CC.OO: the critical perspective we face, and also with a more solidaritybased North-South relationship? How to put into practice a more confederate trade
The increasingly authoritarian leadership of Comisiones Obreras (CC.00)
unionism, which defends the common faces a growing challenge from the dynamic "Critical Sector." The struggle for interests of all the workers in the Spanish the "class struggle" soul of CC.OO. against a leadership whose political
State, but also respects the particular situation and legitimate rights of each project is the recomposition of the social democratic left continues.
national group? How to re-establish an adequate relationship between the trade by Jesus Albarracin, Pedro Montes and Agustin Moreno union movement and the other social movements? How to maintain the political independence which we have just reaffirmed, without degenerating into an apolitical posture? How to develop new areas of work for the unions, in the domain of equality and non-discrimination [7] and working conditions?
The tasks which we face as a result of the implementation of the Law on Health at
Work imply a full struggle for the improvement of working conditions. The
(newly-introduced) election of delegates responsible for supervising accident prevention gives the unions a new, useful tool for increasing the priority of this, eminently practical intervention.
In conclusion, let us hope that a less tense internal situation develops. This would enable a more open debate on the future tasks which we all face, whichever current we are in. A debate in which we all have something worth saying. But, until the waves from this congress die down, we can expect repercussions in the federal and territorial congresses currently under preparation. The tension will continue. And,
A deep debate about the various models of trade union strategy and practice did finally take place, more in the preparation of the 6th Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO, Workers' Commissions) Congress than at the Congress itself. Those of us in the Critical Sector were determined to open such a debate, and to propose our alternatives to the various official texts. Among other things, we proposed: • rejecting the neo-liberal project of European construction, as formulated by the Maastricht Treaty; • a different Europe, for the benefit of the citizens and the workers, with a referendum on the revision of the Maastricht Treaty. Imposition of full employment and social security as the real criteria of European convergence; • a more expansionist economic policy, incorporating a struggle against unemployment and for full employment, as the central element of orientation and mobilisation of the social, political and trade union left;
a law gradually reducing the working week to 35 hours by the year 2000, without loss of salary; • a new strategy for negotiating collective bargaining agreements, prioritising stable, dignified and high quality employment. Recognition that the current situation, where 35% of workers are in an extremely precarious situation, is socially and economically insupportable; • the reversal of the [previous, Socialist Party] government's "counter-reform' of labour legislation, coupled with the fight for adequate collective bargaining agreements; • active industrial policies, defence of the public sector, and the fight against privatisation; • improvement of the social security system; • increased spending on retirement pensions, health, education, unemployment benefits and public services; The authors are leading members of the "Critical Sector" minority, and regular contributors to Viento Sur magazine.
International Viewpoint n° 276 13
* Spain • rejection of the application of the Toledo (social) Pact; • improving eligibility criteria for the old age pension, reducing the retirement age. and reducing pension contributions for lower qualified workers.
On the more directly trade union front, we proposed a more combative collective bargaining, which would be a brake on the labour reforms, demand an increase in the buying power of the employees and demand a democ-ratisation of labour relations. We also dem-anded the reinforcing of the participation of the workers, more flexible ways of organising, which would give sectoral, professional and regional structures more autonomy, and wider functions. We demanded more pluralism and democracy at all levels, and the rejection of practices which limit participation, or which are authoritarian or discriminatory.
We were, and still are, very firm as far the politics of doing trade unionism is concerned. We were, and still are, confronted with practices which favour a centralised, pyramid structure, feeding gigantic bureaucratic structures, which employ coercive mechanisms to guarantee their self-preservation. And which require large financial resources, or permanent constitutionally-guaranteed financing, in order to be viable.
These proposals of ours provoked a hard, stimulating debate. As did our evaluation of the last few years, which concentrated on CC.O0's critical support for the Maastricht Treaty, the strategy of coordination and the 1993 Social Pact for Employment, the confrontation with Izquierda Unida (United Left, Communist Party-dominated coalition), the larval support from the Socialist Party (PSOE, in government for 14 years, until defeated on March 3rd this year) and the refusal to participate in the civic platform initiatives. The entire left could only welcome this debate, whatever their particular opinions.
After the debate, it is impossible to pretend that there was and is no significant difference between the position of he official current and that of the critical sector, or to claim that the tension is essentially between two different fractions of the bureaucracy, or that this is a political dispute which has been carried into the union, and which, as such, threatens the autonomy of the CC.OO. THE CONGRESS
The preparatory debate unfolded in a climate of harsh confrontation, generated by the apparatus of the union. Not one of our amendments for increasing the transparency of the congress and the preparation of the delegates was accepted. The official current used all the "bureaucratic tricks" imaginable: profiting from their control of the apparatus, recognising a large number of non-elected delegates, organising small, limited-participation preparatory meetings, 14 International Viewpoint April 1996 arbitrary and irregular application of congress norms and statutes, one-sided decisions in most of the controversial or borderline cases, manipulation of information, media intoxication, and so on
Given all this, the fact that we represented over 30% of delegates is a real sign of support, and shows a real step forward in our work. No minority in CC.OO. has ever had such a good result.
Our amendments were in general well received by the base of the union, particularly wherever there was most discussion and high participation of the rank and file. We won a majority in a range of sectors and regions: Energy, Pensioners, Diverse Activities, Balearic Islands, Murcia,
Asturias, La Rioja, Melilla (Spanish enclave in Moroccan territoryl,
Granada and Barcelona. We also won almost half of the delegates for
Catalonia and Andalusia, and an important proportion of votes from the
Public Sector, Transport and
Commerce sectors, and in the region of
Valencia. We were also represented in all the other federations and territorial organisations, and in most of the large companies where CC.00 exists. We demonstrated ourselves to be an organisation which exists across the union. Which is the essential prerequisite for a credible alternative project which seeks to win majority support.
There was plenty of interest in the congress: 999 of 1,001 mandates were taken up! Unfortunately, this 6th
Congress did not produce any new proposals and alternatives for dealing with the principle problems which workers face. There were no answers, wherever you looked. The official reports were all weak, and not one amendment from the critical sector was accepted.
Rather than analyse our recent activities, the Report on Activities was little more than a political speech, addressed above all at the notables gathered in the front row during the opening ceremony. The reporter employed diversion tactics, protesting that the CC.OO "doesn't want to be a political party mark II," even though no one had suggested such a thing. His goal was to avoid any discussion on the union's strategic errors, such as its mis-management of the 27 January 1981 general strike. Next came General Secretary
Gutierrez. He didn't reply to any of the remarks made by delegates, majority or minority. He structured his concluding remarks round an attack on the critical sector delegates, coupled with a cold provocation of Marcelino Camacho.
In the amendments debate, the official sector employed classic obstruction tactics. First they presented twice as many amend-ments as the critical sector. Then they cut the time for real debate in half ("to avoid split-ting hairs"). When the debate came, they didn't even bother speaking in favour of their own amendments, and the time allocated was not used up. None of the critical
sector's amendments was adopted; they won more or less 40% of delegate votes.
The new federal leadership met at the end of the congress. One of its first steps was to exclude the seven minority members (from a total of 19) from all responsibilities. A clear desire to marginalise us. This will obviously have serious consequences on the organisational structure and leadership capacities of the union. But what is worse is that the real decisions will, from now on, not really be taken by the executive committee, or by any other collective leadership body, but by Gutierrez, after consultation with whichever "counsellors" he adopts at any given moment.. These methods strengthen his personal power. GUTIERREZ' PROJECT
The reason for this dramatic move is Gutierrez' political strategy. He, and his men, are convinced that the actually existing forces of the Spanish left are incapable of struggling against the new People's Party (PP) government of José Maria Aznar. The Socialist Party (PSOE) is discredited by its corruption, and its involvement in state terrorism. The United Left (IU) is too hegemonised by the PCE, its positions are too dogmatic and too linked to the past. In other words, its electoral potential is low. Gutierrez and his supporters want to regenerate Spanish socialism, on the basis of the two forces which they consider viable and useful: the part of the PSOE which is not implicated in the corruption scandals, and Nueva Izquierda, the most moderate component of IU.
This project implies a greater unity of action between the CC.00 and the (proPSOE UGT confederation. This model of trade unionism would accept political theses such as the inevitability of neo-liberalism, integration in European economic and monetary union, the social pact as axis of trade union activity, absolute priority to negotiation over mobilisation everywhere and at all times, and so on and so forth. In other words, weak trade unionism. Nontrade unionism. The kind of trade unionism the majority inside the CC.OO has imposed on us these recent years. The leadership never stops talking about union autonomy, but their key personalities are dedicated to the transformation of the CC.O0 into a classic trade union, a transmission belt for the new political force which they want to create.
Apart from any other objective difficulties and sources of opposition which may emerge, Gutierrez has one big problem. The CC.OO is not the same as the trade unions in other countries (see the same author's article in IV nº273, January 1996). It was forged, under the Franco dictatorship, striving consciously to be a new type of union; alternative, anticapitalist, pluralist, autonomous, particıpative and socio-political.
Gutierrez' new project must, sooner or later, mean re-founding the CC.OO: suppressing its socio-political character; and reducing the level of pluralism and internal democracy. And this is precisely the direction in which the reports approved by this congress take us. This is also why the majority has chased Marcelino Camacho presidency: they need to appropriate the history of the union in order to change its very nature.
The second big problem facing Gutierrez is us. the critical sector. The echo and the support which our amendments generated show quite clearly the level of resistance which the majority can expect. CONCLUSIONS
Liberty and pluralism are retreating inside the CC.OO. The most outrageous sector of the apparatus has imposed a policy of exclusions, transforming the congress and the post-congress period into a period of "settling scores". This is a clear process Marcelino Camacho was expelled from the presidency, the seven minority representatives in the Executive were excluded from the real management of the union, and the personal power of the General Secretary was reinforced. However, paradoxically proclaiming the need for a modern image, they take us back to the oldest orthodoxy, and the worst methods of the past.
Spain * Including a personality cult.
This congress opened an authoritarian period in the management methods of the CC.O0 executive. And, since their power is based on a Phyrric victory, the exercise of their authority may have very negative effects for the future of the union.
Overtures to the UGT about trade union unity will hardly be credible when they come from people who are incapable of realising unity and integration inside their
The new leadership is so absorbed by the internal purge that it is losing any capacity for public initiative. The CC.00 can no longer mobilise its members without the support of the critical sector. So all that the leadership has left is endless negotiation, and pacts at any price.
The critical sector can be proud of its results. We have a project, and real links with the base of the union. We have laid the foundations for the 7th Congress, scheduled for the year 2000. We had the initiative during the debates at this congress. We have been able to maintain collective work and a collective leadership. We provoked a real reaction among the rank and file. We stimulated their participation in the union. We enabled many militants to regain their self-confidence. We demonstrated that a credible alternative trade union project can exist, does exist.
And, at the end of the day, we doubled our representation in the leading bodies of the union. Predictions that we would score less than 10%, and be reduced to the role of "witnesses" proved to be false.
The CC.O0 emerges from this congress more balanced at its base. The critical sector has managed to introduce a debate on fundamental questions of strategy, and on the organisational model of the union. We prevented Gutierrez from realising his project: a tame congress where all divergent views would be eliminated without too much noise. He will no longer be able to run the union as if there was no difference of opinion among the members. Providing, of course, that he does not take the irresponsible path of aggression towards the structures and militants of the minority. *
International Viewpoint n° 276 15