20,000 Pound Meteor Explodes over Russia, Injuring Hundreds

Friday, February 15, 2013 by Common Dreams
- Common Dreams staff

The dramatic footage captured by a dashboard video camera in the Chelyabinsk region of Russia in the nation's south-central shows what scientists say was a more than 10 ton meteor entering the atmosphere at over 33,000 miles per hour.

Once meteors break through the atmosphere and explode, the pieces that actually hit the Earth's surface are called meteorites. It is so far unclear how much damage on the ground -- and over how large an area -- was caused by actually pieces of the exploded object or by the sonic boom that accompanied the initial explosion. Expert observers calculate that the meteor "pancaked" and incinerated approximately 25 miles above the ground.

The Associated Press reports:

The fall caused explosions that broke glass over a wide area. The Emergency Ministry says more than 500 people sought treatment after the blasts and that 34 of them were hospitalized.

"There was panic. People had no idea what was happening. Everyone was going around to people's houses to check if they were OK," said Sergey Hametov, a resident of Chelyabinsk, about 1500 kilometers (930 miles) east of Moscow, the biggest city in the affected region.

"We saw a big burst of light then went outside to see what it was and we heard a really loud thundering sound," he told The Associated Press by telephone.

Captured from another angle:

Lockouts: The Empire Strikes Back

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 by Common Dreams
by David Macaray

If you’re looking for evidence of just how confident, militant, and insufferably arrogant companies have become in recent years, look no further than the phenomenon of the lockout. A lockout is where a company closes its doors, refusing to allow its union employees to return to work until they accede to company demands—demands that typically call for staggering cuts in wages and benefits.

Unlike strikes—which, as the ultimate manifestation of employee dissatisfaction with management, are a universally recognized form of protest—lockouts are a form of extortion. A lockout represents an unambiguous threat, an ultimatum. Management figuratively places a gun to the employees’ heads and says, Take it or leave it.

There was a time not long ago when strikes were a regular part of the American economic landscape, and when, conversely, lockouts were about as scarce as hen’s teeth. In fact, lockouts were practically unheard of. But given that the business world has been recalibrated—and given the availability of replacement workers, part-timers and temps, coupled with the weakening of state and federal labor laws—strikes are now relatively uncommon, and, in a reversal, lockouts have become management’s new weapon of choice.

One of the uglier incidents occurred recently at Caterpillars’ London, Ontario, facility. After the membership refused company demands that they accept a whopping 55-percent wage cut, plus the elimination of the pension plan (along with other take-aways), the plant’s 465 production workers were abruptly locked out. No further negotiating, no compromises, no mediation; the company went directly to lockout mode. Then, after a 6-week lockout, Caterpillar announced it was shutting the plant down for good, and that everyone had lost their jobs. That’s what we politely meant by businesses “recalibrating.”

Strikes have always had a distinctly schizoid nature, being both dreaded and embraced, glorified and vilified Traditionally, when workers in a viable facility (i.e., one making a healthy profit) reached the point in contract negotiations where the company refused to budge, they hit the bricks. They shut the place down, walked off the job, thereby depriving the company of the ability to make a profit, and, very importantly, sacrificing their own economic well-being by no longer earning a wage or receiving benefits.

Because the stakes are so high, strikes have always been rightly regarded as spooky, monumental undertakings. While some strikes have been successful, many—perhaps most—have not. But successful or not, strikes need to be recognized as labor’s only real weapon. Depriving management of the opportunity to make money is the only bullet in the chamber; everything else is theatrics. Other than striking, what’s a union going to do to get the management’s attention—threaten to stand on the front lawn and scream insults through a megaphone?

Here’s a true story. In 1983 I was part of a union negotiating team that called a strike against a major manufacturing company, an action that put more than 700 men and women out on the street. It was a chaotic scene. Even though we got a 96-percent strike authorization vote prior to the shutdown, once the real thing happened, and the hammer dropped, people were understandably frightened and anxious. The strike lasted 57 days.

Looking to nip any problems in the bud, we immediately contacted the company’s HR rep and made clear our views regarding people crossing the picket line. Although we were a tight local, and didn’t anticipate scabs, you never know what people will do in a crisis. We told the company that if they allowed scabs to cross, we would be forced to retaliate by taking out full-page ads in local newspapers, exposing the company’s greed and stubbornness, and calling them bad names.

They didn’t take our peremptory salvo well. The strike was barely four hours old, and tensions were already running high. They told us to shut up, mind our own business, and not presume to lecture them on how to run their operation. But they also informed us that they had no intention of allowing people to cross over, believing that allowing people to cross would create more problems than it solved. We believed them.

But within a week or two, a handful of our guys tried to do just that. They approached at night (it was a 24-hour operation) hoping they wouldn’t be observed, and asked to be put to work. When the company refused, it occurred to them that being denied entry might very well constitute a “lockout.” While it was a known fact that strikers weren’t entitled to unemployment benefits, wouldn’t “locked-out” employees be eligible?

They went down to the unemployment office and made their case. They told the duty officer that even though their union had called a strike, they themselves wished to continue working, but the company wouldn’t let them. “Doesn’t that mean that this is a lockout and not a strike?” they asked eagerly. The duty officer seemed puzzled. She thought about it a moment and answered: “What’s a lockout?”

