the transient nature of low-wage, insecure work like retail, combined with small, scattered workplaces, often located in the private property of malls, makes the logistical challenges of organizing retail workers formidable. Because a store closing creates unemployed workers and eliminates the wages of the workers who formed a union, it also contributes to a climate a fear, causing other workers to worry about losing their own jobs if they dare to ask for even modest improvements. The corporate practice of blaming unionized workers and their "high wages and benefits" for outsourcing, bankruptcies and/or store or plant closures, further divides unionized workers from non-union workers.

WAYS TO ORGANIZE
However, options exist. For example, although varying forms of labour legislation and jurisdiction complicate the scene, a union could opt to organize every store of a particular chain in a provincial, regional, national, or even continental area. Success with this approach could prevent the closure of individual, isolated unionized stores, thus removing one of the main impediments to union organizing. Hartviksen believes there are certain flagship stores aimed at particular consumer markets that companies, regardless of whether a union is present or not, will not close. These should be identified and targeted. If a team approach were undertaken, different unions could tackle neighbouring outlets within a mall that best fit their areas of expertise.

Unions could organize multiple stores or chains in a sector simultaneously, to pre-empt cries of unfair competition and the marginalization of unionized locations.

Alternative union models such as life-long or sector-based union membership could be used for workers shifting between many shorter-term jobs within a particular sector. Such an approach would require a shift in how union membership is conceptualized and organized for the service sector, but such a strategy may hold the most promise given the challenges of organizing transient workers and small workplaces.

WOMEN'S WORK DEVALUED
Many retail workers are young, and Hartviksen believes retail is often seen as "girls' work," thus allegedly temporary and providing non-essential income. This belief reproduces the devaluation of retail workers and women's work. "Girls" deserve good work in their own right, certainly. But the retail workforce is more complex. As pension funds are threatened, we can assume that more seniors will need to take on additional waged work to subsist, with many ending up in retail. As more university and college graduates are unable to find work in the careers for which they studied, we can predict that more will need to stay in or take up retail work. As industrial and manufacturing jobs continue to disappear, workers from those sectors will also be forced to seek employment in retail sales.

More and more Canadians are responsible for selling the products, the brands and the culture of contemporary capitalism, while trying to live as unorganized low-wage workers. The cultural climate of competitive individualism divides workers more generally. The transient nature of retail work; the threat and pursuit of store closings; and, in particular, legislated mandatory vote certifications, make organizing retail workers difficult.

But retail matters and retail workers can be organized. For example, in the fall of 2009, 15 workers at the Lenscrafters eyeglass store in the Eaton Centre in Toronto joined UFCW Canada (the United Food and Commercial Workers), seeing unionization as the way to improve their
working conditions.

Specific struggles from the past and present can teach us a great deal, and suggest specific avenues to explore and pursue. However, as long as so much power is held by a small minority of corporate leaders, unions will have to confront the problem of store closings as well as plant shutdowns. This suggests a need for more effective and alternative forms of organizing, and greater economic power and control for workers in the wider arena.

Kendra Coulter teaches in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology and in the Labour Studies Program at the University of Windsor, in Ontario. She worked in retail for six years.

INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT ITALY:

THE FdCA ON TRADE UNION WORK:

The Italian platformist group the Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici recently held their national congress and debated a number of questions. Amongst these was the question of how anarchists should work in the trade unions. To say the least this is an important question and deserves a lot of attention.

The following translation of the final motion was published at the Anarkismo website. While some of the discussion relates only to Italy or to other countries with similar union structures (most of southern Europe) a lot is relevant worldwide in these times of austerity and governmental attacks on working people. Have a good read.

@I@I@I@I@I@I@I

8th National Congress of the Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici
Fano, 31 October/1 November 2010
Motion on Trade Union Work


The international situation
The capitalist system's structural crisis has dealt a severe blow to the economies of many countries.
A structural – not cyclical – economic crisis which in effect demonstrates the nett failure of the liberal system.

In Europe, where liberal parties continue to be successful, the various parties and governments define it as a cyclical crisis and often declare it to be over, merely because they cannot declare the very system they base themselves on to be a failure.

