(en) France, Communistes Libertaires CGT - April 12: what action and what the CGT debate? (fr)

National demonstration "Enough is enough" on April 12 did not finish cause a stir in the 
CGT. Have recently demonstrated the organization by the confederation of a study on the 
relationship to the political day. A critical review is therefore required. ---- The march 
was originally called by Besancenot, joined by M?lenchon, then full internal war with the 
CPF about municipal PCF was reassigned post authorship of the call. Many organizations or 
personalities union, associative and political world then developed a call and prepared 
mobilization, including officials federations CGT. ---- First observation: 50000 
participants with the demo is very limited success, it nevertheless polarized debates in 
the social movement for several weeks, demonstrating a real need on the part of activists 
for this type of initiative. Contrary to what has been said, the call had nothing 
lightweight politically, since taclait frankly the government and its "sacrifices to the 
demands of the MEDEF and the right social, environmental, family, and the right to vote 
for foreigners "and austerity as responsible for the rise of the right and the extreme 
right and clearly required" abandonment Pact responsibility. "
A unit call is already very good, and it allowed to define an arc of opposition forces in 
government and the right. The call was also nothing electioneering, finding only "a 
dynamic for ecological and feminist social, democratic alternative, based on solidarity", 
although there was serious political recovery, we return.

It is in any case essential to consolidate the widest all forces to Stop austerity, trade 
union, political association, as well as major events in the weekend, which does not meet 
the same population as in the days Action week. We had already found during the movement 
against the 2010 pension. Was seen as the CGT, Solidarity and political organizations 
mobilize, but also collective of undocumented Droits Devant!, ATTAC, associations of 
defense services public, etc..

What union involvement in these initiatives?

The confederation has refused to the end to fit into the construction of this initiative, 
loudly proclaiming in the media, on behalf of the trade union independence. It was 
primarily hampered the armholes because it contradicts his "refusal of the No camp" and 
unionism proposal, negotiation and action, brief his refusal to engage firmly against the 
government, which is not completely foreign the presence of PS activists Confederal Bureau.

Problem: several federal officers (Utilities, Public Finance, Chemicals, Equipment, UGFF 
...) or UD (all URIF, Tarn-et-Garonne, Bouches du Rh?ne ...) committed in Construction of 
12 April (see in particular the article in Humanity ( 
http://www.humanite.fr/contre-lausterite-pour-legalite-et-le-partage-des-richesses ).
Found among these comrades Valerie Lesage, leader confederal whose questioning of action 
Lepaon widely circulated internally and externally. And identifies among these comrades 
activists left the PCF.

In short, everything is intertwined. Both participation in the April 12 is a continuation 
of the protest line Lepaon, without going to assume it publicly, but it's almost like. At 
the same time these comrades also have a political compass: Left Front with the lead in 
the wing, they look for a way through the emergence of a political union alliance 
redistribute the cards, but where would a PCF instead dominant. It was in any case the 
meaning of certain interventions in the preparatory meetings of 12 April. They were joined 
on the first point, not the second.

The crux of the problem is the place unionism in this kind of grouping. If we consider 
that unionism is political in the sense that it has a dual role of both immediate defense 
of employees and transformation of society, as established by the Charter of Amiens, then 
the CGT must promote the gathering initiatives that transcends. This is not contradictory 
with the construction of strike in enterprises, which are the heart of the class struggle. 
And this is nothing inconsistent with the union independence it is understood as the 
autonomous capacity of the CGT to pay its strategy, and claims his project. The rest, and 
because we can not resist a touch of irony, several members of the CEC and BC invited the 
CGT militants not to hide behind a political label to share their struggle. Yes, but could 
return the same advice to the very people who work for years and maneuvering within the 
CGT to put on track a respectable unionism in the eyes of the state and employers.

