Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /customers/3/0/2/riff-raff.se/httpd.www/texts/inc/html.php on line 1164 Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /customers/3/0/2/riff-raff.se/httpd.www/texts/inc/html.php on line 1168 Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /customers/3/0/2/riff-raff.se/httpd.www/texts/inc/html.php on line 1171 Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /customers/3/0/2/riff-raff.se/httpd.www/texts/inc/html.php on line 1172

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
en:sic1-how-one-can-still-put-forward-demands-when-no-demands-can-be-satisfied [2011/12/01 21:38]
titorelli
en:sic1-how-one-can-still-put-forward-demands-when-no-demands-can-be-satisfied [2015/04/12 21:08] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
- 
 ====== How one can still put forward demands when no demands can be satisfied. On the desperate struggles in France ====== ====== How one can still put forward demands when no demands can be satisfied. On the desperate struggles in France ======
  
Line 8: Line 7:
 Cases of threats to blow up factories have also been repeated in 2010, following the example of New Fabris the year before, a struggle which enabled the employees to receive a compensation over the legal minimum of 12,000 euros. This method was used in 2010 at Sodimatex, an automotive equipment manufacturer, and the same month also at the Brodard Graphique printing house and at Poly Implant Prothèse, a manufacturer of breast implants, where on April 12 2010 the employees threatened to set the premises on fire. Eric Mariaccia, a representative of the CFDT union, stated the following: ‘We have made Molotov cocktails and placed highly flammable products at the site’s entrance.’ The workers also spilled several thousand prostheses in front of the site and set fire to tyres. Cases of threats to blow up factories have also been repeated in 2010, following the example of New Fabris the year before, a struggle which enabled the employees to receive a compensation over the legal minimum of 12,000 euros. This method was used in 2010 at Sodimatex, an automotive equipment manufacturer, and the same month also at the Brodard Graphique printing house and at Poly Implant Prothèse, a manufacturer of breast implants, where on April 12 2010 the employees threatened to set the premises on fire. Eric Mariaccia, a representative of the CFDT union, stated the following: ‘We have made Molotov cocktails and placed highly flammable products at the site’s entrance.’ The workers also spilled several thousand prostheses in front of the site and set fire to tyres.
  
-Even though the usage of such methods seems unthinkable in other Western countries, in France they are considered acceptable by a large proportion of the population.((In the spring of 2009 a survey showed that close to one Frenchman in two, 45 per cent, consider taking bosses hostage as ‘acceptable’ in the case of a factory closure. See ‘Sondage choc sur les séquestrations de patrons’, //Le Parisien//. The entire survey can be found at [[www.csa-fr.com/dataset/data2009/opi20090402-l-opinion-des-francais-sur-les-sequestrations-de-patrons.pdf]].)) Abroad, such occurrences are regarded as an expression of a ‘certain French mentality’ and a tradition of revolt that can be traced as far back as the revolution of 1789. If the stupidity of such a view is obvious, the reasons behind such a specificity cannot be explained without both a study of the concrete cases – the most recent ones as well as those before – and also an analysis of the development of the mediations between the classes that were established in France after the end of the Second World War.+Even though the usage of such methods seems unthinkable in other Western countries, in France they are considered acceptable by a large proportion of the population.((In the spring of 2009 a survey showed that close to one Frenchman in two, 45 per cent, consider taking bosses hostage as ‘acceptable’ in the case of a factory closure. See ‘Sondage choc sur les séquestrations de patrons’, //Le Parisien//. The entire survey can be found at [[http://www.csa-fr.com/dataset/data2009/opi20090402-l-opinion-des-francais-sur-les-sequestrations-de-patrons.pdf|www.csa-fr.com/dataset/data2009/opi20090402-l-opinion-des-francais-sur-les-sequestrations-de-patrons.pdf]].)) Abroad, such occurrences are regarded as an expression of a ‘certain French mentality’ and a tradition of revolt that can be traced as far back as the revolution of 1789. If the stupidity of such a view is obvious, the reasons behind such a specificity cannot be explained without both a study of the concrete cases – the most recent ones as well as those before – and also an analysis of the development of the mediations between the classes that were established in France after the end of the Second World War.
  
 The questions that we seek to respond to by going through these moments are: Why do these forms of illegal struggles reappear today? why in France? and why only in the context of a redundancy plan? The questions that we seek to respond to by going through these moments are: Why do these forms of illegal struggles reappear today? why in France? and why only in the context of a redundancy plan?
  
-===== Luttes illégales en France =====+===== Illegal struggles France =====
  
 While cases of bossnapping or physical violence against employers can be traced back to the Popular Front of 1936, they are very unusual in the boom years from the end of the Second World War to the years immediately preceding May 1968. In the few examples that do occur in this period, such as at Peugeot Sochaux in 1961 (the employer manhandled), or in 1967 (bossnapping), we do not find any that are due to the closure of a factory. These forms of action were taken with a view to obtaining better working conditions and wage increases.((See //Le Monde//, November 11, 12, 14, 16, 1961, and Xavier Vigna, //L’Insubordination ouvrière dans les années 68: Essai d’histoire politique des usines//, Presses universitaires de Rennes, Rennes 2007, p. 103.)) While cases of bossnapping or physical violence against employers can be traced back to the Popular Front of 1936, they are very unusual in the boom years from the end of the Second World War to the years immediately preceding May 1968. In the few examples that do occur in this period, such as at Peugeot Sochaux in 1961 (the employer manhandled), or in 1967 (bossnapping), we do not find any that are due to the closure of a factory. These forms of action were taken with a view to obtaining better working conditions and wage increases.((See //Le Monde//, November 11, 12, 14, 16, 1961, and Xavier Vigna, //L’Insubordination ouvrière dans les années 68: Essai d’histoire politique des usines//, Presses universitaires de Rennes, Rennes 2007, p. 103.))
Line 20: Line 19:
 It is only in the 1970s, when mass unemployment became a reality throughout the country, that bossnappings became a form of action specific to struggles around factory closures. In this period very violent struggles broke out. They often persisted for a long time, gathered a large number of workers in whole regions, and were supported by actions of solidarity from further afield. It is only in the 1970s, when mass unemployment became a reality throughout the country, that bossnappings became a form of action specific to struggles around factory closures. In this period very violent struggles broke out. They often persisted for a long time, gathered a large number of workers in whole regions, and were supported by actions of solidarity from further afield.
  
-At the end of the 1970s a European agreement on the restructuring of the steel industry threatened hundreds of jobs in the region of Lorraine. In this context, in January 1979, at a factory in the city of Longwy, 300 of the 1,800 employees took the manager and two executives hostage at the time of a meeting deciding on layoffs. When the police intervened to free the manager, the steel workers responded by attacking the city’s police station. Their struggle went on for five months, making use of a variety of means of action (strike, free radio, destruction of material…) and mobilising throughout the whole region. After this the workers obtained, among other things, an early retirement at fifty years with 84 to 90 per cent of the salary.((See //Le Monde Diplomatique//, October 1997 [[www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1997/10/RIMBERT/9295]] (in French).))+At the end of the 1970s a European agreement on the restructuring of the steel industry threatened hundreds of jobs in the region of Lorraine. In this context, in January 1979, at a factory in the city of Longwy, 300 of the 1,800 employees took the manager and two executives hostage at the time of a meeting deciding on layoffs. When the police intervened to free the manager, the steel workers responded by attacking the city’s police station. Their struggle went on for five months, making use of a variety of means of action (strike, free radio, destruction of material…) and mobilising throughout the whole region. After this the workers obtained, among other things, an early retirement at fifty years with 84 to 90 per cent of the salary.((See //Le Monde Diplomatique//, October 1997 [[http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1997/10/RIMBERT/9295|www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1997/10/RIMBERT/9295]] (in French).))
  
-At Pointe de Givet on 9 July 1982, workers held the manager hostage for 48 hours to protest against the closure of the factory at Chiers in Vireux, in the Ardennes. The workers’ struggle lasted for almost two years, in conjunction with a struggle against a nuclear facility in the region. Violent clashes with the police took place every month (involving Molotov cocktails, and even gunshots) as well as violent actions: the burning down of the managers’ mansion, occupation of banks, the public treasury looted. After many years of struggle the workers obtained a ‘historical’ severance package that allowed some to keep their salaries for ten years.((See the radio documentary //Ça leur coûtera cher// available at [[http://reposito.internetdown.org/videosetsons/vireux/]] (in French).))+At Pointe de Givet on 9 July 1982, workers held the manager hostage for 48 hours to protest against the closure of the factory at Chiers in Vireux, in the Ardennes. The workers’ struggle lasted for almost two years, in conjunction with a struggle against a nuclear facility in the region. Violent clashes with the police took place every month (involving Molotov cocktails, and even gunshots) as well as violent actions: the burning down of the managers’ mansion, occupation of banks, the public treasury looted. After many years of struggle the workers obtained a ‘historical’ severance package that allowed some to keep their salaries for ten years.((See the radio documentary //Ça leur coûtera cher// available at [[http://reposito.internetdown.org/videosetsons/vireux/|http://reposito.internetdown.org/videosetsons/vireux/]] (in French).))
  
 After 1982, for almost twenty years bossnappings and threats of destroying workplaces were almost nonexistent. This explains the great surprise that the actions taken by the workers at Cellatex and Moulinex caused in the early 2000s. After 1982, for almost twenty years bossnappings and threats of destroying workplaces were almost nonexistent. This explains the great surprise that the actions taken by the workers at Cellatex and Moulinex caused in the early 2000s.
Line 36: Line 35:
 The cases in which there have been threats to blow up factories have also proved themselves effective, after the example of New Fabris in 2009. On 12 July 2009, the employees at this company, which is specialised in the melting of aluminium for the auto industry and a subcontractor for Renault and PSA, installed gas cylinders at the site and made their intentions very clear: ‘We will blow up everything if we are not granted a plan of compensation of 30,000 euros above the legal minimum.’ Compared to the workers at Rencast, who were in the same situation and destroyed pieces destined for Renault by throwing them into a furnace, the workers at New Fabris threatened to move up a gear. Even though they did not execute this threat, the 366 workers got a severance bonus of 12,000 euros, net, in addition to statutory compensation. The cases in which there have been threats to blow up factories have also proved themselves effective, after the example of New Fabris in 2009. On 12 July 2009, the employees at this company, which is specialised in the melting of aluminium for the auto industry and a subcontractor for Renault and PSA, installed gas cylinders at the site and made their intentions very clear: ‘We will blow up everything if we are not granted a plan of compensation of 30,000 euros above the legal minimum.’ Compared to the workers at Rencast, who were in the same situation and destroyed pieces destined for Renault by throwing them into a furnace, the workers at New Fabris threatened to move up a gear. Even though they did not execute this threat, the 366 workers got a severance bonus of 12,000 euros, net, in addition to statutory compensation.
  
-On the other hand, in the context of redundancy plans, attempts of workers to self-manage production have been almost nonexistent. The media has often mentioned the Phillips factory in Dreux, where the employees restarted production ‘under workers’ control’ after learning about the closure of their site, where they produced flat panel displays. However, the TV sets produced in this way were never intended for sale, but to be stored in a warehouse under lock and key for ‘use as bargaining chips’.((Cf. the comments by Manu Georget, a CGT union representative of a dissident section, who acted as a spokesperson during the struggle at http://onvaulxmieuxqueca.ouvaton.org/spip.php?article444&calendrier_mois=09&calendrier_annee=2010 (in French).)) Ten days later, the management intervened with bailiffs and threatened with dismissals. The workers then returned the tvs and that was the end of this experiment in ‘self-management’.((One may indeed wonder what prospects of self-management there were as the goods produced didn’t lend themselves to being sold to activists (which was the case with the clocks that were made at Lip in the 1970s and sold all over France at solidarity booths to support the struggle). And if plasma screens of a brand like Phillips already lend little, then what about goods produced by a subcontractor for the car industry?))+On the other hand, in the context of redundancy plans, attempts of workers to self-manage production have been almost nonexistent. The media has often mentioned the Phillips factory in Dreux, where the employees restarted production ‘under workers’ control’ after learning about the closure of their site, where they produced flat panel displays. However, the TV sets produced in this way were never intended for sale, but to be stored in a warehouse under lock and key for ‘use as bargaining chips’.((Cf. the comments by Manu Georget, a CGT union representative of a dissident section, who acted as a spokesperson during the struggle at [[http://onvaulxmieuxqueca.ouvaton.org/spip.php?article444&calendrier_mois=09&calendrier_annee=2010|http://onvaulxmieuxqueca.ouvaton.org/spip.php?article444&calendrier_mois=09&calendrier_annee=2010]] (in French).)) Ten days later, the management intervened with bailiffs and threatened with dismissals. The workers then returned the tvs and that was the end of this experiment in ‘self-management’.((One may indeed wonder what prospects of self-management there were as the goods produced didn’t lend themselves to being sold to activists (which was the case with the clocks that were made at Lip in the 1970s and sold all over France at solidarity booths to support the struggle). And if plasma screens of a brand like Phillips already lend little, then what about goods produced by a subcontractor for the car industry?))
  
 Among those companies affected by violent actions in 2010, there are several sub-contractors for the auto industry (Proma France, Sodimatex, EAK), but also two metallurgical companies (Akers, Siemens); a manufacturer of elevators (Renolift-Meyzieu), of pneumatic utilities for BTP and the industry (Sullair-Europe); a manufacturer of breast implants (Poly Implant Prothèse); a factory of enamelled copper wire (Usine Essex); an industrial bakery (New Society bread); an industrial maintenance company (Isotherma); and a manufacturer of telescopic handlers (Bobcat). Increasingly however the service sector is also affected. This year, to refer only to cases that have appeared in the media, bossnappings have taken place at a surveillance company (Vigimark Surveillance); a bank (Caisse d’Epargne); 4 hospitals (Cochin, Emile-Roux, Henri-Mondor and Foix-Jean Rostand); 2 printing houses (Brodard Graphique and Hélio-Corbeil); and a furniture store (Pier Import). Yvan Lesniak, CEO at Circle Printers, even claims to have been kidnapped seven times in all. This is how he describes the atmosphere that reigned when he tried to announce a lay-off plan: ‘When you during a conflict start to see crosses, coffins, gallows, your portrait hanging from a tree, when a price has been set on your head together with the word “Wanted” and a photo, and you still have to go into the building, you know that you run a risk.’ Even-though the bosses are in general not maltreated, the hostility they are facing is often palpable: ‘They have thrown rotten tomatoes in my face, eggs, I have been spat upon, prevented from sleeping. […] I had to ask for permission to go to the toilet, I’ve been insulted, I came to a place of hatred, of aggressive people.’((Christine Ducros and Jean-Yves Guérin, op. cit., p. 77.)) Some employers have come to be accompanied by bailiffs during the negotiation meetings, and anti-kidnapping training courses are organised for them by the GIGN (National Gendarmerie Intervention Group)… Yet the majority of the bossnappings and threats to blow up the factory are spontaneous and organised by the workers on the shop-floor. For example, a representative from the CGT union at Caterpillar, Pierre Piccarreta, who played the role of media spokesperson at the beginning of the struggle, was not aware that a bossnapping had begun, and was only informed of it as he was hosting a meeting at another factory. The FO union secretary of the factory said that ‘In any case, during the whole conflict, it was the shop-floor who directed us, who made the decisions.’((Christine Ducros and Jean-Yves Guérin, op. cit., p. 142.)) For Jean-Claude Ducatte, the founder of the consultancy Epsy and a specialist in business strategy, it is clear that ‘in 9 conflicts out of 10, the unions run behind the employees who let their anger explode.’((Christine Ducros and Jean-Yves Guérin, op. cit., p. 149.)) And as the grassroots unionists participate in these illegal actions they are clearly dissociating themselves from the line followed by the central trade union. For instance Xavier Mathieu, a CGT delegate at Continental, appeared a lot in the media during the conflict and publicly dismissed Bernard Thibault, the CGT’s general secretary, as ‘riff-raff’ and a ‘parasite’. It must be said that the central unions, whether they are the CGT, CFDT or FO, want to focus on defending jobs rather than the demands for increased compensation and declare that they do not approve of means of action such as bossnappings and threats to blow up plants, even though they do not condemn them in public. During the conflict at New Fabris, Marise Dumas (CGT) declared on the radio station Europe 1: ‘I understand that the employees believe that it is the only way to let themselves be heard. Mostly these are means of action that I would not advise to employees because they lead into dead ends.’ Among those companies affected by violent actions in 2010, there are several sub-contractors for the auto industry (Proma France, Sodimatex, EAK), but also two metallurgical companies (Akers, Siemens); a manufacturer of elevators (Renolift-Meyzieu), of pneumatic utilities for BTP and the industry (Sullair-Europe); a manufacturer of breast implants (Poly Implant Prothèse); a factory of enamelled copper wire (Usine Essex); an industrial bakery (New Society bread); an industrial maintenance company (Isotherma); and a manufacturer of telescopic handlers (Bobcat). Increasingly however the service sector is also affected. This year, to refer only to cases that have appeared in the media, bossnappings have taken place at a surveillance company (Vigimark Surveillance); a bank (Caisse d’Epargne); 4 hospitals (Cochin, Emile-Roux, Henri-Mondor and Foix-Jean Rostand); 2 printing houses (Brodard Graphique and Hélio-Corbeil); and a furniture store (Pier Import). Yvan Lesniak, CEO at Circle Printers, even claims to have been kidnapped seven times in all. This is how he describes the atmosphere that reigned when he tried to announce a lay-off plan: ‘When you during a conflict start to see crosses, coffins, gallows, your portrait hanging from a tree, when a price has been set on your head together with the word “Wanted” and a photo, and you still have to go into the building, you know that you run a risk.’ Even-though the bosses are in general not maltreated, the hostility they are facing is often palpable: ‘They have thrown rotten tomatoes in my face, eggs, I have been spat upon, prevented from sleeping. […] I had to ask for permission to go to the toilet, I’ve been insulted, I came to a place of hatred, of aggressive people.’((Christine Ducros and Jean-Yves Guérin, op. cit., p. 77.)) Some employers have come to be accompanied by bailiffs during the negotiation meetings, and anti-kidnapping training courses are organised for them by the GIGN (National Gendarmerie Intervention Group)… Yet the majority of the bossnappings and threats to blow up the factory are spontaneous and organised by the workers on the shop-floor. For example, a representative from the CGT union at Caterpillar, Pierre Piccarreta, who played the role of media spokesperson at the beginning of the struggle, was not aware that a bossnapping had begun, and was only informed of it as he was hosting a meeting at another factory. The FO union secretary of the factory said that ‘In any case, during the whole conflict, it was the shop-floor who directed us, who made the decisions.’((Christine Ducros and Jean-Yves Guérin, op. cit., p. 142.)) For Jean-Claude Ducatte, the founder of the consultancy Epsy and a specialist in business strategy, it is clear that ‘in 9 conflicts out of 10, the unions run behind the employees who let their anger explode.’((Christine Ducros and Jean-Yves Guérin, op. cit., p. 149.)) And as the grassroots unionists participate in these illegal actions they are clearly dissociating themselves from the line followed by the central trade union. For instance Xavier Mathieu, a CGT delegate at Continental, appeared a lot in the media during the conflict and publicly dismissed Bernard Thibault, the CGT’s general secretary, as ‘riff-raff’ and a ‘parasite’. It must be said that the central unions, whether they are the CGT, CFDT or FO, want to focus on defending jobs rather than the demands for increased compensation and declare that they do not approve of means of action such as bossnappings and threats to blow up plants, even though they do not condemn them in public. During the conflict at New Fabris, Marise Dumas (CGT) declared on the radio station Europe 1: ‘I understand that the employees believe that it is the only way to let themselves be heard. Mostly these are means of action that I would not advise to employees because they lead into dead ends.’
Line 67: Line 66:
 nouvelles métamorphoses de la question sociale’, //Le Monde//, April 7, 2005.)) but the very connection between productivity gains and wage increases disappeared. This disconnection resulted from the globalisation of the valorisation of capital and an enormous extension of the international division of labour.((Some would of course argue that capitalism has always been global, but the process which began forty years ago and has now resulted in //a global nouvelles métamorphoses de la question sociale’, //Le Monde//, April 7, 2005.)) but the very connection between productivity gains and wage increases disappeared. This disconnection resulted from the globalisation of the valorisation of capital and an enormous extension of the international division of labour.((Some would of course argue that capitalism has always been global, but the process which began forty years ago and has now resulted in //a global
 cycle of accumulation// is something qualitatively different from international trade //between// countries. The growth of multinational firms is inseparable from the phenomenon of offshoring. In the case of France, as in other Western countries, this started in the 1970s with the textile industry. (See the cycle of accumulation// is something qualitatively different from international trade //between// countries. The growth of multinational firms is inseparable from the phenomenon of offshoring. In the case of France, as in other Western countries, this started in the 1970s with the textile industry. (See the
-examples of the companies Kindy and Bidermann given in //L’Expansion// no. 691, November 2004, quoted at [[www.m-lasserre.com/educpop/dossierdelocs/+examples of the companies Kindy and Bidermann given in //L’Expansion// no. 691, November 2004, quoted at [[http://www.m-lasserre.com/educpop/dossierdelocs/ 
 +DusecteurindustrielaceluidelaR&D.htm|www.m-lasserre.com/educpop/dossierdelocs/
 DusecteurindustrielaceluidelaR&D.htm]].) )) DusecteurindustrielaceluidelaR&D.htm]].) ))