European governments of all political colours are taking anti-popular economic measures; they are supporting banks and businesses using the crisis as an alibi, and the bill for this "support" is being paid for by public and private-sector workers, pensioners and the weakest layers of society in the form of wage freezes, cuts, casualization, privatization and the sale of public services.

All over Europe, these governments are allied with the industrialist class, which is using the threat of outsourcing – and thus job losses – to blackmail the workers, reducing their bargaining power and union rights with the aim of making these measures irreversible.

Today more than ever, the outsourcing of entire companies or parts of the productive system is being used with the precise aim of obtaining the maximum profit, by outsourcing to countries where the cost of labour (in terms of wages and rights) is much lower.

The response of the workers to this cage being built for them has been difficult to organize, for a variety of reasons:

•it is strongly opposed by the leadership of various trade unions, who are anything but autonomous from the government and the political parties, and are systematic and systemic accomplices of the "labour reforms" that make up the bars of this cage;
•it is limited to the company or even single plant affected;
•workers from various countries are not organized internationally, united on a platform of demands with common objectives. Widening the social conflict is the only way we have to stand up to the attacks from the bosses who, with the complicity of local institutions and collaborationist trade unions, are using the crisis to force the workers down onto their knees.
On the international level, existing organizational forms are totally insufficient; too often we find workers from the same multinational in different countries in conflict with each other, conflicts stoked and often supported by the governments themselves. There are all too few cases of international coordination among workers (multinational companies).
The national situation
1. Italian capitalism and the attack on the labour system
The crisis in the Italian economic system is bringing the various productive districts of several Italian regions to their knees.

The crisis first hit temporary workers, day workers, those on short-term contracts, in other words the whole army of casual workers, but has now reached even workers on permanent contracts, eliminating their safety nets.

There is massive and at times unjustified use of the Redundancy Fund [1], serious delays in wage payments, staff reductions, factory closures, etc.

It is a crisis that is being offloaded onto the workers, because every means by which an attempt is sought to get over it involves reducing production costs – reducing wages and reducing rights.

It is a crisis that is useful as far as the government and the bosses are concerned, as they are using it to re-write the rules for bargaining and labour policy in general.

New rules which will be applied across the board and will be vague (so that they can be got around easily), that will lead to a planned reduction of wages and an end to collective bargaining agreements, and will be agreed on by obliging unions, who sign agreements in the name of development – in other words, profit.

With its last Budget, the government effected widespread cuts hitting workers, both as far as wages are concerned – by means of wage freezes (4 years for civil servants) – and with regard to the reduction and de-structurization of welfare coverage, with measures which hit women workers and changes for the worse to old-age and contributory pensions; but it is also destroying the quality of public services (schools, healthcare, universities, research, etc.), cutting jobs for short-term contract workers, blocking new contracts and externalizing, placing restrictions on the right to strike and suspending the renewal of worker representation bodies (RSUs).

It is the company that decides the work-pace for workers, creating a form of domination by capital over the supply of work. Working conditions are leading to the physical and mental exhaustion of workers, and there has been a sharp increase in workplace accidents and work-related illness. For the sake of profit, productive plants are at saturation point, and no collective bargaining is permitted on these points. Companies have an interest in monetizing the health of the workers by not respecting health and safety regulations either inside or outside the production premises, aided by legislation that has markedly reduced company responsibility.

In the private sector, the company which best toes the bosses' line is FIAT: increases to the working day, work shifts second to none for their intensity and dramatic force, restrictions in time off for illness, the elimination of collective bargaining agreements and the right to strike, and dismissal and repression for anyone who does not play by these rules.

Marchionne's [2] plan is thus nothing more than the latest example of the old line in FIAT which has never tolerated any form of opposition to restructuring plans or reductions in the workforce.

It is the market and its fluctuations that everyone must now bow to: the businesses are in charge!

Less time for rest, more overtime, maximum flexibility, no strikes, and getting ill is a luxury that only the unemployed can afford.

