A-Infos (en) France, UCL AL #374 - Trade Unionism - Inside the CGT: Local Structures Under Control (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Local cross-industry bodies-specifically departmental and local 
unions-are struggling within the CGT. Born of a historical process, they 
are now seeking a new role following the collapse of Stalinism. The 
situation is evolving, yet numerous obstacles persist. --- The 54th 
Congress decided to demand that grassroots unions increase the resources 
made available to local and departmental unions. These two levels of 
local organization often serve as the entry point for employees into the 
confederation. Crucially, the issue is not about altering the 
distribution of membership dues among the CGT's various structures-a 
topic in itself. Rather, it concerns the allocation of available union 
release hours and, consequently, the deployment of the activist workforce.

Origins of the UD and UL
This is a common-sense decision, given that too many unions remain 
confined within their own companies. However, without a statutory 
mandate for the unions, the decision risks remaining nothing more than 
wishful thinking-especially since actual resources are, in reality, 
controlled by their national federations.

The CGT's founding in the late 19th century was based on the unification 
of two rival organizations: the network of *Bourses du Travail* (Labor 
Exchanges)-driven primarily by anarchist and revolutionary-syndicalist 
activists-and the national trade federations, led largely by reformists 
and Guesdists[1]. To this must be added the incorporation of independent 
local unions, whose history remains unjustly under-studied. 
Revolutionary syndicalists (SRs) began losing ground even before the 
First World War. Subsequently, the Russian Revolution and the creation 
of the French Communist Party (PCF) dealt a further blow to SR influence 
during the interwar period. In 1945, the power of the PCF relegated the 
*Bourses du Travail* (local labor councils) to a minor role; some of 
their members chose to join the *Force Ouvrière* union to escape the 
Stalinists' iron grip. It was at this point that the intended political 
balance between the *Bourses* and the industrial federations was 
permanently shattered. From then on, the general secretaries of the 
Departmental Unions (UDs) and Local Unions (ULs) were viewed as 
"prefects" within the top-down tradition of authoritarian Marxists. The 
PCF took great care to ensure these posts went to its own activists. The 
party's long, slow decline eventually severely hampered this "cadre 
policy," in which discreet CGT and PCF officials worked hand-in-hand to 
promote activists to positions of responsibility within the Party, the 
union, and various associations-not to mention those groomed to become 
mayors or MPs. The general secretaries of the UDs and ULs were expected 
to hold the line against public authorities and local politicians. They 
were also required to "clean house" regarding unions that were too 
politically independent; indeed, hunting down "leftists" became a 
full-time job after May 1968.

All Power to the Federations
The Confederal Executive Commission (CEC) and its Confederal Bureau 
(BC)-elected at the CGT's confederal congress-implement the policies 
adopted there. However, the National Confederal Committee (CCN) serves 
as the CGT's governing body between congresses. The CCN is the 
historical legacy of the merger between the *Bourses* and the industrial 
federations. It comprises one representative from each federation and 
one from each Departmental Union. Mathematically, the UDs-which far 
outnumbered the industrial federations-ensured that votes aligned with 
the PCF's desired direction. However, the decline of the PCF's hegemony 
over the CGT reveals a different reality. In practical terms, financial 
and human resources are concentrated in the hands of the (large) 
federations. This involves not only membership dues but also employer 
funding for "social dialogue." This enables the federations to act with 
complete autonomy-perverting the federalist principle we hold dear. They 
can thus strong-arm the CEC and the General Secretary when necessary. 
During CCN meetings, federations can impose detached, top-down 
mobilization campaigns that the Departmental Unions (UDs)-which are more 
in touch with realities on the ground-increasingly challenge... And yet, 
when it comes time to vote, the majority of them fall into line, resigned.

Money: The Lifeblood of the Struggle
In reality, the finances of the Departmental Unions (UDs)-with the 
exception of two or three of the largest-depend heavily on the goodwill 
of the confederal leadership. This funding flows through an equalization 
fund fed annually by the proceeds of the first membership stamp 
purchased by every union member[2]. Furthermore, arrangements for 
departmental leaders to be seconded to union duties are negotiated with 
the industrial federations; these federations are supposed to share 
personnel resources among the Confederal Headquarters, the UDs, and the 
Local Unions (ULs) in areas where organizing is deemed a priority. Once 
akin to political "prefects" for the PCF, UD general secretaries have 
become beholden to the confederal leadership and the compromises struck 
between the federations and the Confederal Bureau. Consequently, while 
UDs often grumble at the National Confederal Committee (CCN) meetings, 
they almost never vote against decisions hammered out between the 
Confederal Bureau and the federations. Incidentally, this is also why 
the confederal leadership remains scandalously silent when a federation 
becomes embroiled in suspicious financial dealings...

A Vital Rebalancing
Although UDs and ULs shoulder the bulk of the work on the ground-dealing 
with institutions, reaching out to employees in small businesses and 
supporting small unions, spearheading joint campaigns on diverse issues, 
and organizing days of mobilization-they suffer from a critical lack of 
resources. Many ULs survive solely thanks to the tenacity of retirees 
(who, it must be said, are sometimes a bit out of touch).

Facade of the *Bourse du Travail* (Labor Exchange), Rue des Vertus.
Credit: Public Domain
The upcoming confederal congress must take bold decisions, even if this 
causes friction within the federal bureaucracies. Only the financial 
independence of the UDs will guarantee their leaders the freedom to 
speak their minds-a prerequisite for even a minimal level of democracy. 
Furthermore, the dependence of departmental inter-professional 
structures fosters mistrust among Departmental Unions (UDs) regarding 
the development of territorial trade-specific unions. Some comrades fear 
that the federations might use this opportunity to further weaken local 
structures. Yet, these local trade-specific unions represent the only 
credible response to the challenges faced by union members and delegates 
who are isolated within their small and medium-sized enterprises.

Jean-Yves (UCL Limousin)

Submit

[1]Revolutionary socialist political current.

[2]Within the CGT, a union member is expected to pay monthly dues equal 
to 1% of their salary.

https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Rouages-de-la-CGT-des-structures-locales-sous-controle
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en