The AG on 21 June and CGT

Walking April 12 could be such an initiative ... if the unions were openly engaged. 
Obviously the fact that the initiative comes originally M?lenchon and Besancenot has not 
helped. These were placed directly walking in a political color, confining associations 
and unions signatures personalities. This is one of the main criticisms circulating in the 
CGT against the comrades who signed the appeal personalities for April 12: they did not 
allow time for the internal debate, lack of time, although often their structures 
confirmed their choice.
Note that Solidarity was also very behind in the preparation of the work, for similar 
reasons of political independence.
Ultimately, it is the reluctance of unions that validated their fears: the mobilization 
was essentially political, with a caricature political recovery. Thus sometimes struggled 
to distinguish CGT processions processions PCF. The suites seem to be the same barrel with 
a local collective AG on June 21 to discuss a national platform of demands. Insofar as the 
PCF is limited only to co-organize the mounted because you wonder where these local 
collectives emerge, or at least we highly doubt the political overtones ... But they have 
reality will include: primarily responsible for national organizations. In this sense, it 
is important that UD and federations involved in the demonstration of 12 April are 
initiated in the meeting from the elements mentioned above.

What can we learn from it?

Both opposition to Lepaon line emerges in many forms, and that's fine. This is done 
simultaneously with the emergence of a politico-social front against austerity. But this 
front is still fragile, and even stillbirth. So we need to lead the debate in our 
structures for the combative sectors of the CGT clearly assume the construction of such a 
front, where the labor movement is dominant. This does not substitute for the construction 
of resistance in companies, but complements.
Finally, the challenge of online Lepaon often comes from some left currents of PCF to 
score tactical differences (April 12 in addition to the 1 st May and 15 May). While this 
is also the bottom of the orientation that we have discussed: to challenge claims and 
illusory union project of a social compromise with the forces of capital (where the 
concepts of sustainable human development, extra cost of capital, the fight designed with 
the aim of a new equilibrium and not as a means to radically change society and the 
unfortunate but oh how revealing statements Lepaon on common interests that employees, 
employers and shareholders in companies - see the interview here ).

----------------------------------

Unions

Thierry Lepaon, CGT: "For the emerging consensus, there must be confrontation"
He believes neither the soft nor the opposition consensus principle. In terms of 
employment, he believes in the power of collective action and the strength of certain 
convictions. Brutal and useful

He denies any opposition in principle deal with business leaders, union talk compromise 
and pragmatism. However, there are certain topics that Thierry has Lepaon grudge, hard 
tone and convictions pegged to the body. Too heavy consequences topics to meet the trend 
towards "soft consensus" which, according to him, the company wins. Subjects whose mere 
mention causes the new boss of the CGT to reconnect with his vision of a "combative 
unionism" and to reaffirm its confidence in business as in a democracy, "there must be 
confrontation."

Top of its blacklist: agreements called January 11 - that promote "the risk of competition 
for employees and take the whole market down", running the lowering of labor costs - which 
the threat of unemployment help, can not pay for work at fair value and thereby condemns 
growth and leads us "straight into the impasse" - the solidarity pact - a "deal signed 
two" without prior consultation or guarantee employment - aid to enterprises - based on a 
system of equal distribution and therefore unfair because it does not take account of 
differences in profiles and needs - and most importantly, the shareholder; determining, 
invisible and only within the company, not to make any effort. To the point that "the only 
parameter that is never questioned the amount of his salary." Even to the point now being 
competitive means "pay him more dividends." All issues that today grow Thierry Lepaon to 
claim the emergence of a "useful unionism" can not only protect the employee but also to 
influence the world of work and stimulate public debate. To denounce, certainly, but also 
to regulate.

French society is weakened, divided, fragmented itself. To the point that no one knows 
what brings us together; no one knows what can still afford to "live together".

Which allows any political group, any small group itself, to appear in rallying. 
Especially there is a growing distrust constituted bodies, politics and even the Republic 
which is explained by the fact that employment, despite government promises, continues to 
deteriorate and with him working conditions - an INSEE survey reveals that 70% of French 
employees consider that the conditions necessary to do their job are not met - for 
awareness much greater than in the past the inequitable distribution of wealth in our 
country that the rich are getting richer, the poor get poorer.

Added to this degradation of the quality of public services which were previously a strong 
element of internal cohesion and, finally, growing, for some, work is not paid its fair 
value sense, in this the public and the private. Ultimately this leads to an untenable 
situation which the Republic spring deteriorated.

Competitiveness agreements
are not reflected enough and it's a shame the place of business in the French society, its 
role. When I was elected general secretary of the CGT, I proposed to the President to 
initiate a national debate on the issue and particularly on this key issue: the work can 
still pay off to work? In other words: is it wise to continue this mad rush towards 
lowering the cost of labor or the real question is not she doing rather on the 
distribution of the wealth created? In this regard, two curves have crossed there some 
time and I find it extremely worrying for the first time, the curve dividends rose above 
the investment in the company.

This means that the shareholder remuneration increases as the amount of investment 
decreases and, now, what will the shareholders beyond what is spent on investment and in 
particular to industrial investment. Here's what are the competitiveness agreements 
negotiated with employees who are asked to do "one more effort." But competitiveness is 
more investment, more value creation; it's not over pay to shareholders!

Pact responsibility
Pact responsibility does not convince me. Firstly, because, on the form, the pact does not 
bind the nation represented by the elected National Assembly, etc.. but boils down to a 
deal between two people: the president and the head of MEDEF, the second saying first: "If 
you gave me 50 billion I could create 200,000 jobs a year." This decision solely on the 
will of the President, without the ministers concerned have been consulted, without the 
social partners have been informed, has a side-between the self that I believe illustrates 
a new conception of politics in France. Secondly, because, on the terms of the agreement 
itself, I think, without being an experienced negotiator, when you pay before the other 
party has fulfilled his part of the contract, there is always a risk.

That risk is confirmed today it is 50 billion gift to companies without requiring that 
they meet certain conditions in advance - and in so doing, it offers a low part of the 
principle of financing social security contributions by transferring Family on the state 
budget, it is committed to reducing the number of staff without specifying on which area 
or on what basis, all with vague about whether it is not clear if it is 30 or 50 billion 
since it was not known whether the CICE is recognized in this promise - and we feel 
extremely critical MEDEF on counterparties requested. If the social partners had been 
involved on the amount of aid and its objective, we could define some application 
together, contribute to the development of solutions. This was not the case.

Jobs
To create jobs, we need growth. Or two criteria are necessary for the return of this 
growth: confidence - which implies a clear vision of the future - and the purchasing power 
to consume and do not take refuge only in savings. None of these two essential criteria 
are met today. Yet these are two levers that must operate. For now, employees could spend, 
invest, etc.. do not because they feel a threat to their jobs and thus their future and 
that of their children.

Faced with this they set up a savings strategy that is the worst that can happen to the 
economy because it means that people give for consumption. That is why I stress the fact 
to sacrifice purchasing power by not increasing the minimum wage and index point for 
officials for the fourth consecutive year prevents release and condemns consumption 
growth. That is why the pact of responsibility, without growth, I do not believe it.

Aid to undertakings
To restart the job I think we start by stopping to help companies equally. In twenty 
years, there has been a policy of aid to enterprises in a political case for businesses.

The CGT, contrary to what we think is good for aid to companies on condition that they be 
granted to those who need it. Not all are facing the same difficulties, all do not have 
the same support. Yet the political denial of these differences and the fact that the same 
amounts are available to all regardless of need leads to an unfair system. I want to show 
that the main beneficiaries of 20 billion CICE are not the most troubled companies but 
large retail chains, gaming machines ... so that the first beneficiaries of the device 
should be actors industry which are subject to international competition, companies are 
struggling to make an economic or social change, those whose activity is relocated ... 
This is why the new pact between Pierre Gattaz Hollande should be an opportunity a 
rethinking of all aid to enterprises: order that accompanies those who strive to maintain 
employment, which penalizes those who do not and they are not given to those who do not 
need it.

"Shareholder"

Today the first threat to employment lies in the place that gives the work in our 
civilization, to the fact that apprehends it as a constraint, as an adjustment variable. 
And during that time, the only parameter that is never questioned, never even discussed is 
the role of the shareholder and the amount of his remuneration. To the point that it is 
conspicuously absent from any negotiation; we never see him as it is he who guides the 
strategy of the company and, I stress, the curve of dividends which are paid progresses 
while the investment decline.

Companies are all aimed at lowering the cost of labor supposedly to be more competitive, 
but be competitive today simply means pay more dividends to shareholders. So I think it 
would force them to take responsibility. To impose more transparency, more visibility and 
more importantly, ask their effort as we asked patrons and employees. Why do not they 
could reduce their demand for compensation? Is it normal today some may require in the 
industry rate of return of 10% or 12 without, moreover, the company has the capacity to 
increase its production, invest, recruit ? This dimension of the equation is never 
discussed, and I think it's time that changed.

Labor costs

Number of firms in difficulty employees have the feeling that even when the health of 
their business is improving their working conditions and pay are not progressing. In this 
respect, it is true that unemployment is a weapon: the bosses would be less arrogant if 
there were not five million unemployed: it allows them not to pay for work to its fair 
value. Fear of unemployment is such that employees are willing to accept everything. 
Including in terms of remuneration.

You should know that in the selling price of a car produced and marketed in France, the 
weight of the gross salary is now less than the discount given to the customer. This means 
that we have entered a new phase in the obsession of lowering the cost of labor which 
leads us straight into the impasse; all countries in the world who had the ambition to 
overcome the crisis by lowering the pay conditions of the employee, such as Spain, Greece 
and Portugal, we paid dearly. But our current policy can pretend to draw the German model, 
it is nevertheless similar to that which has been implemented in the countries of Southern 
Europe and all indications are that it will produce in us same effects.

Europe

The problem of European integration is that it is made on economic and monetary bases 
without social issue is resolved. Hence the fact that many French are now seeing a 
compulsion, unable to meet their needs remote instance. That is why I fear a clear 
rejection of Europe and a rise of the FN in the next European elections. Because in France 
as in other member countries, we feel that charge up "it is the fault of Europe" address 
the challenges of the moment. This is however not the Europe that dictates the rigor; it 
is the political parties that make up the European policies.

For other countries and the fact that some are described as the crisis out, I am wary of 
figures and meaning given to them. Germany is continually cited as an example and yet I am 
not sure that the German people is doing so well. Same for Britain: the contacts I have 
with my counterparts in trade unions suggest that the situation is extremely degraded for 
employees. As for Germany, it is no more account the number of working poor.

Social dumping

Although secondment agreement allows a partial response to the risk of social dumping, the 
possibility of competition of French employees with other European workers still exists. 
This contributes to the fact that we are now witnessing a precarious employment through, 
inter alia, increased at ever shorter CSD remedies. This is why, unlike many unions, I 
refused to sign the agreement of 11 January 2013: because they imposed an increasing 
flexibility for employees, that the employment acted as an adjustment variable and they 
allowed to waive his right to individual or collective, which increases the risk of 
competition between employees and takes the entire job market down. This is why we are 
opposing us.

Compromise

There is no CGT to principled opposition against the employers. The company is a community 
of leaders and employees - again, I regret that the shareholders do not present figures 
eternal - and these people must be able to think and act together in the interest of their 
community. In this regard, it is clear that the union pragmatism is required. This 
perspective does not bother me any more than the compromise that fits into the realities 
of the business has always: again, when we are forced to live together, we must find the 
conditions of this live -assembly. That is why I believe that the purpose of a union comes 
down today to protect employees but is to act to change not only the world of work but 
also the perception of it; to embody a form of social control.

Useful unionism

That is why we want a CGT accessible oriented employees better represented. If you want to 
create solidarity between employees must provide a tool and this tool is unionism. For us, 
then, to embody a useful unionism. Not only when difficulty arises but permanently, as a 
lever capable of acting on the world of work in a broad sense, to influence policies 
remuneration, conditions of employment and work Final stimulate public debate. For this we 
need to restore a sense of community. The world of work, as the company is increasingly 
lacking and there is an urgent remedy. Too many people in France think that putting a kick 
to the other will allow them to sustain their employment. That is the death of living 
together and also any effective action as it is obvious: we can not do it against each other.

CGT

CGT plays a combative unionism is undeniable. Unionism worn by a real working-class 
culture and solidarity in which the word has a meaning. It is also a unionism that uses 
individual intervention, the ability of everyone to take charge, to act in his own cause. 
You never said "Vote for us, we take care of everything" but "Vote for us and decide what 
is good or not for you, what is acceptable or not." A union should never impose anything 
to employees. It is their life, their choice. Can not supplant.

Goodyear

I know the industrial world to have spent thirty years and having lived 17 social plans. 
Whenever I see employees faced with situations of this kind, I know what they live and 
what they feel the fear of the future - their own, their children, sometimes their parents 
- the shame that, for many, the termination of work is experienced as a real tear. 
Goodyear tear it lasted 7 years. The shareholder was totally absent, he ordered the 
company to move towards a settlement and was never able to speak with him. Goodyear 
employees have invested heavily in their work - evidenced by the amount of dividends paid 
to shareholders - Titan's attitude towards them - and against French employees as a whole 
- was revolting; all eventually cause extreme reactions.

It is clear that sequestration is not a normal mode of execution of the union office, 
trade unionists are not terrorists and deprive someone of their liberty is unacceptable, 
as far I understand how these people were able to get there : because a liquidation, 
especially when it drags on, it's a lot of individual suffering. That's why when I arrive 
in a company I asked to see the social report and medical record: when you see the curve 
of work stoppages grow strongly, we understand that the company is doing poorly. Many 
forget but the economic assessment of a company is the translation of its social policy. 
Not the reverse.

Soft consensus

I believe in consensus. But that consensus emerges, there must have confrontation. But I 
think we live in a society where there is not enough feedback. A society marked by 
increasing passivity, where does not face sufficiently. On ideological grounds, economic, 
social, we see emerge a kind of soft France where good manners is to be in tune, 
regardless of the tone. I think we should leave it. That to move forward, we must know 
confront ideas, dare to disagree. That is why there must be, in businesses, clashes on the 
meaning of work entrusted to us, how to do, do it differently, to do better ...

Can not always be in the acceptance: soft consensus we bury each other. That is why I 
think that the disastrous world of intellectuals is absent from the public debate and 
incredible that in a country like France, which this diversity, history, culture, we do 
not find a voice to rise and we speak not what is wrong but it could be done. 
Intellectuals have a duty to take us to reflect on what it means to live together, the 
contradictions that we must solve, how all these cells - work, family, social, religious 
... - can s' grant. And also the value of the confrontation, for me, is the very basis of 
democracy. After all, as we do not rub two stones are not sparking.

Retreats

I expected Fran?ois Hollande and government left it makes a left-wing politics. In short, 
I expect him to implement the policy for which he was elected. This is not the case. When 
I look at the campaign commitments and policy since the election, I measure lags on almost 
every point. I understand that a head of state can change some positions in other reorient 
according to the international economic, environment, etc.. The problem is that today it 
is no shifts but renunciations.

Two aspirations are we generally vote left: a different capital-labor ratio and the desire 
to see society evolve on some points. But in these two areas, the government back on all 
that had been promised. Brittany bosses do not want the eco-tax, three porticos are 
burned? Government response: we packed up everything and we lose 800 million euros. Of 
extreme-right groups shout "Holland resignation"? The President replied "Well, I commend 
the law later." However, when employees gather, manifest, express propositions and 
oppositions, they are not listened to. Such a treatment gap suggests to me that the 
government is strong with the weak and weak with the strong. And that is just the opposite 
of his vocation.

Interview by Caroline Castets