Dear Sir: I am writing to you in relation to the Declaration made on June 11 by the Executive Committee you chair and the Confederal Secretaries in relation to "the debate opened by the report of ...
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you in relation to the Declaration made on June 11 by the Executive Committee you chair and the Confederal Secretaries in relation to "the debate opened by the pension report".
In it, they state that the presence on the Committee of Experts of the Coordinator of the Economic Cabinet of CC.OO. "was not as a representative of the Union and that they intended to avoid closed positions that would prevent any subsequent negotiation". Also that his presence "has allowed the nature of our distribution system not to be substantially changed", "that the system is guaranteed by the improvement of income and that decisions are taken in the Toledo Pact and in social dialogue". They assume that "the presence of this gentleman is a mistake and that the Union does not feel reflected or linked to the position defended by the report".
In other points they point out that "the reform promoted by the Government is not necessary", that "CC.OO. will in no case endorse measures that involve a reduction in present and future pensions", as well as that "CC.OO. has always been committed to the viability of our public pension system, as we have demonstrated by signing all the agreements that have been negotiated to date?." calling on the Government to establish "a social dialogue." (The bold type is mine).
I will start with the first premise and the biggest one. Placing a person on a Committee of Experts for the "analysis of the public pension system", in which the majority of its members have belonged to or have direct links with insurance companies, banks and entities that invest in pension funds or manage them directly, with the belief that it can influence their interests, seems to me to be a supreme naivety. Putting a hen in a fox pen to convince them of the need not to kill many hens is a moralizing tale.
Only I don't assume them:
1.- That they are so naive.
2.- That they intend to make us believe that a highly qualified member of CC.OO. is in that kind of meeting in a personal capacity.
3.- That in a matter of capital importance for all Spanish workers, this Coordinator of CC.OO. votes without the Secretary General of that Union knowing the meaning of the vote seems impossible to me and, of course, irresponsible. If this had been the case, the argument they put forward that "they intended to avoid closed positions that would prevent any subsequent negotiation" would fall under its own weight.
Then, by their own statements, it is evident that he was acting on behalf of the Union and that in reality they expect a future negotiation on pensions. No more is needed. The Coordinator acted on behalf of CC.OO. and voted in favor of the report with the consent, in my opinion, of the Secretary General. No, Mr. Toxo. It has not been a mistake, it has been one more collaboration of that Union with the power structures, to which it is tied. On this last point, you can give us many explanations. And you should give them. It is possible that CC.OO. could free itself and could once again be a fundamental reference in the struggle of the working class.
4.- To say that his presence "has allowed the nature of our distribution system not to be substantially changed", in addition to a deception, is a useless addition to the miserable role that CC.OO. has agreed to play with its participation in this Commission, arguing that "a representative" of the working class influenced something. The result of the effectiveness of the opinions of its representative in the final document of the Commission makes it very clear. The conclusions of the document, again, are a frontal attack on the rights of workers, present and future, and these rights are very poorly defended with these actions. Also a request, Mr. Toxo: don't take us for fools. Workers know very well how to interpret the texts, the realities and the actions of the political and economic powers, even reading between the lines.
5.- Faced with this participatory sequence that you expose in the Declaration, to say now "that the Union does not feel reflected or linked to the position defended by the report", again, is taking us for a ride. As already said, I will not extend myself further in that line, but Mr. Toxo, you should have thought about it before or SIMPLY COULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST, since the meaning of the report goes against the interests of the workers. By the way, workers that you say you defend and affiliated to that Union that, I suppose, for what has happened, not represented or, even worse, negatively represented.
6.- When he says that "CC.OO. will in no case endorse measures that involve a reduction in present and future pensions", as well as that "CC.OO. has always been committed to the viability of our public pension system as we have demonstrated by signing all the agreements that have been negotiated to date?.", calling on the Government to "establish?.a social dialogue", it is necessary to qualify his statements.
To say that they have signed all the agreements negotiated to date, Mr. Toxo, I must admit that it is a truth like a temple. And that they are fully in favor of social dialogue, too. Only one essential question. In this dialogue CC.OO. starts from weakness, it is not a counter-power at all, since it does not use the possibility of legal union activity ? read general strike, for example- as a preventive element against a manifest intention of the Government of the right to cut our rights of all kinds.
I have participated in all the general strikes carried out without the convening unions subsequently enforcing the strength of the street before the Government. Without these subsequent consequences of correlation of forces, a general strike serves, if anything, as a collective explosion of rage that remains only in that. And it can even serve, paradoxically, to "demobilize", further frustrating the working class. A dirty job. Without the capacity and I fear, from the experiences lived, without any intention of forcing the Government to negotiate in truth demonstrating that behind it has the working class of this country, any "social dialogue" becomes a farce, in which acquiescence is given to what the Government does with the excuse that greater evils have been avoided.
Indeed, Comisiones Obreras has participated in all the agreements negotiated to date (1996, 2001, 2006) but I am terrified that this participation is of the type of the last agreement transferred to the B.O.E. with Law 27/2011 in which, among other restrictive measures, the retirement age is increased and the period of calculation of the future pension is increased. In reality, a real, objective and objectifiable decrease in the pension that workers are going to receive is legislated. And this, with the consent and agreement of Comisiones Obreras!
To reach agreements like this, Mr. Toxo, social dialogue is not needed. To give in to the financial and business interests effectively defended by the Government of Mr. Rajoy and others before, it is better not to dialogue at all. Let them do what they propose but, at least, do not count on the endorsement of Comisiones Obreras.
7.- Finally, some considerations on what happened and possibilities of amending the plan. Since the former Secretary General Antonio Gutiérrez Vergara ?later silent deputy of the Socialist Party-, was in charge of laminating Marxism in Comisiones Obreras and purging many of its members, until his succession by José María Fidalgo (it is interesting to follow the evolution of this gentleman to understand some union issues, as he is reconverted into a speaker of the FAES, in a talk show of the media right and makes political forays with both UPyD and the PP.
Strange Secretary General of a union, worker, of course.), who was in charge of completing that work, further right-winging the Union and tying it to subsidies and to the non-mobilization or active participation of its members in it.
And here we are. With an affiliation absolutely disconcerted with what the organic dome that directs the Union does and that, in my opinion, are not representing it at all. Comisiones Obreras, a key union of the labor movement since its creation and especially in the so-called "Transition", does not deserve to end ?while from within there is no militant rebellion that takes it back to its vindictive origins- as a social element of first order collaborationist with the so-called neoliberals, that is, with capital, with its natural adversary.
Therefore, and in view of what has happened, as a worker who is going to be affected by the decisions that Comisiones Obreras takes in my name and without my consent, I ask you to consult the class they say they represent before voting in favor of the PP Government, of negotiating with it and, above all, of endorsing with your signature the policies of personal, collective impoverishment and cuts in rights that it carries out on the working class.
Consequently with everything expressed, I beg you not to leave unpunished, within the organization, the responsibilities that I consider are, in the last instance, of the Secretary General of Comisiones Obreras, of the organic dome that sustains him and, of course, of the aforementioned Coordinator of the Economic Cabinet of the Union.
An error of such magnitude requires decisive corrections. As is natural, I do not ask you to self-immolate, but to save Comisiones Obreras and, incidentally, the thousands of honest, fighting and honest members who militate in it. Although, perhaps, to do the second it is necessary to do the first.
With my attentive greetings.
Seville, June 15, 2013
Manuel Cabello Sánchez de Miranda, official of the General Treasury of Social Security in Seville
