There's more discussion (in Spanish) towards the end of this alasbarricadas thread with comments from people in the CNT, CGT and Solidaridad Obrera.
Madrid metro cleaners strike ends - CNT position
Here is (poor) translation of CNT's statement that is mentioned.
Quote:
Cleaning Metro strike ends. CNT doesn´t sign agreement because clause of “social peace” was included.
SOV Madrid of CNT-AIT [8-1-2008]Cleaning Metro workers at Madrid, have given an example of fight with a very combative strike, in which pressure against employers have gotten a part of the demanded rights included in their demands. At the last meeting, companies offered an acceptable minimum, and despite of this, workers were a reason of laughing. Once more, thank to this fight, fired workers have been readmitted and complaints have been canceled.
A few minutes before signing the end of the strike, employers show a letter call “social peace”. According to this clause, “workers should compromise to a social peace climate, resigning to make mobilizations and new strikes until 2012”. Workers signed a reasonable agreement, but they are obligated not to organize by themselves and re-starting new collective strikes against employers. That´s the reason why CNT have not signed this agreement and we have defended until the last workers assembly continuing the fight while exist “social peace”, posture that only a few workers have defended. Among to different classes any “social peace” can´t be signed. That is castrating fight during for a long period of time, and finishing the right of being in disagreement. Statal unions are used to sign “social peaces”, as they signed Moncloa Pacts in 1978 to ensure the existence of capitalism and social, economical and cultural exploding. That´s why official syndicalism uses: elections, subsidies, releaseds, permanent negotiations, social peace, etc.
CNT, as convener of this strike, denounces the awful behaviour of most unions that have taken part in the strike. Leaving back the treasen of CC.OO. to their own affiliated workers, rest of sindicates have shown not to be implicated anytime. This strike has been hierachied practically in every moment. Strike committee has taken a lot of decisions but have lacked of horizontality. Workers have been limited to vote companies´ offerings. Horizontality has been supplanted by demagogy and political speeches. The assembly celebrated on 5 of January looked like an electoral campaign. Meeting time was filled by political methods for not allowing workers to take part. CNT didn´t say anything, because we think that workers should speak. From (day) 5 to 6 of January, the speech was changed, and UGT and CGT leaders negotiated with companies at the back of workers.
Active pickets were necessary to ensure strike success during a long period of time (21 days). Cleaning workers and militants of CNT have been the only ones that took part on pickets. In the first night, four militants of CNT were arrested and mostly every days CNT was very active. There are not notices about other unions that took part on pickets. Nevertheless, these unions went to the demonstration with hundreds of flags to show their union “strength”.
CNT denounces the lack of committee organization in the strike. They have not been able to make the basical task of strike organization. No meetings have been done every day, no communication was available, no commission has been made, etc. UGT, CGT and USO unions percibes millioner subventions and feed union releaseds that have not been able to make banners, stickers or bulletins.
They also have not been able to legalize demonstrations. CNT has always done this, union where there are not subventions or delegates in company committees.
We reject “social peace” and we want to follow this fight, at least, until this clause will finally be countermanded. Companies are not the only benefited ones. Unions as UGT, CGT and USO, will have time enough to live about syndicalism and the new affiliates the will have.
“Any step back on claims” we shouted and we will follow shouting, while we follow seeing back movements on claims. From CNT, we will follow fighting for horizontality with the principles of revolutionist union, that it is what differentiate us from of all those who are involve in state services and employers associations.
CNT felicitates workers for this example of fight, and encourage them to follow fighting, against hierarchies, against state oppression employers associations.
Despite CNT have not signed “social peace”, workers know that this union will follow fighting for and with workers.
Live on the working class!
Not to “social peace”!
This is worth discussing - but like a lot of CNT versus CGT arguments I think there is probably more to it. The Madrid SOV is a CNT branch that seems to take a very hard line stance against the CGT, which makes me wary of accepting everything they say at face value. On the alasbarricadas thread they get a lot of criticism from other CNT members (who agree with their rejection of the social peace clause) for the sectarian tone of their comments. If I read criticism of the way the CGT behaved during a strike from, say, the CNT in Seville then my immediate reaction would be to take it a lot more seriously. Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that the Madrid SOV don't make valid criticisms, more that it's hard to judge how justified they are.
rata wrote:
JH wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what anyone else who reads Spanish makes of it all.I'd be interested to hear what you make of it all.
revol68 wrote:
Did the CGT sign up to the agreement?Obviously.
So since they signed up to it I don't see how anything the CNT could say about the cunts would be simply sectarianism. They are class collaborationist gobshites hiding under a red and black flag.
A few things:
Just an announcement of the deal (with no details of the conditions) from the CGT:
http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia.php?id_noticia=49177
Similarly no details from CGT page.
SUT apparently also did not sign the deal with the "social peace".
It's hard to see the point of organizing your own unions if you're gonna sign the same agreements as you could expect the pro-capitalist unions
to do. You might as well say great, we'll sit here quietly and accept our wage slavery provided you treat us just a little better. Complete signing away of people's rights to take strike action - don't know how anybody could justify it.
A point of discepancy in accounts though is the assertation made by some that this agreement was "made behind workers' backs". According to CGT materials, 95% of the workers voted for this agreement. I wonder then about this "behind the workers' backs" claim; was it that the people were not informed of this part of the deal or is it rather an exaggerated claim?
This is what SUT wrote:
http://www.nodo50.org/sindicatosut/escritos_limpieza/fin_huelga
Apparently their criticism is much harder and they are not at all happy with the pay deal either.
There's an interesting (and fairly non-sectarian) interview with the CNT representative on the strike committee here:
http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia.php?id_noticia=49153
And more discussion about the agreement:
http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia.php?id_noticia=49124
I'll come back to this when I've got more time.
laureakai wrote:
This is what SUT wrote:
http://www.nodo50.org/sindicatosut/escritos_limpieza/fin_huelgaApparently their criticism is much harder and they are not at all happy with the pay deal either.
I can't get that link to work but I think this is probably the same article:
http://www.nodo50.org/sindicatosut/escritos_limpieza/fin_huelga_limpieza_metro_enero_08.htm
laureakai wrote:
A point of discepancy in accounts though is the assertation made by some that this agreement was "made behind workers' backs". According to CGT materials, 95% of the workers voted for this agreement. I wonder then about this "behind the workers' backs" claim; was it that the people were not informed of this part of the deal or is it rather an exaggerated claim?
A friend in Madrid told me, that in fact there was a 94% vote for the agreement. All the affected unions were ready to sign in. But at the meeting were the agreement was to be signed, the management came up with a "no-strike" amandement dated until 2012 (!) Most other unions signed anyhow, but the CNT refused to do so under the new conditions. And I guess this was a good and honorable decision.
Quote:
They had a mandate from the workers to sign an agreement, management bring along a no strike clause so its no longer what they'd got a mandate to sign so no mandate.
I think the more difficult question is what if the CNT did have a mandate to sign a no strike agreement from the workers? Would the CNT still be doing the right thing in rejecting the contract? Also would it be appropriate to denounce another union, that may not share the same principles for doing so (as the CGT may have) when they signed the agreement?
Quote:
Why would that be sarcasm? They had a mandate from the workers to sign an agreement, management bring along a no strike clause so its no longer what they'd got a mandate to sign so no mandate.
I would agree with this. If the framework for an agreement was reached, then the bosses come to the table with a new and unaccpetable proposal, the responsible thing to do is reject it.
Quote:
Also would it be appropriate to denounce another union, that may not share the same principles for doing so (as the CGT may have) when they signed the agreement?
Hmmm....the question is why wouldn't the CGT (which nominally claims to be a/s, reject the bosses last minute demand for a 4 year no strike deal?
Perhaps the propoer thing would've been to call an end to the meeting and call for a general assembly of all the union workers. What would happen if the rank & file of the other unions rejected the 4 year no-strike portion? It would've added a different dimension, no?
OliverTwister wrote:
I was asking if robot said "I guess" out of sarcasm.
Of course this was out of sarcasm. The no-strike clause just made it impossible to sign the agreement because it was like cutting your hands of for four years. A union that is prepared to sign such a crap without a asking its members proves that it either is not interested in what its members want or that it's "reliability" towards the bosses is more important for them than the possible interest of its members.
You might notice, I write of "members" not of "the workers" in general. In an ambient where there the workers are members of a whole bunch of unions and the vast majority is not unionized at all, the CNT does in first instance have a responsability for its own members Don't we forget that those were amongst the most active at the picket lines, in leafletting etc. Taking into account the will of the staff in general may be a good thing but it is no dogma. The CNT like every other union always has performed its own strikes (e.g. at Mercadona) in defense of its members and has signed its own agreements or not. That said, they must have been crazy to sign a four-years no-strike agreement, even if the majority of the non-organized workes or the members of the other unions might perhaps have accepted it.
robot wrote:
A union that is prepared to sign such a crap without a asking its members proves that it either is not interested in what its members want or that it's "reliability" towards the bosses is more important for them than the possible interest of its members.
What if it had asked its members, and they said it was OK?
I think that EW's questions are interesting:
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
I think the more difficult question is what if the CNT did have a mandate to sign a no strike agreement from the workers? Would the CNT still be doing the right thing in rejecting the contract?
Is a no strike agreement acceptable if the members vote for it?
robot wrote:
You might notice, I write of "members" not of "the workers" in general. In an ambient where there the workers are members of a whole bunch of unions and the vast majority is not unionized at all, the CNT does in first instance have a responsability for its own members
I don't know about Spanish labour law, but what does it mean when unions who only represent the minority of the workforce sign a no strike deal?
Devrim
Robot, the way you worded things made it sound like you thought perhaps it was not good and honorable for the CNT to refuse to sign it. Thanks for clearing it up.
Devrim, Technically this was not a "no-strike" clause but a "social peace" clause. I don't know the exact details but presumably it waives any legal rights/protection of the workers to take workplace action? It was signed by unions representing a majority of the workers, even if none of them had an absolute majority - i imagine that's how the courts would look at it anyways.
I won't answer your questions because I think we already agree and i'd like to hear what others think.
Oliver Twister wrote:
It was signed by unions representing a majority of the workers, even if none of them had an absolute majority - i imagine that's how the courts would look at it anyways.
Robot wrote:
You might notice, I write of "members" not of "the workers" in general. In an ambient where there the workers are members of a whole bunch of unions and the vast majority is not unionized at all, the CNT does in first instance have a responsability for its own members
This seems to be a general statement, and I am not sure if it refers to that workplace, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does. I think that union members are a minority in most spanish workplaces.
Robot wrote:
Technically this was not a "no-strike" clause but a "social peace" clause. I don't know the exact details but presumably it waives any legal rights/protection of the workers to take workplace action?
That sounds quite unbelievable to me. I imagine it has a different purpose.
Devrim
Devrim wrote:
What if it had asked its members, and they said it was OK?
They would probably be kicked out of CNT. And if, in some crazy world, CNT on any level wouldn't kick them out, than CNT would be kicked out of IWA. CNT and IWA are not maintaining federal agreements with class collaborationist unions.
Devrim wrote:
Robot wrote:
Technically this was not a "no-strike" clause but a "social peace" clause. I don't know the exact details but presumably it waives any legal rights/protection of the workers to take workplace action?
This issue was raised by Oliver Twister, not by me. I am not an expert in Spanish labour law but much of it is derived from the German one. This is due to the fact that the Spanish Socialist Party was founded in Germany and used to be little more than an outlet of the German Social Democats and its Friederich Ebert foundation. They later took a lot of the German labour legislation that is tooled for the bosses and the collaborationist trade unions into Spain, e.g. the German work councils model.
Within the German labour law there is the instrument of the "Friedenspflicht" (roughly translated with peace keeping duty). It is part of every bargaing contract between a union and and the bosses. It says, that neither side may by any means rise a new conflict while a contract is still valid. If not, the union can be sued for all damages in relation with the conflict (production losses, immateriel damages etc.). In Germany the contracts and thus the "Friendenspflicht" normally runs for one one year or two. The DGB unions sometimes even signed for three years, but this is still an exception.
As far as I can see the regulation the Madrid Metro management imposed upon the unions was exactly that type of "Friedenspflicht" aka "no-strike clause".
syndicalist wrote:
If the framework for an agreement was reached, then the bosses come to the table with a new and unacceptable proposal, the responsible thing to do is reject it.Quote:
Also would it be appropriate to denounce another union, that may not share the same principles for doing so (as the CGT may have) when they signed the agreement?Hmmm....the question is why wouldn't the CGT (which nominally claims to be a/s, reject the bosses last minute demand for a 4 year no strike deal?
Perhaps the proper thing would've been to call an end to the meeting and call for a general assembly of all the union workers. What would happen if the rank & file of the other unions rejected the 4 year no-strike portion? It would've added a different dimension, no?
To clarify here - the agreement was put to an assembly of members of the different unions (and I think non-union workers as well) after the "social peace" clause was added. According to a report in Rojo y Negro the vote was 700 in favour, 25 against and 10 abstentions. Probably one of the major reasons for voting to accept the agreement was that it included the reinstatement of 70 workers who had been dismissed during the strike. It might have been difficult to vote it down knowing that there would be no certainty of people getting their jobs back.
There's a link to the full text of the agreement on this alasbarricadas thread (from Manu Garcia's post). The "social peace" clause reads: "Both sides promise to maintain a climate of Social Peace until the 31st of December 2011." I don't think anyone on the alasbarricadas thread is saying that this amounts to a no-strike clause.
Edit: Actually the Madrid SOV seem to be saying that in effect it amounts to a kind of limited no-strike clause. Here is what I think is the most relevant exchange on this from the alasbarricadas thread:
males (from the CGT) wrote:
emild (from the CNT) wrote:
Bueno os lo explico para los que no estais acostumbrados al funcionamiento jurídico. Esta cláusula no tiene valor jurídico de ley, es decir, no se prohiben las movilizaciones y huelgas de aqui al 2012. Ahora bien, la rotura de la paz social (es decir cualquier movilización colectiva de aquí a esa fecha) podra ser entendida como un incumplimiento del acuerdo por parte de los trabajadores, por lo que la empresa procederá a incumplir su parte, incluyendo cualquiera de los beneficios conseguidos en esta huelga. Si por ello se les denuncia, tendremos todas las de perder pues cualquier juez (q no son precisamente nuestros amigos) sentenciará q ha habido incumplimiento del acuerdo por nuestra parte.
Si es la empresa la que denuncia primero la movilizacion en cuestión, cualquier juez puede declarar ilegal la misma en base a esa cláusula de paz social. Es decir, por unas o por otras estamos pillados por los huevos/ovarios.Aunque aparentemente no tiene fuerza jurídica a priori, el valor jurídico de cualquier cosa escrita lo otorgan los jueces, no lo olvidemos, que para eso son dioses que distinguen el bien y el mal. Es decir, q estan capacitados para interpretar lo escrito segun se les antoje.
Con la paz social estamos jodidos. Pero allá ellos si han querido firmarla.
VIVA LA CNT
Bueno estoy de acuerdo contigo que está cláusula no tiene mucho valor jurídico, pero discrepo de ti, en el valor práctico que le quieres dar:
Ejemplos
1.- Si resulta que quisiéramos iniciar unas movilizaciones (huelga, paros...) para que nos subieran el plus (el camuflado de la peligrosidad) de 120€, legalmente no podríamos porque es acuerdo de convenio y la cláusula firmada no lo permitiría. Si no estuviera firmada la cláusula tampoco lo podríamos hacer dado que hay un convenio acordado
2.- Si la empresa incumple la subida del plus (el camuflado de la peligrosidad) de 120€, podríamos denunciarlos en magistratura y si lo viéramos conveniente hacer todas las movilizaciones que viéramos necesarias
3.- Si resulta que realizamos un trabajo de evaluación de puestos de trabajo y localizamos en ellos que los trabajo que realizan los trabajadores de limpieza tienen una penosidad o peligrosidad intrínseca (a parte de denunciarlos en Inspección de Trabajo) podríamos hacer las movilizaciones que creyéramos necesaria para hacerles reconocer este hecho e incluso a pesar de tener el plus camuflado de la peligrosidad podríamos reclamar el pago de un plus por la penosidad y peligrosidad intrínseca del trabajo que se realiza
4.- Si resulta que a nivel Estatal la Confederación convoca una HUELGA GENERAL, los trabajadores no tendrían ningún inconveniente especifico por la cláusula para poder realizarla y si la convocatoria fuera de una HUELGA GENERAL REVOLUCIONARIA a parte que no influiría, tampoco lo tendríamos encuenta
salut!!!
JH wrote:
The "social peace" clause reads: "Both sides promise to maintain a climate of Social Peace until the 31st of December 2011." I don't think anyone on the alasbarricadas thread is saying that this amounts to a no-strike clause.
For those reading Spanish: There is an interview with Antonio Morillo (The CNT delegate at Clece) where he explaines his valoration of the "social peace" agreement. There is no doubt that he thinks it is a no-strike agreement (like any other acuerdo de paz social in Spain) and not just a bunch of worthless words. The rest of the interview might be interesting as well, because there is a lot of information on the composition of the workers etc.
The interview can be found here: http://www.radioklara.org/spip/spip.php?article399
To the person who wrote that the no-strike clause was there BEFORE the vote - can you provide a link or paste the relevant quote. I looked through the material but couldn't find that.
I also read that most of the CGT workers voted for the agreement, but it was not at all clear from what I read that they voted for the agreement with the non-strike clause included.
I wouldn't be surprised if some workers didn't care if it was there or not. Apparently lots of unionized (but not necessarily the most militant) workers agree to such shit.
I would hope that a/s unions would try to strictly incorporate policies against class collaboration. Being open to non-anarchists is one thing, but having an overwhelming majority of your members ready to sign such clauses would seem to pose a real problem to anybody who wants to insist on their right to make industrial action.
In Poland, the law is currently quite slanted against even being able to call a strike, with "social peace" being a key word for the unions which sit on the Tri-Partite Commission. I would hope that anarchists in any country which promotes such ideas would keep up the fight against it out of principle.
laureakai wrote:
To the person who wrote that the no-strike clause was there BEFORE the vote - can you provide a link or paste the relevant quote. I looked through the material but couldn't find that.I also read that most of the CGT workers voted for the agreement, but it was not at all clear from what I read that they voted for the agreement with the non-strike clause included.
The report I was referring to is here: http://www.rojoynegro.info/2004/spip.php?article20626
Quote:
Lunes 7 de enero de 2008En la tarde de ayer, minutos antes del comienzo de la Asamblea General de Trabajadores prevista para las 18:00 horas, se llegaba a un preacuerdo entre las empresas concesionarias y los sindicatos CGT, UGT y USO, al que lamentablemente no se han adherido los otros dos sindicatos convocantes de la Huelga, CNT y SUT, que se desmarcaron de él en el último minuto.
Después, dicho preacuerdo fue trasladado a una Asamblea a la que asistieron unos 750 trabajadores, la mitad de los convocados, donde hubo tensión, emoción y esperanza para un futuro donde se deben seguir manteniendo los lazos de unidad y solidaridad que se han generado antes y durante el desarrollo del conflicto. El preacuerdo fue aprobado casi por unanimidad, después de más de dos horas de Asamblea (700 votos a favor; 25 votos en contra y 10 abstenciones)
My understanding of this is that there was a meeting immediately before the assembly where the CNT backed out of signing the agreement because the social peace clause had been added. The CGT recommended accepting the agreement. The Madrid SOV was critical of the way this and other assemblies were organised - though I'm not sure how far this represents the views of Antonio Morillo, the CNT representative on the strike committee (the CNT cleaners are members of the Madrid SOV). The interview with him seems less critical than the statement from the Madrid SOV.
Edit: Looking at the report in Rojo y Negro again it isn't actually that clear when the social peace clause was added. Here's a report from La Haine the day before which might help: http://www.lahaine.org/index.php?p=26985
Quote:
06.01.08
Se desconvoca la huelga de limpiador@s del Metro de MadridEsta mañana CGT y UGT han firmado un preacuerdo con la empresas concesionarias, mientras que CNT y SUT han rechazado tal acuerdo, al parecer porque incluía una clausula de "paz social", imposibilitando que se realicen nuevas protestas hasta el 2011. La asamblea ha ratificado el preacuerdo por amplia mayoría.
[ ... ]
Preacuerdo
Radio Klara/Agencias.- Según un portavoz de CGT se ha firmado este preacuerdo a espera de lo que decida la asamblea de trabajadores y trabajadoras. También parece ser que, en su opinión, la CNT se encuentra más reacia a firmar.
Hay preacuerdo entre los Sindicatos y la patronal de las empresas de limpieza del metro de Madrid.
En estos momentos va a comenzar la asamblea que debe de ratificar o no este preacuerdo al que han llegado los sindicatos y la patronal.
Según un portavoz de CGT se ha firmado este preacuerdo a espera de lo que decida la asamblea de trabajadores y trabajadoras. Segun este portavoz es bastante satisfactorio y se alcanzaría la equiparación salarial en tres años un plus de peligrosidad de 120 euros en 2008 que se llamaría plus 2008 y no plus de peligrosidad y por supuesto la readmisión de todos los despedidos.
Según el citado portavoz es un buen acuerdo en las actuales condiciones. También parece ser que, en su opinión, la CNT se encuentra más reacia a firmar. Esperemos al final de la asamblea aproximadamente dentro de dos horas.
Also: http://www.lahaine.org/index.php?blog=4&p=27017
Quote:
Llegados al último día de negociación, los sindicatos firman un preacuerdo que ata de pies y manos las posibilidades reivindicativas de las/os trabajadoras/es durante unos años. CNT y SUT abandonan la mesa de negociación considerando vergonzoso firmar la renuncia a un derecho mucho más esencial que muchos de los que sí se han aceptado. La asamblea del 6 lo ratifica y esto supone el fin de la huelga. Nosotros respetamos el acuerdo de la asamblea, pero no lo apoyamos.
Madrid metro cleaners strike has ended. CNT rejected signing the agreement because of the "social peace" clause which was part of the contract. SOV Madrid has issued analyses of the strike here (in Spanish):
http://www.cnt.es/sovmadrid/comunicamos4.htm#tomapazymoja
Interesting topic that could be linked to other discussions here on libcom.