Greek Taxis, Doctors, Dentists on Anti-Austerity Strike

Thursday, September 8, 2011 by the Greek Reporter

by Apostolos Papapostolou 

 

ATHENS, Greece — Taxi drivers, tax collectors, doctors and garbage collectors in Greece all signaled a new round of strike action on Wednesday in response to government pledges for the swifter enforcement of austerity measures.

Taxi drivers called a 24-hour strike, to begin at 5 a.m. on Thursday, and hinted at more action on Saturday, after the government refused to amend legislation opening up their sector to competition.

As daily Kathimerini reports, according to the bill, which is to be submitted in Parliament next month, anyone will be able to apply for a taxi drivers’ license – as long as they do not have a criminal record, speak good Greek and pay an application charge, to be set somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 euros.

Assuming that the legislation is voted through Parliament, the first new licenses will be issued by the end of the year.

Cabbies – who vehemently object to the reforms, complaining that there are already too many taxis on Greek roads – caused havoc to the crucial tourism sector last month by not only striking for two-and-a-half weeks but also blocking ports, airports and roads.

The taxi drivers’ sector is not the only one up in arms over austerity.

Tax collectors called a 48-hour strike for next Monday and Tuesday, protesting plans by the government to suspend civil servants with reduced pay for 12 months.

Doctors, protesting planned cutbacks, are to start a two-day walkout on Thursday.

Athens’s municipal garbage collectors are to start rolling 48-hour work stoppages on Sunday, calling for the reinstatement of colleagues whose short-term contracts have expired.

And state school teachers are also to start rolling strikes from September 22.

Verizon Strike Expected to End Soon

Verizon Strike: As Delays Mount, It's Time for the Company to Bargain With Workers in Good Faith (Update: Strike May End Soon)

By Laura Clawson, Daily Kos
Posted on August 20, 2011

Update: According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Verizon Communications Inc. and union leaders will announce today that employees will return to work starting Tuesday morning, ending for a time, the longest and largest strike in recent labor history."

Though Verizon has claimed that its managers and replacement workers would be able to keep up with the workload of striking workers, reports of significant service delays are spreading. And with inexperienced people trying to do complex work and not knowing what they're doing, as seen below, no wonder.
 

In that video, striking workers actually step in to help prevent injury or damage. Another video shows replacement workers blowing a transformer, and that's not the end of the problems striking workers have witnessed. So no wonder that while "Verizon acknowledges 'minor' disruptions since the strike began on Aug. 7," Steven Greenhouse goes on to report some issues that sound less than minor.

Mr. Marsh, who just graduated from Buffalo State College with a degree in urban planning, wanted to order Verizon’s FiOS Internet and television services for his new apartment on West 49th Street in Manhattan. 

"They let me go through the whole signup and then at the end they said, 'There are no installation dates available. Someone will contact you,' " Mr. Marsh said. "That was probably a week ago. They were trying to make it seem like everything is O.K., like the service is there but it’s not. I thought it would be a couple of weeks, but it might end up being a couple of months. I decided to go with Time Warner instead."

Meanwhile, Verizon workers have taken the pickets to the homes of top executives, saying:

"One can't possibly go up to the mansions in Mendham and not be struck by the grossness of destroying the standard of living of working-class operators and technicians while living in the lap of luxury. It is worth marking the contrast," said Hetty Rosenstein, CWA's New Jersey director. [...]

Blackwater Mercenary Security For Verizon

by Unions.org

Wait. What? Blackwater? That private, for-profit, trigger-happy army that killed 17 civilians in Nisour Square in Baghdad in 2007? Yeah. THAT BLACKWATER.

I have just confirmed with Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 1104 that Blackwater is indeed being contracted by Verizon for security purposes. At this moment, CWA Local 1104 was not able to say how many security contractors have been hired or where they will be working. I’m sure more information will follow.

Blackwater, now called Xe, is considered to be the world’s largest and most powerful mercenary army. In 2004, they had 2,300 men actively deployed around the world and another 20,000 contractors ready to go. They claim that they have trained tens of thousands of security personnel since 1998.

In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, The Nation’s Jeremy Scahill reported that, “I saw Blackwater mercenaries speeding up and down the streets in unmarked cars, heavily armed with M4 machine guns, flak jackets, other weapons strapped to their legs.”

The New York Times reports:

The company and its executives and personnel have faced civil lawsuits, criminal charges and Congressional investigations surrounding accusations of murder and bribery. In April 2010, federal prosecutors announced weapons charges against five former senior Blackwater executives, including its former president, Erik D. Prince.

Nearly four years after the federal government began a string of investigations and criminal prosecutions against company personnel, some of the cases have fallen apart, burdened by legal obstacles including the difficulties of obtaining evidence in war zones, of gaining proper jurisdiction for prosecutions in American civilian courts, and of overcoming immunity deals given to defendants by American officials on the scene.

But in April 25, 2011, a federal appeals court reopened the criminal case against four former American military contractors accused of manslaughter in connection with the Nisour Square shooting in 2007.

At the onset of the strike, Verizon employed the services of the NJ State Police to escort trucks and non-union workers through picket lines. Now, Verizon’s hiring of a for-profit army during the strike proves two things. First that this is indeed a war on the middle class, and second, that Verizon will bear any expense to win this war.

Can you imagine a country where the billion dollar corporations have the world’s largest and deadliest private, for-profit army at their disposal? What would Blackwater guards actually do on a picket line? I guess we will find out soon enough.

I already wrote about how the un-trained, non-union replacement workers are violating Verizon safety rules and costing the company thousands by making mistakes on the job, most notably by destroying a Verizon bucket truck. In addition to that, Verizon spent $20,000 in postage to mail letters to striking union workers stating that they are terminating their health care on August 31. A union delegate for the IBEW also said that Verizon is offering contractors in Florida $75 an hour, plus hotel rooms, to come up north to work as non-union replacements, but they refuse to keep the terms of the previous union contract.

Verizon said that the concessions they are seeking on the striking union workers from the IBEW and CWA will save their company $1 billion a year. So far, Verizon has refused to budge on these demands. I wonder how much longer Verizon can refuse to sit down at the bargaining table before their union busting activities exceeds that $1 billion mark. For a company sitting on $100 billion in revenue with net profits of $6 billion last year, $1 billion seems like chump change.

The Verizon Strike as the Next Wisconsin

Saturday, August 13, 2011 by Dissent Magazine

by Mark Engler

 

The picket lines are up. This past weekend 45,000 Verizon workers on the East Coast, represented by the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), went on strike. The cause of the strike was the company’s attempts to win massive concessions from the unions. Verizon argued that the employees should give up gains they had won over many years of struggle and negotiation in previous contract fights.

As the Wall Street Journal put it, “Verizon Communications Inc. is seeking some of the biggest concessions in years from its unions.” Demands include the weakening of health-care benefits, cuts in pensions, reduced job security, and elimination of paid holidays such as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. This despite the fact that the company reported billions in profit last year, and that, in the words of New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse, “Verizon’s top five executives received a total of $258 million in compensation, including stock options, over the last four years.” The unions argue that Verizon has made some $20 billion in profit in the same time period, and Citizens for Tax Justice has pointed out that the company has done so while paying little to nothing in corporate income taxes.

Without a doubt, this is a conflict of national significance. As Bob Master, CWA District 1 legislative and political director, explained Wednesday in a conference call with supporters,

This is an enormously profitable company, which we believe is trying to take advantage of an anti-union environment and, in a sense, to replicate at a giant private-sector corporation what the governors of Ohio, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have been trying to do to the public sector. Our members feel very strongly that we need to draw a line here.

The parallel to Wisconsin is apt for several reasons. First, like the Republican elected officials in their attacks on unionized schoolteachers and other public employees, Verizon is taking aim at one of the last bastions of the American middle class. As a main strategy in its public relations, the company is trying to stoke resentment about the fact that the CWA and IBEW workers actually have living-wage jobs. It is hoping that “I don’t have a pension, why should they” logic will carry the day.

Accordingly, on Wednesday Verizon took out a full-page ad in the Philadelphia Inquirer suggesting that a typical employee makes $80,600 in annual pay and $42,000 in benefits. The union disputes this claim, contending that salaries are generally in the $60,000 to $77,000 range, and that benefits are less costly than the company would suggest. But, regardless, the debate over numbers misses some critical questions: What’s wrong with workers sharing in the profits of a healthy corporation? Isn’t that the way our economy is supposed to work?

(On a side note, it’s always a treat when companies plead poverty at the negotiating table and then turn around and spend big bucks on media spots, anti-union consultants, and pricey PR firms—but that’s another story.)

The fate of 45,000 middle-class jobs is a big deal for all of America. Last month, the entire U.S. economy had a net gain of only 117,000 jobs. Not only is that for the whole country, it represents a pretty decent month given the numbers from the past year. Furthermore, almost all of the new jobs now being created are low-wage. Given these realities—and the fact that concentrating all wealth in the hands of the rich is a very bad strategy for creating the kind of demand the economy needs to rebound—what happens to the Verizon workers is a matter of broad public concern.

Bob Master is right that Verizon’s aggressive bargaining stance, like Governor Scott Walker’s public-sector power grab, is the product of a political climate in which corporate interests feel they can do whatever they want to working people, and employees will have no recourse. The Verizon strike is unfortunately akin to Wisconsin in that it is a defensive battle—an effort to stop tragic rollbacks in previously established standards of fair employment.

The background for the contract dispute is that Verizon is now making most of its profits from its wireless services. While a small number of wireless technicians are involved in the strike, that part of the company is mostly non-union. In an ideal world, CWA and IBEW would be able to “bargain to organize,” balancing any concessions at the negotiating table for current union members with agreements that the company will remain truly neutral and allow workers at Verizon Wireless to make their own decision about whether or not to unionize. But this is not an ideal world. Like in Wisconsin, labor and its allies face a difficult fight merely to stave off the worst of a rabidly anti-union assault.

That said, there is a case for hope. The mass protests in Madison earlier this year gave some cause for optimism that a new type of energetic, broad-based, community-labor mobilization might become a lasting force in that state’s politics—and become a model for movements in other parts of the country. Wisconsinites’ success this week in recalling some Republican State Senators (although not as many as hoped) suggested that the struggle will be a long one, but that progressive efforts could have some real legs.

As for the strike, all those who have been wondering when working America will be fed up enough to finally stand up and fight should not sit this one out. If the Verizon strike becomes a rallying point in this country for a movement against runaway corporate power and for a fairer economy, it could have much broader implications than what contract terms are ultimately hammered out for those now walking the picket lines. That these workers are not rolling over in the face of company insistence on concessions is important and courageous. And they deserve widespread support.

***

Those on the East Coast can find a picket line to visit here.

Supporters all over the country will soon be able to “adopt a Verizon Wireless store” in their area and help to organize pickets at that location.

Finally, without even leaving your computer, you can sign the petition in support of the 45,000 CWA and IBEW workers on strike.

Verizon Strike

When Sports Loses Its Soul

A League of Fans
By RALPH NADER

Why do many serious readers of newspapers go first to the Sports section? Maybe because they want to read about teams playing fun games by sports journalists and columnists, who have more freedom to use imaginative words and phrases than others in their craft.

The trouble is that ever-more organized and commercialized sports are squeezing the fun out of the games. I'm not just referring to struggles between multimillionaire players against billionaire owners--as in the current NFL lockout and the looming NBA imbroglio. I am referring to what our League of Fans Sports Policy Director, Ken Reed, calls the "win-at-all-costs (WAAC) and profit-at-all-costs (PAAC) mentalities, policies and decisions that are resulting in a variety of abuses from the pros all the way to Little League." When WAAC and PAAC run amok--and what's best for the players, the fans and the game are shoved aside--"sport begins to lose its soul."

In his first of ten "League of Fans" reports, Reed makes the case against this "soul sickness" in a 27 page Sports Manifesto (www.leagueoffans.org). The range of endemic and often worsening problems is startling for how often they have been exposed without anything significantly being done about them.

Here is a list of Reed's choices for civic action:

• Academic corruption in college and high school athletic programs.

• Rampant commercialization from the pros to our little leagues.

• Publicly-financed stadiums for wealthy owners.

• The perversity of forcing loyal fans to purchase personal seat licenses (PSLs) in pro and college football just to have the right to buy season tickets.

• The sports cartel in Division I football known as the Bowl Championship Series (BCS)--which limits revenues and opportunities (e.g., a legitimate chance at a national championship) for the conferences and schools left on the outside.

• Work stoppages in the professional sports leagues in which fans have no voice.

• Exorbitant ticket and concession prices at taxpayer-funded stadiums (where most, if not all, ticket, concession, merchandise and parking revenues typically go to the franchise owners). In addition, there are also television blackouts from these taxpayer-financed stadiums.

• A focus on elite athletic teams in high schools and middle schools at the expense of diminishing intramural programs and physical education classes for all students.

• The practice of requiring college athletes to pay their own medical bills, even though they were injured while playing for their university.

• Disparities in opportunities for females, disabled individuals, and people of color despite Title IX and other civil rights advances.

• The proliferation of youth club sports organizations that have a financial vs. an educational mission.

• The specialization and professionalization of young athletes at earlier and earlier ages.

• The increasing use of performance-enhancing drugs at all ages, by both males and females.

• The erosion of the core ideals, values and ethics of sports, resulting in escalating incidents of poor sportsmanship.

• An increase in sports injuries, most alarmingly concussions.

• A shocking increase in obesity, accompanied by a decline in physical fitness--especially among our youth.

• Dehumanizing coaches at all levels, most disturbingly, at the youth level.

As a college varsity player, a coach, marketer, teacher and author, Reed is in touch with many worried and upset sports lovers. They include parents, current and retired players, leading analysts, academics, educators, physicians, reporters and civil rights advocates. League of Fans, which I started, wants to build a strong and growing reform movement not just to curb the "excesses of the monied interests," to use a Jeffersonian phrase, but to open up opportunities for more participatory sports right down to the neighborhood levels. We have too few players and too many spectators--a reality that sports journalism should pay more attention to regularly.

There is a problem afflicting sports journalism and its comparatively immense space and time devoted to professional sports. It goes beyond a largely indifferent attitude toward this imbalance between spectators and participatory sports. Even though the concerns of many sports-lovers are based on the occasional investigatory reports or columns documenting abuses, when people acting as citizens try to do something about them, their efforts receive little, if any media coverage.

So what's the point to these exposes other than to make readers and viewers angry, cynical or frustrated, if when the readers use this information to follow up and sound the alarm to do something, the sports media looks the other way and gives the space to some athlete who is pouting or showing up late for practice?

Sports journalism has to introspect a little about a larger view of newsworthiness. Otherwise they continue to uncritically cover the big league sports business that, with few exceptions, knows few restraints to its greed and insensitivity toward fans whom they are increasingly turning off.

When is It Time for a General Strike?

Standing Up to a Power Grab
By LAURA FLANDERS

Sometimes things fall apart and sometime they flow together.

As the Wisconsin State Senate rammed through their union-busting bill Wednesday night, people in the capitol chanted "General strike!" And I heard an echo. Not of 1934, the last time there was a general strike in the US, but earlier.

It was 1909, in the crowded Great Hall at New York's Cooper Union; a big union boss was talking about talks and a 16-year-old girl shouted out from the back: "WALK OUT."

More than 30,000 shirtwaist factory workers walked off their jobs after that. This week's International Women's Day celebrates the anniversary of that strike, by mostly young, immigrant women like 16 year old Clara Lemlich. 700 women were arrested, many more beaten and spat on for being "On strike against God."

They struck for eleven weeks. It was the first successful uprising of women workers in this country--but their success didn't go far enough.

Had, it, the 1911 Triangle Factory fire that killed 146 of these workers two years later might never have happened. A documentary about the fire is available now from PBS's website, another one's coming from HBO. At the March 25 centennial commemoration, the names of all the dead will be read.

But fewer Americans remember the demands these women and girls made... Not just for wage increases, but for the ability to have a say in the conditions of their workplace--the workplace that killed them. Those are the rights that will be taken from American workers if the Republicans' power grab is allowed to stand.

Imagine, a century ago, if the rest of New York had stood with the women of the factories. Imagine if instead of 20,000, it had been 2 million workers marching. Or if it were to be today.

When the People Lead, Leaders Will Follow

The War in Madison
By CHRISTOPHER FONS  
 

Day five and six in Madison and momentum continues to build as finally Milwaukee Public School teachers, the largest district in the state, called in sick en masse and shut down the district.  The nation has now been inspired by Wisconsinites as they put their jobs on the line to defend the right to collectively bargain for public employees.

Thursday’s “strike” by the Democratic Senators -- they hopped on a bus and decamped to Rockford, IL to deny quorum in the State Senate --  showed that if the people act, the leaders will follow.  The same phenomenon has occurred within the teachers’ unions both in local unions and statewide.  The leadership of both WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council) the state-wide organization and the largest local, MTEA (Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association), have grudgingly endorsed job actions after members took matters into their own hands and starting calling in on the second day of the demonstrations (Tuesday).  In the case of WEAC, the leadership followed the lead of the Madison local MTI (Madison Teachers Incorporated), who went out on their own without any prodding from above.  Madison Teachers and support staff stayed out all week and meet Sunday in a mass meeting to decide what to do Monday and the coming week.  In Milwaukee one school took the lead on Tuesday and by Wednesday night the MTEA leadership had no choice but to endorse action, which led to a system-wide shut down by Friday.

35 smaller school districts across the state have also been closed or had opening times pushed back as teachers realized that now is the time to defend their collective bargaining rights.

Saturday morning broke with a crisp arctic cold but everyone in the movement was warmed by the realization we had now gone international.  One picture in particular inspired us all: that of a young Egyptian man in Tahrir Square with a sign stating “Egypt Supports Wisconsin Workers: One World, One Pain.”

 

By Wednesday MSNBC picked up the story and egofest was on as each of the liberal talking heads tried to position themselves as the savior of the people.  Big Ed and Maddow showed they have a little fight in them as they recognized the historic nature of the moment but by the end of the week the Oprah-like narratives emerged and for Maddow it was all about the Democratic Party.  Even Ed knew this was baloney as he has rightly asked, again and again, where are the Democrats?  Jesse Jackson showed up on Friday and seems to be the only national Democratic stalwart with any links to the popular movement left.  Obama’s comments were typically milktoast in an interview with a Milwaukee TV journalist stating it “seemed like” Walker was going out of his way to bust the union.

The buzz on Friday was a little ominous as talk of a mass Tea Party rally irritated the crowd.  The local and national media salivated as visions of hippies in dreadlocks screaming at Joe the Plumber danced in their heads. Sarah Palin was rumored to be coming as she tweeted her “Union Brothers and Sisters” to come to Madison to support union busting Governor “Snot” Walker. But boy were they disappointed as “CHAOS IN MADISON” became 80,000 mild mannered middle of the road Midwesterners came to the capitol and packed the streets in an orderly fashion to show solidarity with the public sector workers of Wisconsin while a few befuddled white dudes told them they were making too much. 

Even the Tea Party folk seemed quite humbled as their paltry numbers (a thousand or two?) were dwarfed by the mass of determination that encircled them.  The goal of the organizers and police was to keep the two sides apart by dividing the capitol in half but because our crowd was so large this became an impossibility and the crowd, like the rank and file members of the unions across the state, created their own path and made history in Madison once again. 

This week will be a test as many will be pressured to return to work and the renegade Senators tire of phone calls from Good Morning America.

"Work Harder to Earn Less": Why the French Are Raising Hell in the Streets

The establishment is trying to delegitimize the French strikers fighting for economic justice.
By Diana Johnstone, CounterPunch
Posted on October 25, 2010

The French are at it again -- out on strike, blocking transport, raising hell in the streets, and all that merely because the government wants to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62. They must be crazy.

That, I suppose, is the way the current mass movement in France is seen -- or at least shown -- in much of the world, and above all in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Perhaps the first thing that needs to be said about the current mass strikes in France is that they are not really about “raising the retirement age from 60 to 62”. This is rather like describing the capitalist free market as a sort of lemonade stand. A propaganda simplification of very complex issues.

It allows the commentators to go crashing through open doors. After all, they observe sagely, people in other countries work until 65 or beyond, so why should the French balk at 62? The population is aging, and if the retirement age isn’t raised, the pension system will go broke paying out pensions to so many ancients.

However, the current protest movement is not about “raising the retirement age from 60 to 62”. It is about much more.

For one thing, this movement is an expression of exasperation with the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, which blatantly favors the super-rich over the majority of working people in this country. He was elected on the slogan, “Work more to earn more”, and the reality turns out to be work harder to earn less. The Labor Minister who introduced the reform, Eric Woerth, got a job for his wife on the office staff of the richest woman in France, Liliane Bettencourt, heir to the Oreal cosmetics giant, at the same time that, as budget minister, he was overlooking her massive tax evasions. While tax benefits for the rich help empty the public coffers, this government is doing what it can to tear down the whole social security system that emerged after World War II on the pretext that “we can’t afford it”.

The retirement issue is far more complex than “the age of retirement”. The legal age of retirement means the age at which one may retire. But the pension depends on the number of years worked, or to be more precise, on the number of cotisations (payments) into the joint pension scheme. On the grounds of “saving the system from bankruptcy”, the government is gradually raising the number of years of cotisations from 40 to 43 years, with indications that this will be stretched out further in the future.

As education is prolonged, and employment begins later, to get a full pension most people will have to work until 65 or 67. A “full pension” comes to about 40 per cent of wages at the time of retirement.

But even so, that may not be possible. Full time jobs are harder and harder to get, and employers do not necessarily want to retain older employees. Or the enterprise goes out of business and the 58-year old employee finds himself permanently out of work. It is becoming harder and harder to work full-time in a salaried job for over 40 years, however much one may want to. Thus in practice, the Sarkozy-Woerth reform simply means reducing pensions.

That, in fact, is what the European Union has recommended to all member states as an economy measure, intended, as with most current reforms, to reduce social costs in the name of “competitivity” -- meaning competition to attract investment capital.

Less qualified workers, who instead of pursuing studies may have entered the work force young, say at age eighteen, will have subscribed to the scheme for forty-two years at age 60 if indeed they manage to be employed all that time. Statistics show that their life expectancy is relatively short, so they need to leave early in order to enjoy any retirement at all.

The French system is based on solidarity between generations, in that the cotisations of today’s workers go to pay today’s retired people’s pensions. The government has subtly tried to pit one generation against another, by claiming that it is necessary to protect the future of today’s youth, who are paying for the “baby boom” pensioners. It is therefore extremely significant that this week, high school and university students massively began to enter the protest strike movement. This solidarity between generations is a major blow to the government.

The youth are even much more radical than the older trade unionists. They are very aware of the increasing difficulty of building a career. The trend is for qualified personnel to enter the work force later and later, having spent years getting an education. With the difficulty of finding a stable, full-time job, many depend on their parents until age 30. It is simple arithmetic to see that in this case, there will be no full retirement until after age 70.

Productivity and Deindustrialization

As has become standard practice, the authors of the neo-liberal reforms present them not as a choice but as a necessity. There is no alternative. We must compete on the global market. Do it our way or we go broke. And this reform was essentially dictated by the European Union, in a 2003 report, concluding that making people work longer was necessary to cut pension costs.

These dictates prevent any discussion of the two basic factors underlying the pension problem: productivity and deindustrialization.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the former Socialist Party man who heads the relatively new Left Party, is about the only political leader to point out that even if there are fewer workers to contribute to pension schemes, the difference can be made up by the rise in productivity. Indeed, French worker productivity is among the very highest in the world (higher than Germany, for example). Moreover, although France has the second longest life expectancy in Europe, it also has the highest birth rate. And even if jobholders are fewer, because of unemployment, the wealth they produce should be adequate to maintain pension levels.

Aha, but here’s the catch: for decades, as productivity goes up, wages stagnate. The profits from increased productivity are siphoned off into the financial sector. The bloating of the financial sector and the stagnation of purchasing power has led to the financial crisis -- and the government has preserved the imbalance by bailing out the profligate financiers.

So logically, preserving the pension system basically calls for raising wages to account for higher productivity -- a very major policy change.

But there is another critical problem linked to the pension issue: deindustrialization. In order to maintain the high profits drained by the financial sector, and avoid paying higher wages, one industry after another has moved its production to cheap labor countries. Profitable enterprises shut down as capital goes looking for even higher profit.

Is this merely the inevitable result of the rise of new industrial powers in Asia? Is a lowering of living standards in the West inevitable due to their rise in the East?

Perhaps. However, if shifting industrial production to China ends up lowering purchasing power in the West, then Chinese exports will suffer. China itself is taking the first steps toward strengthening its own domestic market. “Export-led growth” cannot be a strategy for everyone. World prosperity actually depends on strengthening both domestic production and domestic markets. But this requires the sort of deliberate industrial policy which is banned by the bureaucracies of globalization: the World Trade Organization and the European Union. They operate on the dogmas of “comparative advantage” and “free competition”. On grounds of free trade, China is actually facing sanctions for promoting its own solar energy industry, vitally necessary to end the deadly air pollution that plagues that country. The world economy is being treated as a big game, where following the “rules of the free market” is more important than the environment or the basic vital necessities of human beings.

Only the financiers can win this game. And if they lose, well, they just get more chips for another game from servile governments.

Impasse?

Where will it all end?

It should end in something like a democratic revolution: a complete overhaul of economic policy. But there are very strong reasons why this will not happen.

For one thing, there is no political leadership in France ready and able to lead a truly radical movement. Mélenchon comes the closest, but his party is new and its base is still narrow. The radical left is hamstrung by its chronic sectarianism. And there is great confusion among people revolting without clear programs and leaders.

Labor leaders are well aware that employees lose a day’s pay for every day they go on strike, and they are in fact always anxious to find ways to end a strike. Only the students do not suffer from that restraint. The trade unionists and Socialist Party leaders are demanding nothing more drastic than that the government open negotiations about details of the reform. If Sarkozy weren’t so stubborn, this is a concession the government could make which might restore calm without changing very much.

It would take the miraculous emergence of new leaders to carry the movement forward.

But even if this should happen, there is a more formidable obstacle to basic change: the European Union. The EU, built on popular dreams of peaceful and prosperous united Europe, has turned into a mechanism of economic and social control on behalf of capital, and especially of financial capital. Moreover, it is linked to a powerful military alliance, NATO.

If left to its own devices, France might experiment in a more socially just economic system. But the EU is there precisely to prevent such experiments.

Anglo-Saxon Attitudes

On October 19, the French international TV channel France 24 ran a discussion of the strikes between four non-French observers. The Portuguese woman and the Indian man seemed to be trying, with moderate success, to understand what was going on. In contrast, the two Anglo-Americans (the Paris correspondent of Time magazine and Stephen Clarke, author of 1000 Years of Annoying the French) amused themselves demonstrating self-satisfied inability to understand the country they write about for a living.

Their quick and easy explanation: “The French are always going on strike for fun because they enjoy it.”

A little later in the program the moderator showed a brief interview with a lycée student who offered serious comments on pensions issue. Did that give pause to the Anglo-Saxons?

The response was instantaneous. How sad to see an 18-year-old thinking about pensions when he should be thinking about girls!

So whether they do it for fun, or whether they do it instead of having fun, the French are absurd to Anglo-Americans accustomed to telling the whole world what it should do.

France Erupts! Contrasting with the US (2 articles)

Sarkozy Under Siege
By PHILIPPE MARLIÈRE

When he entered the Elysée palace in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy dreamed of a glorious destiny. Enthusiastic commentators predicted that his casual populism would revamp the Bonapartist right, and that his Gallic brand of neoliberal policies would sell the “American dream” to a mistrustful population. Things have not gone according to plan. Sarkozy wanted to be the French JFK; today he looks more like Louis XVI awaiting trial in 1793. He may escape the guillotine, but his presidency is now under siege.

The French are deeply unhappy with the way they have been governed, but their main grievance is about pension reform, which is seen as a cynical ploy to make ordinary people work more for inferior entitlements, while bailed-out bankers and the rich get tax rebates and continue to enjoy the high life. Over the past month, six national demonstrations have gathered together an estimated average of 3.5 million per action day. The latest, on Tuesday, was again a big success.

The movement is popular: 69% of the nation back the strikes and demonstrations; 73% want the government to withdraw the reform. And high school pupils have now joined the fray. Over 1,000 high schools are on strike as the youngsters take to the streets to protest against mass unemployment and the raising of the retirement age. The government has patronisingly labelled them as “manipulated kids”, but these comments have backfired and served only to galvanise the young, who have hardened their resistance and taken further interest in the reform. When interviewed by the media, pupils come across as articulate and knowledgable. Parents worry about their children's future, so they will not stop them from striking.

In France, strikes and demonstrations are seen as a civilised and effective way to enact one's citizenship. Students are expected to join marches from an early age, receiving by the same token a “political education”. France's youth have always scared governments because of their radical potential. Student demonstrations of late have been invariably popular because people know that the young have been badly hit by unemployment over the past 30 years.

University students are preparing to strike as well. Sarkozy, like Louis XVI in 1789, does not seem to have grasped how volatile the situation has become. He should know better. Since May 1968, all governments have been forced on the ropes every time youngsters have entered a social movement. This time it could prove crucial in helping to reach a tipping point; a stage in the conflict where the balance of power switches from the government toward those opposing the pension reform.

Last week, Sarkozy had to send in riot police to reopen fuel depots blocked by strikes in several places. Yet several hundred filling stations had to shut because they had run out of supplies. Lorry and train drivers are also starting strike actions.

How can the current situation be interpreted? Undoubtedly, the rebellion seems durable and runs deeper than the question of pensions. The reform has triggered a web of collective actions that are now spreading fast. Discontent is fuelled by low incomes and unemployment, but also by the impact of the crisis on people's daily life, the arrogance of the Sarkozy presidency, corruption cases and police brutality.

There is a sense of moral outrage at the imposition of a neoliberal medicine to cure an illness caused by the same neoliberal policies. The French are not hostile to reforms: they just demand those that redistribute wealth and allocate resources to those who need it the most. Any comparison with May '68, however, may be hasty. Then, France was experiencing a period of economic prosperity. Today, events occur in the context of a deep economic depression. This is why the political situation is potentially explosive. Radicalised workers and youngsters are forcing the unions to up their game. The normally toothless Socialist party has pledged to return the retirement age to 60, should it come back to power in 2012.

One can envisage two possible scenarios. Opposition to the reform hardens, in which case Sarkozy may have to water it down or even withdraw it. This would mark the first major popular victory in Europe against the post-2008 neoliberal order. Alternatively, Sarkozy stays put and imposes a deeply unpopular reform, in which case the political price to pay for the incumbent president would be very high, should he decide to run again in 2012.

*****

Why French Protestors Have It Right 

By MARK WEISBROT

The demonstrations that have rocked France this past week highlight some of its differences from the United States. This photo, for example, shows the difference between rioting in baseball-playing versus soccer-playing countries. In the U.S., we would pick up the tear gas canister and THROW it – rather than kick it -- back at the police.

More importantly the French have decided to take to the streets in the millions to defend hard-won retirement gains – including large-scale strikes and work stoppages. French populist rage is being directed in a positive direction, unlike in the United States where it is most prominently being mobilized to elect political candidates who will do their best to increase the suffering of working and middle-class citizens. (It must be emphasized, since the media sometimes forgets to make the distinction, that only a tiny percentage of France’s demonstrators have engaged in any kind of property damage and even fewer in violence, with all but these few protesting peacefully.)

I have to admit it was perplexing to watch the French elect President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007, a man who campaigned on the idea that France had to make its economy more “efficient” like America’s. In reality, he couldn’t have picked a worse time to peddle this mumbo-jumbo. The housing bubble was already bursting in the United States and would soon cause not only our own Great Recession but also drag most of the world economy into the swamp with it. So much for that particular model of economic dynamism.

But Sarkozy had a lot of help from the major media, which was quite enchanted with the American model at the time and helped promote a number of myths that formed part of his campaign. Among these were the idea that French social protections and employment benefits were “unaffordable in a global economy,” and that employers would hire more people if it were easier to fire them, and if taxes were cut for the rich.

Sarkozy has recently abandoned one of his most politically unpopular tax cuts for the rich, but there may be others. But he had also promised not to raise the retirement age for the public pension system. This has contributed to the mass outrage at his current proposal to raise it from 60 to 62, for those taking the reduced benefits, and from 65 to 67, for full benefits. (In the United States Social Security system, most people opt for the reduced benefit that is available beginning at age 62; full benefits are available, for those born after 1959, at 67.)

Once again most of the media thinks the French are being unrealistic, and should just get with the program like everyone else. The argument is that life expectancy is increasing, so “we all” have to work longer. However this is a bit like reporting half of a baseball score (or soccer if you prefer). On the other side is the fact that productivity and GDP also increase over time, and so it is indeed possible for the French to choose to spend more years in retirement, and pay for it.

France’s retirement age was last set in 1983. Since then, GDP per person has increased by 45 percent. The increase in life expectancy is very small by comparison. The number of workers per retiree declined from 4.4 in 1983 to 3.5 in 2010. But the growth of national income was vastly more than enough to compensate for the demographic changes, including the change in life expectancy. The situation is similar going forward: the growth in national income over the next 30 or 40 years will be much more than sufficient to pay for the increases in pension costs due to demographic changes, while still allowing future generations to enjoy much higher living standards than people today. It is simply a social choice as to how many years people want to live in retirement and how they want to pay for it.

If the French want to keep the retirement age as is, there are plenty of ways to finance future pension costs without necessarily raising the retirement age. One of them, which has support among the French left – and which Sarkozy claims to support at the international level -- would be a tax on financial transactions. Such a “speculation tax” could raise billions of dollars of revenue – as it currently does in the U.K. – while simultaneously discouraging speculative trading in financial assets and derivatives. The French unions and protesters are demanding that the government consider some of these more progressive alternatives.

It is therefore perfectly reasonable to expect that as life expectancy increases, workers should be able to spend more of the lives in retirement. And that is what most French citizens expect. They may not have seen all of the arithmetic but they can see intuitively that as a country grows richer year after year, they should not have to spend more of their lives working. An increase in the retirement age is a highly regressive cut that will hit working people hardest. Poorer workers have shorter life expectancies and would lose a higher proportion of their retirement years. Workers who have to retire early because of unemployment or other hardships will take a benefit cut as a result of this change. And of course this cut would not matter to the richest people who do not rely on the public pension system for most of their retirement income.

France has a lower level of inequality than most of the OECD countries and is one of only 5 – out of 30 OECD countries -- that saw inequality decrease from the mid-80s to the mid-2000s. It also had the largest decrease in inequality in the group, although all of it was from the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties. The country has until now resisted at least some of the changes that have rolled the clock back for working and especially low-income citizens in the high-income countries. The European authorities (including the European Commission, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund) are currently accelerating these regressive changes in the weaker Eurozone economies (e.g. Greece, Spain, and Ireland). All of these institutions and many politicians are trying to use the current economic problems of Europe as a pretext to enact right-wing reforms.

Polls show more than 70 percent support for France’s strikers despite the inconvenience of fuel shortages and other disruptions. The French are already sick of right-wing government, and that is also part of what is generating the protests. France has a stronger left in than many other countries, and one that has the ability and willingness to organize mass protest, work stoppages, and educational efforts. They are fighting for the future of Europe, and it is a good example for others. Hopefully, here in the United States, we will be able to beat back any proposed benefit cuts to our much less generous Social Security system, that are looming on the horizon.