As the law of labour unions is being reformed it is worthwhile to take
a closer look at the whole concept of "representativity" . What is it?
What does it mean? Will the way we debate and live inside or
workplaces change? Presently, the government wants to redefine which
unions may live inside enterprises and which may not. The CNT thinks
that the workers themselves should make that decision. But repression
forces us to take legal questions into account. If we did not,
"organized worker" would soon become a synonym for "out of work".

This reform is also a key to understanding the new social order that
the government wishes to impose. Will the new order within enterprises
be the precursor of a new order in the French Republic? Sure. This
republic, built on indirect democracy is no more than a camouflaged
dictatorship. What about revolutionary ideas? The government prefers
to muzzle those who think about the fundamental problems.

BEFORE THE REFORM

The right for unions to openly organize job branches in work places
was won in May 68. This is vital for the CNT. Under the law, the shop
steward , who has the right to negotiate, is chosen by the rank and
file and may be recalled, something which, ironically, is just right
for an anarcho-syndicalist organisation like the CNT. Getting
representativity within the legal framework does not necessarily mean
becoming tangled up in a web of compromises and loosing our fighting
spirit. This why bosses, and yellow unions, have often sought
injunctions against our shop stewards.

Until now the CFDT , CFTC , CGT , CGC and FO have benefitted from a
presumption of representativity which meant that they could have a
shop steward if they had one member in the shop. The CNT and other
unions had to prove that they fulfilled a number of criteria whenever
their representativity was challenged. These included how many members
it has, that it is independence, total dues collected, its experience
as a union, to what extent it resisted the Nazi occupiers, and the
percentage of votes won in staff elections. This last criterion will
become central after the reform.

AFTER THE REFORM : A NEW FRAMEWORK

The government of Chirac-Villepin and its Sarkozist successor began
overturning the old system by negotiating with the established unions.
Each of them pushed for its favourite and most favourable option. SUD
wanted to emphasize scores obtained in professional elections held in
the public sector and for the conciliation committees . FO wanted to
concentrate on the elections to the social security committees. CFTC
stood up for dues and the general level of union activity. ? What
really happened was that CFDT and CGT got together with MEDEF and
CGPME to write up a joint position paper which pretty much became the
new law.

The new criteria are; respect for republican values, financial
transparency, two years of presence in the industry and region in
question, electoral scores, level of activity and experience, number
of members and total dues collected.

"Respect for republican values" is ambiguous. In the draft it was a
philosophical respect for liberty and tolerance. If that phrase is
taken to mean respect for the current social order the CNT will no
longer be able function as legal union in France. It will the up to
the judges how they interpret the law.

"Financial transparency" will oblige CNT member unions to keep their
accounts straight and to vote on them at each annual general assembly.
"Electoral scores" are the key criteria in the reformed legislation.
After fulfilling the other criteria a union must get 10% of the vote
in the Works Council or the Shop Steward elections. It also needs to
get an average score of 8% per industry and be "territorially
balanced". At the multi professional level, a union will need 8% of
the vote in all work places and it must be representative in
manufacturing, construction, retail and services.

For representativity in the workplace, the shop steward must get 10%
in the first round of voting. This will limit the union’s autonomy by
pretty much forcing it to field the most popular candidates that it
can find, regardless of qualifications and commitment. Negotiation
rules have also changed. A union contract must be signed by unions
representing at least 30% of the vote and it must not be opposed by
those holding more than 50% if it is to stand up in court.

The biggest change is the new emphasis on staff election scores. The
second most important modification is a new mandate called "job
section representative" . This opens up the opportunity for two people
to start a new job section provided that they fulfil the criteria of
two years of presence in the industry and region as well as respect
for republican values. The legally protected job section
representative can then distribute literature and put up posters, but
s/he cannot negotiate with the boss. At the next staff election the
representative either wins a mandate, or s/he cannot be re-nominated
by the union until six months before the next elections which are held
another four years later.

This reform has gotten through parliament. The old five representative
unions will keep their status for five more years. Then the reform
will take effect at the multi professional and industrial levels. At
the level of the workplace the present representatives, committee
members and shop stewards will keep their places until the next staff
elections are held under the reformed law. In the meantime, the job
section representatives nominated by the unions will be considered
"non-representative".

A NEW ERA IN UNIONISM

The old club of the five representative unions will be gone in five
years time and technically, all unions will have equal opportunities,
although some will be more equal than others when it comes to
repression.

We could speculate about the wheeling and dealing that will take
place. UNSA is already making noises about allying itself with the
CGC. Predictably, CFDT and CGT will seek to dominate the smaller
unions. We could also criticize the attitude of unions who consent to
have the government stick its nose in their accounts, tell them who is
and who is not representative and even impose limitations on whom they
can nominate as shop steward. The reform is silent when it comes to
the accounts and the representativity of business associations.

There is reason to worry when the government makes rules governing
organisations that resist it and that it often bashes over the head.
Above all else, this reform is designed to make over union
bureaucracies so that they will look more legitimate as they sign away
workers’ rights and pay. They want to avoid the surprises they had in
1996 and 2006 by domesticating a class of professional union
bureaucrats, cut off from the rank and file, while lulling the masses
into sleep by giving them the illusion that their interests are in the
good hands. They hope that those who wake up and discover that they
have been ripped off will turn away from the whole union movement in
disgust.

In summary; by basing representativity on election scores, they hope
to make French workers as passive as the remaining 60 million French
whose political activism is limited to a quarter of an hour every five
years when they vote.

This is a trap for the union movement. But it doesn’t really matter
what kind of institutions are put in place to keep the exploited in
their places. They can only become a political force by taking action
through their independent organisations. The CNT cannot afford to
ignore the legal framework. It must look out for the opportunities and
risks that effect its further development while remaining focussed on
its fundamentals; direct action, autonomous struggle against the
government, the bosses and all bureaucracies.

CNT