The decades may pass, but the FIAT company has never lost its historical vocation as the inflexible interpreter of that strategy that equates the factory with the barracks that has left such a scar on the minds and bodies of generations of workers in its (vain) attempt to drown their fighting spirit and their ability to organize their struggle and their resistance from below, factory by factory.

2. The attitude of the CGIL, CISL and UIL unions

The government's measures have in effect given lie to the conclusions imposed by the majority at the CGIL's recent 16th Congress, both as regards the current situation and the foreseeable future.

The CGIL's current leadership, strengthened by the latest nominations to the National Secretariat and by the restrictive changes to its Statute, which centralizes decision-making in favour of the National Executive, has once again shown its inability – and to some extent its badly-concealed unwillingness to return to the collaborationist fold – to face up to this vital phase in which the very existence of the union itself is under threat.

The dynamics of this Congress also laid bare the real state of the confederation, now showing the effects of "Balkanization": the majority's refusal to discuss the union's line with the minority [3], and the contrast between the FIOM [4] and the rest of the confederation.

The harshness of the current economic phase and the current and future state of society allow no room for resting on laurels: the workers need to respond to this attack on the conditions of their lives.

Today, the CGIL must re-think its policy: will it support the FIOM by acting in a more confrontational way (as the minority in La CGIL che vogliamo believes) in order to give a greater voice to the workers, or will it think about going back to a phase of agreement with the CISL and UIL on bargaining rules, in the continuing search for unity between the unions? Choosing the latter would condemn the CGIL to a minor role, ignored both by the other two unions and by the employers' federation, Confindustria.

For quite some time now, the CISL and UIL, with the UGL [5] alongside them, have clearly understood how trade union relations will be reformed - with changes that will turn the role of Italian unions completely on its head.

The reforms proposed by the government over the last two years or those presented by Confindustria and FIAT have found support and agreement from these unions, without too many problems. And partnership is no longer spoken about: the unions will no longer be external partners, they will be part and parcel of the whole thing.

3. The grassroots unions

The birth of the Unione Sindacale di Base [6] (USB) on 22 May in Rome could have been an opportunity to simplify the scenario of grassroots syndicalism in Italy, but it does not seem to be above to contribute to resolving the old problems that afflict the Italian grassroots syndicalist galaxy since its very origins almost 25 years ago.

The road to the USB is littered with the remains of the previous "grassroots pact" signed by the RdB/CUB, Confederazione COBAS and the SdL, not to mention the hairs which flew during the split between the previously-federated RdB and the CUB, accounting for approximately 80% of all grassroots union members.

Despite the pernicious, top-down mechanism of decomposition and recomposition which has afflicted grassroots syndicalism for decades, the birth of the USB does bring with it some new aspects, such as a division of the union into two macro-areas – private sector and public sector – managed by collective executives, not single-sector coordinators, and is in general an encouraging signal, above all in those areas where the class war is at its harshest.

But, for a new union, there remain many divisions and problems, such as:

•the problem of the continuing error of calling separate strikes, all too often on the decision of the national leaderships;
•the problem of competition between the various grassroots unions.
The price of these divisions and problems is also paid for by libertarian-inspired syndicalism, traditionally a supporter of workers' unity over and above the interests of any single union.
But libertarian syndicalists know that they can provide continuity to the workers' struggle, even in this phase of neo-partnership unionism, and that they can help to guarantee democracy in the workplace.

In this crucial phase, therefore, grassroots syndicalism needs to overcome its long-standing inability and find a solution in a stable coordination – if not a federation – if it is to seriously represent a point of reference, both for the workers, casual workers and immigrants, and for the CGIL's internal minority.

Anarchist Communist labour tactics
In this phase which sees a strong attack coming from the bosses, collusion by some unions (CISL, UIL), and a wait-and-see attitude from others (the CGIL majority), the FdCA believes that the only labour strategy that can be effective in defending the interests of the class is one of conflict and libertarian practices. It must be autonomous from the logic of parties, it must aim to unite the workers whatever their union, it must have united objectives and methods of struggle, and it must be organized horizontally.
The intervention of anarchist communists cannot but begin in the workplace, where it is necessary to rebuild the unity of workers' interests, for:

•the defence of jobs, against redundancies and the unjustified use of certain forms of unemployment benefits;
•the defence of the Workers' Statute and the right to strike;
•the defence of the national collective bargaining system and the conquest of company agreements that improve the workers' wages and working conditions, while removing the link to productivity;
•the protection of workers' health and the struggle to allow workers to manage their own working hours in order that they may better manage their lives and their work;
•casual workers (temps, those on short-term contracts, etc.) to be represented on worker representation bodies and in bargaining agreements. All too often, given how easily they can be blackmailed, they are unable to assure themselves any form of protection;
•the stabilization of all casual workers and those on short-term contracts.
In the areas where they live and work, it is the task of anarchist communists to encourage and influence:
•coordination networks of workers, migrants, casual workers, single-category or inter-category, but autonomous from political parties and trade unions;
•form of cooperation and struggle where the various experiences can enrich and enable more effective defence of class interests;
•coordination networks where class solidarity, direct democracy and participation can be fostered, with the aim of creating a more egalitarian, libertarian society.
It is important for FdCA members and sympathizers who are members of the CGIL to take an active role in the organized minority La CGIL che vogliamo, having supported its creation from the very beginning, since it represents an excellent opportunity to influence the CGIL and increase our visibility.
It is equally important for members and sympathizers in grassroots unions to facilitate coordination and unity between the various unions so that a strong point of reference can be created for workers, casual workers and the unemployed; it is also necessary to begin to talk about representation of private-sector workers and an active role in bargaining.

The coming months will be vital for the class struggle and a renewal of social conflict, both in Italy and abroad where mobilizations and strikes are on the increase.

Today, workers in struggle need solidarity from all categories, both in the public and private sectors; union activists who have been hit by dismissal and repression need the solidarity and support of all trade union organizations who believe that class conflict and grassroots participation in the struggles are fundamental strategic objectives.

The FIAT struggle, both in Italy and abroad, can be a demonstration of the possibility for mobilization and workers' opposition to company plans which, be it in Italy, Poland or Serbia, use the crisis as a way to blackmail the workers and force them to submit to the logic of profit.

The FdCA will support all initiatives of struggle from below in defence of the conditions of workers in their workplaces and where they live.

Our members will seek to foster the creation of coordination networks of combative, grassroots syndicalism, but also of political initiatives to support the grassroots struggle by anarchists and libertarians, which can lead to more concerted mobilizations.

Coordination with an international dimension which - apart from improving the flow of information - can lead to opportunities for solid international struggles on the basis of shared platforms of demands, against uncontrolled offshore outsourcing, to defend the right to strike, workers' statutes and wage conditions in countries where they are under threat and extend them to countries where they do not exist.

Labour Platform
1.Solid international conflict against uncontrolled offshore outsourcing by multinationals on the constant search for the maximum profit.


2.Struggle in solidarity with dismissed workers and the creation of resistance funds.


3.Safeguard jobs by blocking factory closures and/or reductions and fighting job cuts for casual workers in the public services.


4.Struggle for the dignity of labour.


5.Against the annihilation of workers' rights and freedoms, in defence of the right to strike, the right to be represented and the Workers' Statute.


6.For the right to representation of all casual workers.


7.For the right of workers to decide every platform and every agreement through a binding vote.


8.Against the reduction of workers expelled from the production process to slavery and marketization.


9.Against the uncontrolled use of casual workers who live under constant blackmail from the bosses, despite often fulfilling highly professional roles. For the stabilization of all casual and short-term contract workers.


10.Against the outsourcing of work, often contracted to cooperatives and individuals pledged to self-exploitation and increasingly exposed to injury and death at the workplace.


11.For the defence of national collective bargaining and the extension of company agreements released from the link to productivity.


12.For the protection of workers' health and the management of their own working times.


13.For a large-scale wage battle with FIAT, for metal-mechanics and all categories.


14.For a European minimum wage across all categories.


Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici
Fano, 1 November 2010
Document approved unanimously by the 8th National Congress of the FdCA


Translator's notes:

1. Cassa integrazione. A system whereby workers are laid off temporarily but continue to receive 50% of their pay from the State for a limited period, relieving companies of the cost of their unused workforce.
2. Sergio Marchionne, FIAT CEO.
3. The minority grouped around a programmatic document they supported during the last Congress entitled La CGIL che vogliamo (“The CGIL we want”). See http://www.lacgilchevogliamo.it
4. The Federazione Impiegati Operai Metallurgici, the largest constituent federation of the CGIL.
5. The Unione Generale Del Lavoro, right-wing union traditionally associated with the neo-fascist parties.
6. “Grassroots Syndical Union”, founded in May 2010 from a merger of the RdB, part of the CUB and the SdL (itself formed in 2007 from a merger of SinCobas, SALC and SULT).

Related Link: http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR FRANCE:
GENERAL STRIKE IN FRANCE DRAWS OVER TWO MILLION:


Today's one day general strike in France in protest over the government's proposed pension "reforms" drew considerably larger crowds in the demonstrations than the previous effort in June. Once more there are considerably different estimates from different people, with numbers ranging from 1.1 million (government figures) to close to three million (union sources). Even if you take the lower figure this is a considerable increase from the about 800,000 who took part in June. What this means, however, for either the workers or the Sarkozy government is unclear. Here's a brief report of the demonstration from the BBC.
FSFSFSFSFS

PENSION RALLIES HIT FRENCH CITIES
More than one million French workers have taken to the streets to protest against austerity measures planned by President Nicolas Sarkozy's government.

The rallies came as a 24-hour national strike disrupted flight and rail services, and closed schools.

Activists are angry at government plans to overhaul pensions and raise the retirement age from 60 to 62.

Union leaders say more strikes and protests are possible if the government fails to give an adequate response.

"If they don't respond and they don't pay heed, there'll be a follow up, and nothing is ruled out at this stage," Bernard Thibault, leader of the large CGT union, told a rally in Paris.

France's retirement age is lower than many countries in Europe, but analysts say the issue is polarising politics in the country.


Labour Minister Eric Woerth introduced the pensions bill to the National Assembly, warning of dire consequences if it did not pass.

"If we don't modify our pension plan, then tomorrow there will be no money left to pay the French pensions," he told parliamentarians.

Commuter woe

Under current rules, both men and women in France can retire at 60, providing they have paid social security contributions for 40.5 years - although they are not entitled to a full pension until they are 65.

The government says it will save 70bn euros (£58bn) by raising the retirement age to 62 by 2018, the qualification to 41.5 years, and the pension age to 67.

President Nicolas Sarkozy says reforms are needed to cope with an ageing population and the country's budget deficit.

EUROPE'S RETIREMENT AGES
France - 60
UK, Italy - 65 for men, 60 for women
Germany, Netherlands, Spain - 65
Greece - 65 for men, 62 for women
The government is also looking to find 100bn euros of savings in three years, and is planning cuts in the civil sector.

Some secondary-school teachers went on strike on Monday, protesting against plans to cut 7,000 jobs in education.

State railway operator SNCF said fewer than half of its TGV high-speed services were running, and there was a greatly reduced service on many other lines.

Eurostar said its trains between France and London would operate normally.

Some air-traffic controllers walked out, forcing the cancellation or delay of about a quarter of flights from Paris airports.

Air France said it was operating all of its long-haul flights as planned, but short and medium-haul flights had been affected.

Migrant laws

Amid the disruption caused by strikes, the Interior Ministry said 1.1 million people had joined Tuesday's protests but unions claimed the figure was more than double official estimates.

The figures make Tuesday's protest bigger than a previous one in June, where more than 800,000 people took part.

Huge crowds braved stormy weather across southern parts of France, while demonstrators in Paris and the north enjoyed autumn sunshine.

In Paris, protesters shouted through loud-hailers: "Slave-driving? No, no, no. Working more? No, no, no. Fair reforms? Yes, yes, yes."

Protester Michel Prouvier told AFP news agency: "We're going to have old people living in the street."

