The attack on the Global Sumud Flotilla on the evening of October 1st
prompted the immediate call for a strike, which began on October 3rd
with different calls from various unions: CGIL, USB, CUB, COBAS,
UNICOBAS, SGB, and COBAS Sardegna. An immediate strike, called without
regard to the limitations imposed by Law 146, but nevertheless based on
an article of the same law, which provides for exemptions from the
10-day notice period in cases of serious danger to worker safety and
situations that jeopardize constitutional protections. What constitutes
danger and prejudice is obviously a purely political question.
Law 146 was established in 1990 precisely to limit the right to strike
in sectors providing "essential services." Needless to say, the concept
of essential services was invented to limit the possibility of striking.
Let's not imagine these activities to be limited to hospitals or other
areas of extreme emergency, because the term "essential service" has
included, for example, a number of public sector sectors that can easily
postpone their services without causing anyone to die.
Schools are a special case, emblematic of their speciousness. Essential
services in schools concern exclusively the care of animals in
agricultural schools with stables, as well as, for all schools, a tiny
portion of the school year, coinciding with the days of assessments and
exams and the payment of salaries for temporary staff. Despite these
very limited and well-defined areas of essential services, Law 146
regulates the school sector at every time of the year and in every
school. It should be noted that the reference to assessments was
introduced after the assessment freezes of the late 1980s (the practice
of fighting "blocks" is not exclusively an invention of the current
period) secured significant contractual increases. And just to give a
current example, when the recent security decree was being discussed, it
was proposed to include logistics among essential services, making
strikes punishable in a highly dynamic sector, ready to mobilize
significantly.
Returning to the strike announcement for October 3rd: the promoting
unions had declared for days that, should there be an attack on the
Flotilla, an immediate strike would be called, and so it was. The Strike
Guarantee Commission, a government oversight agency, promptly declared
the announcement unlawful, not recognizing the reasons for the exemption
from the notice period and ordering its revocation, which, however, did
not occur. The strike was maintained. This is no small feat, given that
the envisaged financial penalties are extremely severe for the calling
unions-not all of which have substantial coffers-and that workers
participating in the strike could also face sanctions.
The government and the right immediately exploited the Commission's
pronouncement as if it were the supreme judgment of a superior and
infallible entity, rather than the expression of a body serving the
government's needs. They spread threats that, however, did not work,
because thousands of people-workers, students, and ordinary
citizens-gathered in many cities. The strike was not characterized by
the standard two-hour march along a communicated route, but in many
situations it expressed itself with protests that lasted an entire day,
spilling over everywhere, preceded by similar widespread demonstrations
in the previous days, reaching port entrances, highways, ring roads,
train stations, and airports. A mass response unlike anything seen in a
long time. It will be difficult to sanction a strike like this. It is
difficult to issue disciplinary measures for such large numbers of
workers who responded to a strike so immediately that no formal
declaration of illegitimacy had time to reach the workplace, despite
what was trumpeted by the media. Not to mention that some sectors were
also protected by previous strike calls and that the entire private
sector does not have to comply with the limitations of Law 146.
Sanctioning the calling trade unions will not be so automatic either.
The Guarantee Commission's own injunction ("...it is therefore
impossible that the events related to the blockade of the Flotilla's
navigation, however serious, justify, in the sector of essential public
services, the subject of Law No. 146 of 1990, a derogation from the
notice rules.") does not have the peremptory tone used on other
occasions and recognizes the gravity of the Flotilla's situation. It is
not at all irrelevant that a government agency uses a concessional
phrase to declare a strike illegitimacy, given the tone, the terms used,
and the clear-cut behavior used by the government for the Flotilla. Of
course, we cannot rely on syntax alone. We trust instead in the strength
of a mass movement that has given this strike momentum, that has even
driven, even if only for a day, the CGIL from its gloomy cathedrals of
legality. We trust in what we have seen and participated in: the
overturning of rules and prohibitions. In recent days, everything has
been violated, from the anti-strike laws to the security decree, to the
red zones. Being present and actively participating in all of this was
and is important. Knowing that we played a role in instigating all of
this, with our organizations, our methods, our practices, and our
content, expressed for years in movements and in the workplace, gives
meaning to our actions.
