I Dyed My Hair But My Roots Are Lighter

sfida Directive Bolkestein: "Dumping" social and international challenges

The labor movement seems to have found a common theme around which to mobilize the international level: the Directive on Services in the Internal Market, also known as the Bolkestein directive. The directive, which would abolish the borders in the provision of services between Member States is criticized on for his "country of origin principle." Under this principle, companies registered in any State member of the European Union not only could operate in any other, but also employ workers to provide these services remain subject to the laws of the country in which these companies were registered. There are fears that the world of capital use this law to take advantage of lax labor and environmental laws of some other countries where these scales are higher. Thus would begin an inevitable race to the bottom.

The Lisbon Strategy and the erosion of the social model

interests of capitalists and workers are called to face, because what moves the world of business is the law of profit. While employers, both industry and services, seeks to cut costs, and workers, particularly in countries "developing" and other areas with low wages, trying to earn more. Those living in more fortunate surroundings, on the other hand, try to maintain their living standards and combat any attack on them.

the destruction of capitalism being an option that fewer people deck, opens before us a rather poor repertoire of possible scenarios, each of them full of unavoidable problems. There he gives us a strong national protectionism interventionism in the economy, but this solution is often forgotten that the levels of development of capitalism have been achieved through decades and even centuries of systematic use of capital, economic imperialism, economic exploitation and environmental. Others accept globalization as inevitable and encourage us to meet this challenge by being more "competitive." And finally, are the acrobats trying to find a compromise, with some exercises designed to competitiveness in the global market while maintaining a degree of protection high enough to ensure that the state (and, more importantly, corporations) do not have to face any social revolution.

is in this context that the European Union, dominated by some of the world's richest countries, is facing economic and political realities not only of a globalized world, but also a growing number of citizens within their own borders .

Those governments that proclaim themselves "defenders of the social model" are, in fact, making a sort of theatrical performance since, despite considerable political pluralism in the EU, it is committed for a long time to erode that model and replaced by a more competitive more focused on the extraction of surplus value.

The Lisbon agenda is a plan that affects a long time, the workforce in the EU, but the labor movement and the Left have not given the clarion call, even some have welcomed the strategy . (1) has been misunderstood because of the ability of capitalism to use seductive language: the unemployed worker has been transformed into "breaks in working life" and having to leave your home to get a job has become "freedom." Labour flexibility is needed to "create jobs" and "social" means that negotiated the slow erosion of your working conditions with union bureaucracies and put in writing a law on "protection of workers" that will save you some discomfort, but not the inevitable slide towards global competitiveness for survival. Bolkestein

If the language of the Lisbon Agenda was too ambiguous to raise too many alarms, at least the Bolkestein Directive has attracted more attention. There have been mass protests related to it and there is an ongoing campaign in many European countries.

Unfortunately, the debate took a turn often xenophobic and protectionist, as occurred with propaganda about the "Polish plumber" related not only with the enlargement of the EU but also with the Directive. This leads us to a series of questions, like what is proposed as an alternative and an EU directive could not solve the wage gap.

The first aspect of the Bolkestein directive, freedom of establishment, business has been a demand for at least the last 30 years and has been partly transformed into reality with the adoption of the European Business Register (SE) in 2004. With the SE, a company registered and operating out of a country (provided you have physical headquarters in that country), can change its place of business without liquidation of the original company or re-register. This mode of establishment has many limitations, including some capital, since this does not extend to most self-employed (like our friend the plumber), many of which are also limited by regulations governing the recognition of professional qualifications, etc ...

However, the principle of country of origin that provides greater benefits for entrepreneurs, as it would avoid the local minimum wage, those annoying vultures profit margins.

Speakers of the Directive have of course been quick to point out that a country can turn to numerous exceptions. Articles 17-19 (in addition to allowing governments stay out of the Directive some services, such as postal) allow governments to adopt waivers for reasons of public health and safety or environmental reasons. In other words, these "freedoms" economy may be (and will) be selectively regulated by the Member States.

This does not mean that governments will make use of them, although it seems that it will, especially in areas with strong protectionist tendencies or large, active labor unions.

Such measures, however, offer no solution to the basic problems of wage disparity, or global level or at European level.

Speakers of Bolkestein also point out that one of the objectives of the directive is to be some harmonization of the EU in strategic areas. In other words, they claim that if the rates in certain areas are harmonized, the principle of country of origin would not be an instrument to take advantage of lower standards. Just do not see any concrete effort of harmonization on many key issues, the harmonization of the talk is that related to debt settlement, the approval of the accounts, the consumer protection and health. And, although the latter may seem an undertaking, the EU experience has shown that the approval of scales leads to adopt lower standards in many countries. (2)

The only area where there could be a revolutionary change is that of equal pay for example, minimum wages for the entire European Union and for each branch. The reason why an EU minimum wage alone would not be sufficient and would require minimum wages by industry is because, for example, we currently find skilled Polish nurses and dentists working in the north of England by the minimum wage it is far from the usual pay in these professions, is a serious operation and lowers wages. But this will never be proposed by the bureaucrats and neither is expected to be by some trade union, which certainly provide that they will be forced to negotiate lower, or by some lower-paid workers, who will see it disappear one of the incentives were employers to hire them.

What solutions are presented, then? Controlled migration of the workforce is one of the possible political solutions, but not only would a unilateral solution, but also a violation of the principle of freedom of movement. I say it would be a unilateral solution because we hear often that this or that particular country needs workers qualified or they are not needed, but the other side of the coin are relations of power in which a richer country can get highly qualified doctors and engineers while the poorest suffered a brain drain. Ultimately, the brain drain and lack of improvements in wages and living conditions will only exacerbate the problem.

Many of the anti-Bolkestein silent in this situation. Just as with the original "anti-globalization", hopes to recruit a broad coalition, and indeed he has. Although the calls to "protect" the workforce may sound quite noble, I would ask who or who would be protective forces (although known to be the state). It would also be interested in knowing exactly how to protect the "social model by improving working conditions and wages of all equaling the European Union or closing the labor market and social benefits to foreigners? Or expect governments to implement measures to force the capitalists of the European Union to maintain high labor costs?

A radical perspective

When we see that a measure will undermine the conditions of life of an average worker, we should attack it because every concession to capitalism is a consolidation of its power. It is therefore logical that we clustered around slogans like "Stop Bolkestein" although, as in most campaigns for a single purpose, to a pyrrhic victory may be only because we would have only prevented the exacerbation of the problem, but we would not have escaped him. In addition, more than likely that if the Directive does not go ahead, another came after focusing the same goal. I do not intend to demoralize this cynicism, but to draw attention to an approach and a broader vision.

Within the context of the protest movements, we often find even radical activists calling for the "Protection" and "rights", which rests on the assumption that there is a body, either the State or extra-national institution, which has a regulation for the good of society above the interests of capital. This illusion is becoming more naive, the world of business and capitalist interests are strongly tied to governments. The moments in which the state plays the role of social protection are just cheap propaganda gestures at the expense of public money, obtained through our work and the opposition to the upper layers can take place only in relation to power and the wealth of society in this, some Nation-states have a clear disadvantage compared to the spectacle known as "protection of his subjects."

Many leftists believe that it is possible the passage of the State as holder of the capital strength and guarantor of the state as protector and social insurance. While this could be a considerable strengthening of its role, there is another perspective, its abolition and replacement by worker self-management and international federalism. The principle underlying the creation of a libertarian society would be put in place mechanisms to eliminate material inequalities and deprivation and, more importantly, to eliminating its causes. Within the limits of this article will not go into the analysis of the process of creating such a libertarian society, but I am convinced that: the key to result in an equitable future lies in divesting the state capital and its powers.

see as a challenge to the international labor movement (in this case in particular European) no pressure to make political liars, empty promises, not even getting back out of the directive, but the design mobilizations differently. Instead of a mass march planned, orchestrated, we want working people to put up independently and interconnected. The challenge is in getting union officials negotiated with the government and EU officials, or to understand each other, but the workers decide their actions and are organized horizontally, face-down mode to work in which subjects are as protected. The debate should begin a deeper level, the possibilities for coordination and direct action of grassroots movements, with a view to the organization and the libertarian revolution.

With this, we call those who think in a similar way to position against the Bolkestein directive in a more radical and to promote a point revolutionary view of self-organization and self as part of that campaign. Curbing Bolkestein is not enough. Even it is slow to capitalism.

Notes:

(1) Labour ministers argue that labor flexibility can coexist with a high level of social security. Some labor leaders seem to have misunderstood the content of the agenda, believing that this is a strategy for preserving the social model. Last year, "The Guardian" published an article on the Lisbon Agenda in which leaders such as John Monks, the European Trade Union Confederation, said he "had done well to revive a week Agenda after many thought that social Europe was dead. " For them, their implementation seems to be beyond doubt. "The Lisbon Strategy must be implemented in a way that is economically, socially and ecologically balanced."

(2) There are many examples, one is the food controls. We had the opportunity to see how in some sectors of food production, when Poland adopted the European standards, were far more lax than the locals, especially as regards the amount of additives permitted in food.

Appeared in "strip of paper " Bulletin of the National Coordinator Graphic Arts, Communication and Entertainment.


Translated by Manu Garcia - CNT-AIT


About the author: Laure Akai is an anarchist born in New York. Has played in the libertarian movement over the last thirty years in the U.S., Russia and Poland. Akai is part of the wording of several magazines. It was one of the main organizers of protests, meetings and conferences such as the Anarchy festival 2003 International Anarchist Conference of Eastern Europe June 2003 in Warsaw or the protests that took place in that city against the World Economic Forum in the year past.


in New York helped create Underground Books store. Was linked to long-term projects related to farm workers, organic farmers and food cooperatives.

During his stay in Russia participated in the anarchist movement against the coup of July 1991, but in October 1993, along with other anarchists, called to ignore the power struggles of the second shot.

currently resides in Warsaw (Poland) and is part of the group of Infoszop-Warsaw and the Polish Anarchist Federation.