Activists were also keen to maker a wider point, angry at the recent deportation of about 1,000 Roma (Gypsies) and a host of proposed laws which they say unfairly target immigrants and minorities.

"Pensions are a pretext for protesting against the Sarkozy system," said Adji Ahoudian, a Socialist Party activist.

Among those concerns is a proposal banning the full face veil worn by Muslim women, which was passed by the lower house in July but is now up for debate in the Senate.

Senators are also expected to debate a controversial new security law which would see recent immigrants stripped of French citizenship if they committed serious crimes such as killing a police officer.

The law would also allow electronic tagging for foreign criminals facing deportation.
FSFSFSFSFS
Here's how this strike was seen by the British Lib Com site.
FSFSFSFSFS
Mass strikes in France over proposed increase to retirement age
7th September 2010 - In response to the government's proposal to raise the pension age from 60 to 62, French workers have held widespread strikes that brought severe disruption to the French economy.

French unions have claimed that up to three million people have taken part in street protests amid a national strike against France's economic policies.

Police gave an estimate of 1.2 million people at rallies nationwide.

Schools have been closed and public transport disrupted, with demonstrations held in about 200 towns.

Unions are demanding more is spent to protect workers in the recession. Unemployment has reached two million and is expected to rise further.

Union members marched towards the Place de la Nation in Paris behind a banner that read: "United against the crisis, defend employment, spending power and public services."

"They have a profound sense of social injustice," said Jean-Claude Mailly, head of the large Force Ouvriere union, "and that, I think, is something that neither the government nor the employers have understood."

Benoit Hamon, a spokesman for the French Socialist Party spokesman said France was experiencing similar problems to other countries, but that the situation was being made worse by President Nicolas Sarkozy.

"We have a president who aggravates the crisis by making the wrong economic and social choices, by his deafness regarding the general dissatisfaction," said Mr Hamom.

"He refuses to give answers regarding layoffs, regarding the cost of living, regarding the way to objectively avoid the rise in job losses in the public sector or in the public health system."

Marches were also being held in Marseille, Lyon, Grenoble and many other towns and cities.

Noel Kouici, demonstrating in Marseilles, said protesters had a "grudge" against the government.

"Of course we are angry against the government when you see the way they serve the banks and leave the people starving and losing their jobs," he said.

But the deputy mayor of Marseille, Roland Blum, told the BBC the government had done a lot to help people.

"Of course I understand the distress of people who've lost or are going to lose their jobs, but what I think is necessary is that we all work together," he said.

There protests were largely peaceful but minor scuffles were reported in several cities later in the evening.

In Paris, police used tear gas to disperse small groups of youths who were setting fire to rubbish bins and throwing bottles.

It is the second time in two months that major demonstrations have been held, following a similar display in January which drew about a million protesters.

Beleaguered industries

The strikes began on Wednesday evening on transport networks.

An employee assists commuters at Gare Saint-Lazare train in Paris (19 March 2009)
French commuters face a limited rail service because of the strike

The national rail operator, SNCF, cancelled 40% of high-speed trains and half of regional services.

A third of flights out of Paris's Orly airport have been cancelled, while a tenth of France's electricity output has been shut down with workers on strike.

However, buses and the Metro rail system in Paris were running normally, thanks to a new law enforcing a minimum transport service during strikes,.

But with many schools and public buildings shut for the day, the number of workers travelling into the capital was reduced.

Private-sector firms were also expecting a depleted workforce, with staff from the beleaguered car industry, oil and retail sectors taking part in the strike.
FSFSFSFSFS
It is, of course, easy to expect too much from such ephemeral wonders. A one day general strike is, after all, nothing but a do it yourself opinion poll with a lot of noise. It has exactly zero immediate effect other than a brief loss of production which, in the case of public enterprise, is often a gain rather than a loss of revenue. As the following article from The Economist points out such symbolic actions have forced the government to back down on the issue of pensions at least once in the past (1995). Whether that will be the case this time is uncertain. President Sarkozy has sunk to record levels of unpopularity, but the reasons are not confined to this one issue or even to a collection of issues related to his neo-liberal agenda. Like most conservative ideologues who preach "morality for the masses" his government has more than its fair share of sleaze and scandal, and this has weighed heavily on his administration.


On the other hand, as the following points out, Sarkozy is constrained by political considerations to at least appear to "give a little". In this he has unlikely allies in the form of the larger union federations, the CFDT and the CGT, both of which are quite happy with their present position in French society and who are unlikely to want to toss the dice in the air in terms of a fundamental rearrangement of same. All the ingredients are there for a compromise whereby both sides declare victory while hoping for electoral gains in 2012. Talk of further general strikes are merely bargaining chips for these unions to "appear" to be useful for their members and in the case of the CFDT for its bedfellow the Socialist party. If the unions were serious about pushing their advantage they would definitely set a general strike for September 29 to coincide with the one planned in Spain and lobby their fellow continental unions for a European wide general strike on that day. Not just talk about it and bluster.


The French anarcho-syndicalist union the CNT (CNT Vignoles) participated in the general strike, but they see the limitations of such actions. Recognizing the ephemeral nature of such protests they have recommended a gradual build up of general assemblies at workplaces. Such general assemblies, independent from the union bureaucracies, would not be tied to any institutional benefits from the state and would be much more effective organs of resistance. They lack the flash and noise of one day demonstrations but unlike the mayfly-like lifespan of such protests they are enduring methods for people to resist the government and its corporate masters.


Something to consider. In any case here is The Economist article.
FSFSFSFSFS
French politics
The retiring type

Sep 8th 2010, 9:27 by The Economist PARIS


FRANCE is bracing itself for more disruption after 1.1m-2.7m demonstrators took to the streets, in hundreds of towns across the country, as part of a 24-hour national strike against President Nicolas Sarkozy’s pension reform. The turn-out was better than trade-union leaders had hoped for, and far higher than a previous day of action in June. Train drivers, teachers, post-office staff, air-traffic controllers, and other mostly public-sector workers, some wheeling children’s buggies, others banging festive drums, took part. Flush with their success, union leaders are now hoping to press the government for further concessions.

Mr Sarkozy wants to raise the minimum legal pension age from 60 to 62 years. This is a relatively modest change by the standards of some other European countries, which are pushing the retirement age up to 65 or even 67. The government forecasts that retirement at 62 will reduce by €18.6 billion the €42 billion state pension-fund shortfall expected by 2018. Tax increases, including a raise in the top income-tax rate from 40% to 41%, will make up a further €4 billion; the rest will come from general government spending.

Yet the reform is symbolically important. France has not touched the legal retirement age since the early 1980s, when it was cut to 60 years. Previous governments have tinkered with contribution rules to try to make the numbers add up, but never dared to meddle with retirement at 60. Back in 1995 Alain Juppé, prime minister under President Jacques Chirac, was forced to withdraw a more modest pension reform after weeks of chaos on French streets.

Union leaders and the opposition Socialist Party, which is also against the reform, argue that the government cannot afford to appear deaf to such this week's show of public opposition. Martine Aubry, the Socialist boss, called the reform “unfair”, and called on the government to “go back to square one”, and withdraw the legislation, which is currently going through parliament. “If we are not listened to, there will be further protests,” declared Bernard Thibault, leader of the powerful Confédération Générale du Travail. Union chiefs now need to decide whether to call another national strike this month. Some are talking about another one-day strike later this month, when parliament is due to vote on the reform.

Mr Sarkozy is in an awkward corner. His popularity has dropped to record lows. His own political camp is restless, and some deputies fear he has lost his political touch. The Socialist Party is freshly confident, and has started to believe in its chances of election at the next presidential poll in 2012. Mr Sarkozy says he will not budge on the retirement age. But he will be tempted to give some ground, in order to thwart further disruption. Certain concessions at the margin, over issues such as special rules for those who have done hard labour (pénibilité), would not necessarily make for a bad deal. But to go too far would only save him trouble in the short run. It would do nothing to restore his credibility as a reformer and a leader ready to take unpopular decisions, without which he has no chances of re-election in 2012.