Patrizia Nesti
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
prompted the immediate call for a strike, which began on October 3rd
with different calls from various unions: CGIL, USB, CUB, COBAS,
UNICOBAS, SGB, and COBAS Sardegna. An immediate strike, called without
regard to the limitations imposed by Law 146, but nevertheless based on
an article of the same law, which provides for exemptions from the
10-day notice period in cases of serious danger to worker safety and
situations that jeopardize constitutional protections. What constitutes
danger and prejudice is obviously a purely political question.
Law 146 was established in 1990 precisely to limit the right to strike
in sectors providing "essential services." Needless to say, the concept
of essential services was invented to limit the possibility of striking.
Let's not imagine these activities to be limited to hospitals or other
areas of extreme emergency, because the term "essential service" has
included, for example, a number of public sector sectors that can easily
postpone their services without causing anyone to die.
Schools are a special case, emblematic of their speciousness. Essential
services in schools concern exclusively the care of animals in
agricultural schools with stables, as well as, for all schools, a tiny
portion of the school year, coinciding with the days of assessments and
exams and the payment of salaries for temporary staff. Despite these
very limited and well-defined areas of essential services, Law 146
regulates the school sector at every time of the year and in every
school. It should be noted that the reference to assessments was
introduced after the assessment freezes of the late 1980s (the practice
of fighting "blocks" is not exclusively an invention of the current
period) secured significant contractual increases. And just to give a
current example, when the recent security decree was being discussed, it
was proposed to include logistics among essential services, making
strikes punishable in a highly dynamic sector, ready to mobilize
significantly.
Returning to the strike announcement for October 3rd: the promoting
unions had declared for days that, should there be an attack on the
Flotilla, an immediate strike would be called, and so it was. The Strike
Guarantee Commission, a government oversight agency, promptly declared
the announcement unlawful, not recognizing the reasons for the exemption
from the notice period and ordering its revocation, which, however, did
not occur. The strike was maintained. This is no small feat, given that
the envisaged financial penalties are extremely severe for the calling
unions-not all of which have substantial coffers-and that workers
participating in the strike could also face sanctions.
The government and the right immediately exploited the Commission's
pronouncement as if it were the supreme judgment of a superior and
infallible entity, rather than the expression of a body serving the
government's needs. They spread threats that, however, did not work,
because thousands of people-workers, students, and ordinary
citizens-gathered in many cities. The strike was not characterized by
the standard two-hour march along a communicated route, but in many
situations it expressed itself with protests that lasted an entire day,
spilling over everywhere, preceded by similar widespread demonstrations
in the previous days, reaching port entrances, highways, ring roads,
train stations, and airports. A mass response unlike anything seen in a
long time. It will be difficult to sanction a strike like this. It is
difficult to issue disciplinary measures for such large numbers of
workers who responded to a strike so immediately that no formal
declaration of illegitimacy had time to reach the workplace, despite
what was trumpeted by the media. Not to mention that some sectors were
also protected by previous strike calls and that the entire private
sector does not have to comply with the limitations of Law 146.
Sanctioning the calling trade unions will not be so automatic either.
The Guarantee Commission's own injunction ("...it is therefore
impossible that the events related to the blockade of the Flotilla's
navigation, however serious, justify, in the sector of essential public
services, the subject of Law No. 146 of 1990, a derogation from the
notice rules.") does not have the peremptory tone used on other
occasions and recognizes the gravity of the Flotilla's situation. It is
not at all irrelevant that a government agency uses a concessional
phrase to declare a strike illegitimacy, given the tone, the terms used,
and the clear-cut behavior used by the government for the Flotilla. Of
course, we cannot rely on syntax alone. We trust instead in the strength
of a mass movement that has given this strike momentum, that has even
driven, even if only for a day, the CGIL from its gloomy cathedrals of
legality. We trust in what we have seen and participated in: the
overturning of rules and prohibitions. In recent days, everything has
been violated, from the anti-strike laws to the security decree, to the
red zones. Being present and actively participating in all of this was
and is important. Knowing that we played a role in instigating all of
this, with our organizations, our methods, our practices, and our
content, expressed for years in movements and in the workplace, gives
meaning to our actions.
Patrizia Nesti
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten