[PEN-L:2006] Re: Info fro...

[MScoleman@xxxxxxx]

Since the french discussion is going on, and on, and on, and on .....  I
guess another comment or two from me won't overload things.  My intial
comments to Bill were rather sarcastic and not in much depth, so I will try
to make the following comments less sarcastic, though, how much more depth
they will have .........

I think my basic ideas on this are closest to those expressed by Sid (though
I don't save postings so I can't swear to every point).  I also think Louis
Proyet and Doug Henwood made some valuable observations.  Most notably, huge
strikes such as those in France, whether they are for protecting economic
gains or for more altruistic reasons, directly contest capitalist power.  for
this reason, I believe they are progressive.
          Just because the leadership of a union do not support every
radical, green, and politically correct idea espoused by the left does not
mean those ideas are not being espoused and pushed by some section of the
rank and file involved in the strike.  It almost doesn't matter what the
issue of the strike is, the fact of a strike brings workers together and
makes them realize a class solidarity which is not ever realized in any other
setting.  In fact, I have never been involved in a strike without seeing my
fellow strikers grow in terms of a political understanding of the
contradictions of capital.   I have been working since 14 (I'm 47) and I was
deeply involved in the anti-war movement, but I never really understood the
creation of political conciousness until I was involved in a strike.  The
first few strikes I was involved in with ATT, then Telco were shorties -- 2
to 4 weeks.  In 1989, however, we were on strike for almost five months --
40,000 of us. [Since it seems that these messages are monitored far and wide,
I will not detail the actual activities of the 1989 strike other than to say
that the 'battle' was carried away from the picket lines and on the the front
line in stopping scabs dead in their tracks.]

          First of all, there was a process of radicalization of some of the
entrenched union leadership in the local which has led to some more
progressive policies and ongoing contention amongst the leadership.  Second
of all, following an era of fat in the union movement, strikes are very
effective as a cold water wake up to union bureaucrats, and this can change
their attitudes as well as make the rank and file grow up.  Third, during the
1989 strike, I saw a number of men and women become staunch union fighters,
and these people continue to be active today.  Finally, In a strike, no
matter what kind of fat the workers get (and I dispute that most wins are
fat), you go hungry.  There is nothing worse than telling kids at Christmas
time that there are no presents (the 1989 strike ended a week before
christmas).  I know, as part of the 'labor aristocracy' that it took me
almost two years to pay off the debts from the 1989 strike for myself, and I
am sure that those 'fat cats' in France are going to be paying for a while as
well.  Ultimately, by denigrating these french strikes as 'economist', one
misses the point.  Strikes are the training ground for battle.  To not see
strikes as the prime opportunity for the working class to unite and learn the
contradictions of capital is to not understand what the whole thing is about.
 In this sense, Sid (and a couple of other people) was absolutely right, one
must choose sides without time for the niceties.

          My next big problem with Bill's comments were about how fat the
transport workers are with their early retirements etc.  I really do not
understand what the problem is with early retirements.  Early outs create job
slots for the unemployed.  Any large corporation with a reasonable pension
plan has more retirees than current employees, to wit, the Federal Government
of the USA, or ATT, or NYNEX, or IBM.  The fact is, it is cheaper to pension
people off than to keep them as active employees -- this is why so many
companies are offering early retirement packages these days.  As a case in
point, in 1997, when I hit 49, I'll be eligible for an early retirement from
telco.

          Related to this problem is the idea that, if relatively well off
workers give up their fat bennies and paychecks, that this money will then go
to less well off workers.  This would work about as well as Ronald Reagan's
trickle down supply side theory -- ie, not at all.  This is also the same
reasoning used to keep women out of traditionally male jobs -- so if all the
women give up their jobs, will more men be hired into well paid jobs?  In
fact, having a segment of the working class relatively well off raises the
bottom of the lower part of the working class.  Why the hell do you think all
these capitalists want to move to the third world?  They want to destroy the
living standards of better off workers to get labor cheaper as a whole!
 Rather than develop political strategies which reduce the levels of incomes
of better paid workers, it would be much better to develop policies which
raise the living standards of lower paid workers.

            And this raises the next point, migrant workers.  Soooo, without
the transport union, will migrant workers in France be better off?  Not
likely,  The truth is, when one plays off one segment of the working class
against the other, then one plays the same game as capital.

             I think the working class in France and elsewhere has had enough
'saviors' who come preaching the 'correct line' and not enough champions who
are willing to role up their sleeves and get dirty.  I also find it appalling
that SOME OF the left can still sit on the outskirts of a major class
struggle and pontificate on the ability of workers to recognize the 'correct
line'.

maggie coleman mscoleman@xxxxxxx