arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Initially posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - Re-posted after the crash of the Indymedia server.

--- --- ---

Comment

UNITED UNION FRONT VS. VERHOFSTADT

by Patrick De Vos

If the struggle between labour and capital is really a thing of the past, why then did I saw it on the streets of Brussels today? And why are the social democrats in government anyway, if they don’t speak up for social justice? These were the sentiments behind the nation wide strike of today.

ON FRIDAY OCTOBER 28 the city centre of Brussels turned red, green and blue with union members who protested against the plans of Verhofstadts purple coalition in power (liberal democrats and social democrats) to raise the minimum age for early retirement, while a 24 hour strike brought down economic life in Belgium. Those messures are necessary, the government claims, to cope with an increasingly ageing population that places a heavy burden on the younger generations, as well as on the performability of the Belgian economy. Except for the trains, that were more or less running regularly in order to get the protesting unionists to Brussels and back home again, almost no public transport services were operating. 80,000 people, according to police reports – a 100,000, according to the united union front who organised the rally – marched through the Belgian capital and gave voice to their discontentment.

The unions aim was to mobilise 70,000 people. With the current attendance there can be no doubt about the widespread support for this national strike. “We are not angry”, says one of the protesters, dressed entirely in red, “we are furious about the perjury of the government and the Belgian employers organizations. They want to break with previously made engagements and dismantle our social model for the sake of an inexhaustible hunger for profit. Well, we have nothing more to give. NO MORE SOCIAL DUMPING!”

After the social partners were unable to find a compromise on this issue earlier last month, the government went ahead and imposed a ‘generation pact’ itself. Ever since there has been rising tensions between the trades unions on the one hand and the government and the employers organizations on the other. As the trades unions demand from the government that the pact is radically changed, the employers are trying to shift the conflict on to the government, while resorting to legal action, which has, in turn, been seen by the trades unions as an attempt to undermine the workers right to strike. Annoyance and frustration has build up fast during the last weeks, yet Verhofstadt says he won’t back down.

“Verhofstadt”, who is portrayed on some of the posters as Darth Vader – the dark side of the force that is tearing up our social achievements – “wants us to work longer to support our unemployed children”, says a middle-aged woman of the christian union ACV cynically. “That’s his idea of securing the future solidarity between the generations. Making us work longer to provide our children with jobs just doesn’t make sense.” That the government has been a poor communicator on this matter seems rather clear. But why has it done such a poor job? Doesn’t this lack of clarity indicates that within the coalition itself the positions are not as clear and consistent as they may appear at first? If the government can’t speak in one voice, it is considered better not to speak to much at all. But it is not that Verhofstadts liberal democrats don’t not want to speak up: they have been preaching the mantra of deregulation for decades now. Rather, it is the social democratic coalition partner (Flemish and Walloon) that is losing face here.

On a banner of the socialist trade union BBTK-SETca it said “Je suis socialiste, donc je ne peux voter PS” (I am a socialist, therefore I can not vote for the PS). Socialism and communism have passed away, yet they remain to haunt us. But even Beyond Left and Right the key question remains the same: to what extent are you really willing to contest inequality? And if not, why not admitting it for a change.

The more people work, young and old alike, the more equal your society. The authors question is irrelevant. The challenge the government wants to tackle with the ‘Generation pact’ is not the reduction of inequality in the sense Patrick De Vos would like to see.

The basic idea of the early retirement system is to allow, not force, employees to drop out of work earlier than required with the benefit of a full pension. This system was put in place at a moment of increasing unemployment. It was to help younger, more productive employees to take up a job and give a rest to tired, older workers. The very idea was sold as an example of solidarity of older employees with younger ones. Beautiful but deceitful. The effect of this early retirement system is that those few young employees must now work twice as hard to pay their elders’ pension. The early retirement system did not create any new jobs. It is economic innovation and growth that creates new opportunities. By replacing older workers by younger ones you do not solve the problem.
The inequality between the economic burden on the younger generation and the older generation is an important cause of inequality. Why should young people have to live with the prospect of having to work until at least 60, and why would the older generations be exempt of this duty? Because the older generation negotiated a good deal 10 years ago?

I completely understand that the unions can easily gather 100.000 angry people in the street. They are there not out of solidarity or to combat inequality. They come to the street for their own private interests. Ask the author the average age of the protesters. The proposed agreement is called the ‘Generation Pact’ not because the elders want to show solidarity with the younger generations’ huge challenges but to refer to the claimed unconditional solidarity from the younger.
True solidarity would mean that the older and wiser generation could honestly analyze the changing world and understand that their part of this ‘Generation Pact’ is but a minimal share of the future economic burden.

Het is ontluisterend te merken dat Nederlandstaligen in België in het Engels publiceren. Geeft dit een meerwaarde aan de inhoud?

Het argument van het gebrek aan solidariteit van de "ouderen" houdt geen steek. Het gaat er immers van uit dat het onafwendbaar en wenselijk is dat de pensioenleeftijd wordt verhoogd. De stakende ouderen zouden iets voor zichzelf willen ("de egoïsten"!) wat ze anderen weigeren. Een dertiger zei:"Ik vind het generatiepact goed omdat er later nog wat voor mij moet overblijven." Wie dit zegt, aanvaardt kritiekloos de uitgangspunten van de regering.

Een jonge vrouw zei anderzijds: "Ik staak mee, want ik wil niet dat de pensioenleeftijd verhoogt, ook niet voor mij".

Wie dus tegen de verhoging van de pensioenleeftijd is, verwerpt die verhoging voor iedereen, dus ook voor de jongeren. De staking van " de ouderen" is dus wel degelijk een teken van solidariteit, omdat zij geen sociale afbraak willen, niet voor hen, niet voor wie dan ook, en dus ook niet voor de jongeren. Zij willen een levenstandaard voor iedereen, die tevens als voorbeeld kan staan voor komende levensnorm in de groeilanden, ipv omgekeerd.

Het discours van de regering is een verdeel en heers discours. Wie solidair wil zijn kijkt daar best door en stelt dit discours in vraag. De echte inzet is immers niet de pensioenleeftijd, maar wel de loonlasten, die men wil doen dalen door het vergroten van de arbeidsmarkt.