How
were the formal decision procedures about the merger with the ICFTU
and what happened with the CNV proposal and other alternatives? The
first step in the formal debate was put at the 18th of March 2004
when the members of the European Section (an informal gathering of
European members, without structure and secretariat) exchanged views
on the relations with other international organizations. A final
decision would take place in October of the same year. (Activities
Report of the European Section, Doc 3, 12.10.2004)
According
to the minutes it is Deputy Secretary General Jaap Wienen (former
CNV trade union leader) who
introduces the debate: “During
the ETUC Congress in 2003, ICFTU Secretary general Guy Rider made an
appeal to join forces in the trade union world. The
difference with earlier approaches is that the aim of the talks would
be to build a new organisation (instead
of a merger of the WCL into the ICFTU). This appeal was discussed
during the WCL Confederal Board in Jakarta, where the political
secretariat was given a limited mandate to enter into talks with the
ICFTU so as to define the ideas of the ICFTU on a common worldwide
approach. On the basis of the dicussions which took place during two
meetings, Emlio Gabaglio (former Secretary General of the ETUC) wrote
a note which refelects his views on the possible directions of
further discussions between the ICFTU and the WCL. This note will be
discussed during the WCL Executive Board meeting of March 29 and 30.”
The
opening of the debate is made by
CNV
staff member Evert-Jan Slootweg who explains the position of CNV. “He
reads out the model for cooperation of CNV. The proposed model is
meant to be a plus for both existing secretariats (of WCL and
ICFTU).”
Luxembourg LCGB representative Leon
Drucker raises some questions about after the merger. “What can
be said about the future possibilities of trade unions which share
our values? Will cooperation still be possible? Furthermore, how will
we explain a possible merger, as we have been stressing the
differences in values between the WCL and the ICFTU for years? What
will happen with regard to join projects on international level? What
will it take to sustain such development cooperation at global level?
How will we still be able to identify partners in Africa, Latin
America,.(...) As for the national pluralism, it is clearly stated
that the identity of the different trade unions should not be
questioned.”
Jan Dereymaker of the ACV/CSC
international dept. explains the why and how of the merger. He gave 4
reasons for the merger:
1. The appeal of Guy Rider,
President of the ICFTU.
2. Some ACV/CSC branch
organizations are already affiliated to the ICFTU international
branch federations, Global Unions GUFs.
3. The fact that ACV/CSC pays
almost 70% of the WCL budget is a weakness of the WCL.
4. What structure is most
efficient for the protection for our members?
Other important observations of him
are:
- “The time that syndicalism was
linked to political parties belongs to the past.”
- “As pluralism is fundamental,
this should be a starting point. We should opt for a strong base, a
strong 'syndicalisme de base'. Syndicalism should be based on
democratic values, and it should be internationalized.
- “A new structure, well
balanced from ideological and structural point of view, pluralistic
on national level and perhaps on continental level, could be a
possible orientation. (…) A foundation may be a good idea to
safeguard our identity, but this remains an open question.
Andrej Adamcsik (Solidarnosc, Poland)
agrees with the analysis presented by Jan Dereymaeker. He is positive
“but admits that he finds himself a bit surprised by the quick
progress in the talks with ICFTU.”
Pavel
Moutafchiev (Promyana, Bulgaria) believes the merger is necessary
because of the globalization. He hopes that the merger will stop the
problems with the ICFTU affiliates in his country.
Joseph
Thouvenel (CFTC France) is of the opinion that the mandate given in
Jakarta has been exceeded. “There
should be a balance between material and spiritual dimensions, and
these same basic values will not be found within the ICFTU.
Furthermore, two voices are better heard than one single voice.”
Bogdan Hossu (Cartel alfa, Rumania)
does not agree with Joseph Thouvenel. He proposes a more “flexible
mandate” for the Executive Committee and the composition of a work
group.
WCT Secretary general Gaston De
Lahaye clarifies the position of the World Confederation of Teachers
“To the WCT, an important issue was the discussion on the
values. As the essence of these values, the identity of the WCT, is
reflected in the declaration of principles, this was presented to the
colleagues of Education International, who did not have
any problems with it. A joint declaration of principles
will be drafted, taking into account the identity of the WCT.
Pluralism on the national level has been well defined. National
agreements can be a side effect of the cooperation, but it does not
necessarily have to be so.”
Bart
Bruggeman (CNV) “supports the viewpoint of his French
colleague. There would have been protest during the
Confederal Board had Willy Thys indicated that Emilio Gabaglio was
going to present the note.” He
wonders if there will be organized tendencies or not in the new
organization?
Andrey
Adamczyk answers that it was agreed in Jakarta that ICFTU and WCL
will express their specific values. “A foundation was
also mentioned at that occasion.” He
defended the note of Gabaglio as “just an element in the
debate”.
It was under the guidance of the ACV/CSC Presidents Willy Peirens and Luc Cortebeeck that the WCL became a cofounder of the ITUC and the WCL disappeared from the international trade union history. |
After some
debate on the role of the Gabaglio note and the status of WCL as a
Christian organization, ACV President Luc Cortebeeck, also President
of the European Section, summarizes the discussion saying that not
everyone agreed on everything and that there is no agreement on the
Gabaglio note. He concludes that there is de CNV proposal in which
the WCL continues to exist as a separate organization but cooperates
with the ICFTU. Others wonder why the ETUC model is not possible on
international level. Another important question is how to preserve a
certain identity and how the cooperation will be organized in the new
organization?
So it was decided that at the
European Section of October 2004 a formal decision will be taken on
how to proceed with the merger. The next step would be a formal
decision taken by the Confederal Board, and after that a World
Congress to ratify the decision taken (November 2005 in Houffalize,
Belgium). For decision taking at the European Section, the Executive
Committee presented at the October meeting 2004 the document
“Recommendation by the Executive Committee to the Confederal Board“
with an introduction and annexes:
Annex I. “Proposal of a decision
to be submitted to the Confederal Board”.
Annex II. “Elements that have
emanated from the informal dialogue
1.
Outline of a new international trade union confederation.
Annex III. “Elements that have
emanated from the informal dialogue
2. First draft of the basic
principles for a new international trade union confederation.
The CNV proposal was only worked out for Europe. The proposal had not a chance. It was presented to late and without to few convincing power. |
Al
these papers have already been spoken
of in foregoing blogs. What
remains is “Annex IV. Alternative CNV proposal.”
In a note attached to the annex, CNV President Doekle Terpstra writes
that “a CNV working group has been discussing the future of the
WCL and possible more intense co-operation between the WCL and the
ICFTU for the last month. The working group has presented a proposal
to the Executive Board of the CNV, which has been approved
unanimously on the 15th of March 2004.”
Instead of a merger, the CNV had worked out the idea of closer cooperation between the two
international organizations by introducing a so-called “World Level
Secretariat”. This secretariat had to coordinate the common
activities of WCL, ICFTU, the International Trade Federations of both
sides and TUAC. Meanwhile, both WCL and ICFTU would maintain their own
secretariats, as well as the other organizations involved. The reason
for this more elaborated model for cooperation was that CNV wanted to
maintain by all means the WCL as an independent, autonomous world
organization for the sake of international trade union pluralism and
identity bound trade unionism.
But unfortunately we must conclude
that the CNV proposal had no real chance. ACV/CSC had prepared
already for a long time the merger with ICFTU. It was just waiting
for the right moment and the right ICFTU leadership. It seemed that
the CNV leadership was overtaken by the events. The presentation of
the proposal itself was somewhat amateurish, clumsy and naive. Even
at the meetings itself, none of the CNV confederal leadership was
present. Also unconvincing was the lack of any kind of financial
outline for the proposal.
Such a financial outline could have
given rise to a thorough discussion on the financial priorities of
the WCL. During many years before, there have been lengthy debates on
the affiliation fees but without result. In particular the continents
tried to escape time after time from an increase of contributions. It
seemed that they saw the WCL mainly as a one-direction road for
international solidarity. The other side of the problem, that is to
bring political priorities in accordance with financial
possibilities, was never well debated. This should have been an
important task set for the treasurer and the financial commission of
the WCL. One of the reasons this debate was never really implemented,
because ACV / CSC was always ready in one way or another to absorb
the budget deficits. Therefore ACV / CSC had become far away the
biggest sponsor of WCL This was apparently taken for granted by the
other members.
Such a debate would also have made
clear that the merger proposal was related to the fact that also
ICFTU and its International Trade Secretariats were in need of money
because of losing members. Such a debate was and is avoided in all
trade unions world wide but this is what happens. Trade Unions
worldwide are losing members and therefore money and this makes it
more difficult to maintain heavy bureaucratic structures and costly
international formal and informal meetings. During the merger talks
this point came up but only as a formal point not as as a real point
of debate. Talks were all about unity because of globalization and
the ongoing neoliberal policies worldwide.
Another alternative would have been
to agree with the merger under the condition that former WCL members
within the new international organization could make their own
groupe, fraction, platform or tendency. This model exists for
example in the Austrian trade union confederation ÖGB with the
formal groupings of socialist, christian and communist members. It
is not an easy model to handle because it requires a fundamental
democratic attitude and respect towards minorities. But such a model
would have been a very good example of democracy on international
level.
But the
WCL leadership talked only vaguely about
“identity guarantees” in the new organization: “The
setting up of an appropriate instrument, internal to the new
confederation open to all must make it possible to preserve the
heritage of the WCL” (introduction to
the “Recommendation by the Executive Committee to the Confederal
Board) In annex II we read the following about this question: “The
WCL is however the heir of an historical component of the trade union
movement rooted into spiritual values and vision. To recognize this
unique reality and to preserve its influence a Foundation could be
created, within the organization, and whose cultural and education
activities could be benefitting to all interested partners.”
As in previous debates those proposals were unclear and vague and as
a result they disappeared from the merger- agenda.
The result of the inadequate
presentation of alternatives was that the debate was ultimately
limited to the question "for or against the merger." Polish
Solidarnosc was for the merger talks. The Luxembourg LCGB rejected
the CNV proposal and supported the merger. The Maltese CMTU supported
the CNV proposal. The Spanish USO supported the merger proposal. The
French CFTC supported the CNV proposal because of the importance of
the spiritual dimensions in trade union action. NKOS (Slovakia)
supported the CNV proposal. The Hungarian Munkastanscok explained
that their affiliation to WCL was a well conscious choice because
they did not want to sit together with ex-communist organizations
even not after the more than ten years. In their view the ex
communist trade unions want to maintain their monopoly. The
Lithuanian confederation LDF spoke more or less the same words. Bask
ELA/STV supported the merger like the Rumanian Cartel alfa
confederation. ACV/CSC of course supported the merger. Serbian CATUS
supports the merger as an answer to the globalization. Others
(Bulgaria and Cyprus) express their doubts regarding the merger but
recognize the presented documents as very valuable. The Austrian FCG
has its doubts. The Ukranian VOST expressed strong doubts about the
merger.
President Luc Cortebeeck summarized
the problems and concluded that a majority of the members wanted to
continue the negotiations of WCL with the ICFTU. From then on the
train was on the rails and nobody could stop him anymore. Alea iacte
est.
No comments:
Post a Comment