Within the CGT, inter-sectoral local formations – particularly departmental and local unions – are struggling for survival. These structures, which emerged as a result of a historical process, are seeking a new role for themselves following the collapse of Stalinism. While the situation has evolved, numerous obstacles still lie ahead. --- The 54th Congress decided to demand that grassroots unions increase the resources they provide to local and departmental-level unions. These two levels of local organization generally serve as entry points for workers into the confederation. It is important to note that the issue is not about changing the distribution of membership dues among the various structures of the CGT – which is a separate issue in itself. Rather, the issue concerns the allocation of existing union leave hours and, consequently, how activist labor is deployed.
Given
that many unions are confined within the boundaries of their own companies, this is a perfectly logical decision. However, without a binding constitutional provision for unions, this decision risks remaining merely a wishful thinking; Because the real resources are actually under the control of national federations.
The CGT's founding in the late 19th century was based on the merger of two rival organizations: the network of *Bourses du Travail* (Labor Exchanges/Local Workers' Councils), led by major anarchist and revolutionary-syndicalist activists, and national trade federations largely run by reformists and Guesdists.[1] To this must be added the participation of independent local unions, whose history has been unfairly understudied. Revolutionary syndicalists (SRs) had already begun to lose ground before the First World War. Then, the Russian Revolution and the founding of the French Communist Party (PCF) dealt another blow to SR influence in the interwar period. By 1945, the power of the PCF relegated the *Bourses du Travail* (local workers' councils) to a secondary role; some of their members chose to join the *Force Ouvrière* union in order to escape the iron fist of the Stalinists. It was at this point that the intended political balance between the *Bourses* and the industrial federations was permanently disrupted. From that point on, the general secretaries of the Regional Unions (UD) and Local Unions (UL) began to be seen as "governors" (prefets) within the top-down tradition of authoritarian Marxism. The PCF took great care to entrust these positions to its own activists. The party's long and slow decline ultimately severely undermined this "cadre policy," which allowed CGT and PCF officials to work hand in hand to place activists in positions of responsibility within the Party, trade unions, and various associations – not to mention those being prepared to become mayors or members of parliament. The UD and UL general secretaries were expected to stand firm against public authorities and local politicians. They were also expected to "clean up" trade unions that were too politically independent. Indeed, after May 1968, hunting down "leftists" became a full-time job.
All Authority to the Federations.
The Confederal Executive Committee (CEC) and its Confederal Bureau (BC), elected at the CGT's confederal congress, implement the policies adopted there. However, between congresses, the National Confederal Committee (CCN) functions as the CGT's governing body. The CCN is a historical legacy born from the merger of *Bourse* structures (labor exchanges/local labor centers) and industrial federations. The committee consists of one representative from each federation and one from each Regional Union (UD). Mathematically speaking, the UDs, which outnumbered the industrial federations, guaranteed that the votes would go in the direction desired by the PCF. Nevertheless, the weakening of the PCF's hegemony over the CGT reveals a different reality. In practice, financial and human resources are concentrated in the hands of the (larger) federations. This includes not only membership fees but also funds obtained from employers under the guise of "social dialogue." This allows the federations to act with complete autonomy – and thus distort the federalist principle that we value so highly. They can then exert pressure on the CEC and the General Secretary when necessary. During CCN meetings, the federations can launch mobilization campaigns that are detached from the realities on the ground and imposed from above, which are increasingly opposed by the Regional Unions (RUs) that are more involved with the realities on the ground… However, when it comes time to vote, the vast majority of them submit and fall into line.
Money: The Lifeline of the Struggle
In reality, the financial situation of the Regional Unions (RUs) – with the exception of the two or three largest – depends largely on the goodwill of the confederation leadership. This funding is provided through a balancing fund that is fed annually by the proceeds from the first membership stamp purchased by each union member[2]. Furthermore, arrangements regarding the assignment of regional leaders to work full-time in union duties (secondary assignment) are negotiated with the industry federations; These federations are expected to allocate personnel resources in regions where organization is considered a priority, between the Confederation Headquarters, the UDs, and the Local Unions (ULs). The UD general secretaries, who once functioned as political "prefects" (prefets) for the PCF (French Communist Party), are now dependent on the confederation leadership and the compromises reached between the federations and the Confederation Bureau. Consequently, although the UDs frequently complain at National Confederation Committee (CCN) meetings, they almost never vote against decisions shaped between the Confederation Bureau and the federations. Indeed, this is why the confederation leadership remains scandalously silent when a federation is involved in questionable financial dealings...
A Vital Rebalancing
Although UDs and ULs shoulder the majority of the fieldwork – dealing with institutions, reaching out to workers in small businesses and supporting small unions, leading joint campaigns on various issues and organizing mass action days – they suffer from a critical shortage of resources. Many ULs survive solely on the zeal of retirees (who, it should be noted, are sometimes somewhat detached from reality). [ Image caption:
Facade of the *Bourse du Travail* (Workers' House/Union Center) building on Rue des Vertus.
Source: Public Domain]
The upcoming confederation congress must make bold decisions, even if it leads to friction within the federation bureaucracies. Only the financial independence of the UDs can guarantee their leaders the freedom to express their opinions openly – a prerequisite even for a minimal level of democracy. Furthermore, this dependence on regional inter-professional structures leads to distrust among Regional Unions (UDs) regarding the development of regional and industry-specific unions. Some comrades are concerned that federations may use this opportunity to further weaken local structures. Nevertheless, these local and profession-focused unions represent the only realistic response to the challenges faced by union members and delegates in isolated small and medium-sized enterprises. Jean
-Yves (UCL Limousin) [1]Revolutionary socialist political movement. [2]Within the CGT, a union member is expected to pay a monthly dues amounting to 1% of their salary. https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Rouages-de-la-CGT-des-structures-locales-sous-controle ________________________________________
Source: A-infos-tr@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten