“Why can’t we set up a May Day Committee in the union? We can then start to hold May Day, the international working class holiday each year.  Our union has designated May as Labor Month. That’s because of the struggle for the 8-hour day that led to May Day.”

The question hung in the air…..  It was not answered, so the PL’er continued. “After all, we just sang the song Solidarity Forever for the union’s fiftieth anniversary, today being that day. And it finishes with the lines: “greater than the might of armies magnified a thousand fold.” He then sang out, “We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old, for the union makes us strong.”

There were about 400-500 workers in attendance at the union’s retiree meeting. The two PL’ers present wanted to bring the message of the May Day March and its importance. The meeting was long and much of it praised five previous union figures who had helped organize the union and win benefits that are important to union members. But there was little mention of the great mass of the membership who stood up strong to win those battles, even though the new President of the union, who spoke first, said this should be for the broad membership. 

We had got out a few CHALLENGES at the beginning of the meeting and looked forward to discussing the militant mass struggle that May Day represents, but the meeting went on and on and on. When we were ten minutes from the scheduled end there was suddenly a little bit of question time allowed based on a report given by a local Assistant District Attorney discussing elder abuse. With just ten minutes to go it was clear that it was unlikely we would get the opportunity to raise the idea of May Day, even as a general question. 

One of the PL’ers quickly put his hand up. “Is this period one in which we will only discuss questions dealing with elder abuse?” he asked. The chairman (knowing the PL’er uses diverse tactics to get the floor) said, “Nice try.” And then he tried to go on with the elder-abuse questions. But there was a stirring on the floor. Even though the elder-abuse discussion was interesting for most of the attendees, their curiosity was raised, especially since three quarters of the meeting had been spent on self-praise. The chairman, being sensitive to the feeling in the hall, conceded and said, “We’ll have one question. It will be yours.”

After the question (and song) at the top of this account there was some applause, and a great deal of energetic support, if only for the diversion. The chair would not answer the question, and the meeting was ended. Afterwards a number of people came over to praise the two PL’ers. “That was great. We need some more militancy in this union.”

A politically conservative woman who had been sitting next to one of the PL’ers said, “You always raise very interesting points. Even though we don’t see eye-to-eye, I think they’re very good and important for the union.” Another person said, “You speak for the conscience of the union.” There were a number of other positive remarks.

We are still lacking in setting up a study group or another way to engage retirees on a deeper, individual level.  One of us started working to join a retiree group that always puts out literature not tied directly to the union. Also, we need to become active in the union committees where we offered to work and have more social meetings with the workers there we know very well.

With deeper personal and political ties we can struggle to change the focus of the retiree meetings away from just praising the limited reform gains that were won by trade union struggles that didn’t identify capitalism as the real problem. These limited victories have been drowned under the mass unemployment and union-busting wage-cuts of the current economic crisis.  We can then put the revolutionary anti-capitalist ideas of May Day front and center

LOS ANGELES — “There is no ‘we’ that includes the U.S. government and working people.” A member of the political action committee of our organization spoke in favor of a resolution for the U.S. to withdraw all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately.  She continued:

“The politicians who make decisions represent U.S. corporations who are fighting to control the resources, markets, and investment opportunities necessary to make profits. Workers in the U.S. are losing their homes, their medical insurance, their jobs, their civil liberties. Do you really believe the same corporate interests that are screwing us will bring peace and prosperity to Iraq and Afghanistan? They haven’t brought it to New Orleans.”

The resolution stated that the U.S. is in the Middle East and Central Asia to compete with other capitalist powers for control of oil, gas, and pipeline routes, and not to build infrastructure, establish human rights or build schools for girls.

More than 30 people participated in a lively discussion of the resolution. Some of it went like this:

Against: Obama has so many opponents, we need to support him.

For: Why should we support Obama when he is doing what we attacked Bush for doing? Obama has given hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall St. banks and little or nothing to working people. Obama’s Secretary of Defense is Robert Gates, who was Bush’s Secretary of Defense.

Against: If the U.S. withdraws without defeating the Taliban, it will encourage terrorists all over the world. And other countries, such as Iran and China, will move in.

For: We are equally opposed to all imperialists, but as working people living in the U.S. we have a special responsibility to fight against “our own” imperialists. U.S. bosses try to suck us into blaming Iran and China for our problems. We should do everything we can to encourage our fellow workers in those countries to attack “their own” imperialists. As for terrorists, the biggest terrorist in the world is the U.S. military, which kills, wounds, and terrorizes Iraqi and Afghan civilians every day.

The resolution passed by a large majority, and the committee also decided to start a weekly protest against the wars. Those who voted for the resolution have compassion for the ordinary Iraqis and Afghans who are suffering and dying under U.S. occupation, and they want the men and women in the U.S. military to return to their families and a better future.

Many who voted for it did not fully agree with our class analysis of society. Some argued, for example, that the U.S. should follow Greg Mortenson’s (author of Three Cups of Tea) model of promoting peace by building schools. Others suggested the U.S. was in Iraq and Afghanistan mainly to support the “military-industrial complex,” and the solution was instead to build schools, hospitals and infrastructure at home.

This fight will be expanded as we try to pass the resolution at the full local meeting and at the national meeting of our organization. We will continue the struggle by working to educate people about the imperialist nature of these wars. Our plan is to win people to go to the weekly protests on the basis of agreement with aspects of our political line, including opposing racist unemployment.

Since the meeting, we won several friends to participate in the rally against Nazis at city hall, although the members of the mass organization were not ready for that step. We hope that we will be able to win these friends to more militant action as we build stronger friendships and expand our monthly CHALLENGE readers’ group. Our goal is to win these readers to join PLP in the fight for communism. J



PARIS, April 17 — Striking undocumented workers and their supporters rallied outside city hall here today as their strike entered its seventh month. Most of the 6,000 strikers are from Africa and work in construction, the restaurant trade and as guards.

They’re demanding general “legalization” according to “improved and simplified criteria that are the same everywhere in France.” Presently, “legalization” is decided arbitrarily and on a case-by-case basis by the 100 French prefectures. Estimates of the number of undocumented workers in France run from 200,000 to 400,000.

On April 1, Immigration Minister Eric Besson said he had no intention of easing “legalization” criteria: five years in France, one year of steady employment at a company promising to employ the worker for an additional year, and in a sector where there is “a shortage of native-born workers.”

Ruling Party’s Electoral Defeat
Leads to More Repression

The ruling UMP party and the government were defeated in the March 21 regional elections when the fascist National Front reappeared as a political force. It seems neither the debate on “national identity” nor the immigration minister’s inflexible anti-immigrant and anti-undocumented worker policy was enough to persuade the far right to vote for the UMP party.

Now it appears President Sarkozy’s regime has reacted by veering to the right, hardening its position and increasing repression of immigrants.

On March 24, the workers at the oldest Paris sit-down strike were evicted. Following the March 31 Council of Ministers [Cabinet] meeting, the occupants of the FAF-SAB premises were evicted the next day, and simultaneously the immigration minister announced no change in the anti-immigrant policy.

Strikers’ Victories

Nevertheless, the undocumented workers’ movement has been able to score victories. On March 8, 60 CGT trade unionists accompanied undocumented workers to the STN cleaning company in Aulnay-sous-Bois and forced the boss to promise hiring 28 striking undocumented workers. (This “promise-to-hire” is one precondition for “legalization.”)

On March 17, the Bagatelle restaurant was forced to issue eight promises-to-hire to its striking workers. On March 25, one of the Bouygues construction company’s renovation sites was occupied by undocumented workers and CGT union activists.

On April 1, hundreds of activists opposed the eviction of the undocumented strikers from the FAF-SAB premises for the whole day. Ultimately, the workers were evicted, but the struggle showed the strength of workers’ support for the strikers.

An April 6 editorial in Le Monde, the French “newspaper of record,” called on the government to abandon its policy as “sad and sordid.”

On April 12, a Paris appeals court recognized the right to strike and the right to sit in of the striking undocumented workers employed by Synergie, a temporary work agency.

Trade Union United Front Is Broken

On April 6, the Solidaires trade union confederation announced that it would encourage undocumented strikers to file “individual legalization” requests at the prefecture, without waiting for a new ministerial circular. This was the first break in the united front of 11 associations and trade union organizations supporting the strike.

On April 7 the organizations of the striking undocumented workers discussed the decision and remained unconvinced of its wisdom.

The government can react in two ways to this disunity:

(1) It can “legalize” a certain number of undocumented strikers on a case-by-case basis, the better to refuse all further demands, no new ministerial circular having been issued; or,

(2) It can refuse the requests for “legalization” and deport the undocumented strikers who filed the requests.

In either case, the six-month strike will have been in vain, since the undocumented workers will remain insecure.

The April 9 meeting of the committees of support for the undocumented strikers failed to re-establish unity and asked the 11 trade union organizations and associations for more material help, more means of communication and more initiatives in the struggle, all of which would help win across-the-board, not case-by-case “legalization.”

Presently, the undocumented strikers are torn between uncertainty and the possibility of victory. The strike has gone on too long for some, and some are discouraged. Many strikers have lost their jobs and their housing, unable to pay their rent. They expected a tough fight, but thought they would win mass “legalization” by the end of 2009.

Need for Communist Class
Consciousness

Another important factor in this strike is the development of revolutionary class consciousness. This means winning the strikers and their supporters to see the big picture, that the strike — as historic as it certainly is — is only one battle in a much greater fight: the struggle of the working class to overthrow capitalism and establish communism, a system in which the workers run society by and for themselves. Winning workers to this perspective guarantees that, however many battles we may lose, we will be on the road to winning the class war. J



SEYNE-SUR-MER, FRANCE, April 19 — The 120 Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) workers won a victory of sorts today in their struggle for a separation bonus (see CHALLENGE, 4/28).

The workers were demanding a 15,000-euro separation bonus (a total of 1,800,000 euros — $2,250,000) and a fund to tide them over until unemployment benefits kick in.

On April 17, a majority of the workers’ general assembly voted to end the one-week sit-down strike and lift the threat to burn down the factory after the prefect in Toulon promised to free up 450,000 euros for job training and to speed up the payment of unemployment benefits. Those measures were finalized today at a round-table meeting with the trade unions.

This, of course, is far less than what the workers were demanding, but they would have got nothing if they had not taken militant action. Only organizing for communist revolution can get workers off the treadmill of fighting for — and accepting — crumbs from the bosses’ table.

[Correction — PIP is owned by the U.S. company Heritage Worldwide, Inc., not Falic Fashion Group, as previously reported. CHALLENGE regrets the error.] J