2010 saw huge social unrest sweep France in response to proposed pension reforms which would have upped the retirement age, amongst other cuts. Jean-Marie Cosson, a striking teacher from the town of Saint-Nazaire talks about the revolt at one of the last bastions of the worker’s movement, where the entrance of the lyceéns (young students) into the movement was given an ovation by ‘their fathers in blue collars.’

What’s the situation  at Saint-Nazaire?
J-M Cosson: It’s still delicate. On the 7th of October, before the lyceéns had even started to consider participating in the movement, some hooded guys went into a lyceé and smashed some windows. Bizarre… The end of a demo in October, which had got 20,000 people together (Saint-Nazaire has a population of 70,000), didn’t go well. The gendarmes (paramilitary police) fired tear gas at the lyceéns, even though their representatives had negotiated with the regular police to avoid things turning bad. This time justice didn’t wait for many years like it did for (former President) Chirac. Three guys went straight to trial. Two got two-month mandatory sentences.

How does the movement organise itself between public and private sector workers and the lyceéns?
The general assemblies are held per sector, and the co-ordination is done systematically. For example, on the 13th of October the lyceéns blocked their establishments in the morning. Then, the guys from the shipyards organised a meet-up for a general assembly. The workers from Airbus, from the refinery at Donges, the train drivers and the teachers arrived. Followed by hundreds of lyceéns who were given an ovation by their fathers in blue collars. These are the intense moments, where solidarity is rediscovered. Lyceéns, teachers, train drivers, refinery strikers, we’re all joined up.

What are the debates in the general assemblies?
During the general assembly at Donges refinery, where 350 workers were present, the indefinite strike was debated, with the understanding that they weren’t going to vote again to strike every 24 hours. They decided to blockade the refinery until the 18th of October. In the education sector, some voted for an indefinite strike. Others didn’t support the idea of a strike for its own sake, to stay at home and be content to fill up the state’s coffers by allowing it to withhold wages. So it was decided to have actions every day: we wanted to attack the sites of economic production, to hit the wallet. Above all, we wanted to avoid finding ourselves opposed to one another, public against private. It’s been 40 years that they’ve been teaching us to be individualists.

Where’ve the blockades been? How have you been trying to extend the movement?
The Donges refinery is blocked. The guys help the twenty employees of the petrol depot nearby to maintain the strike pickets and to prevent the police from occupying it. In the small businesses it’s delicate. The guys daren’t …

Did this convergence of strikes and sectors start up quickly?
The unions called us into the streets many times in quick succession. We told ourselves that if we didn’t take the matter in hand, the movement would croak. Fed up with marching! Especially since some unions stopped saying the words “general strike”.

What’s the role of the union federations in the movement at Saint-Nazaire?
Little wars between branches always exist. So do contradictions between what the national leadership say and what goes on at a local level. We ask ourselves sometimes why they don’t get behind the movement more firmly. (…) The movement has federated itself between generations and between the different sectors. We don’t demand to know each other’s union affiliation. We don’t give a fuck! I’m in SNES (FE teacher’s union): that gives me access to some information, but we don’t show off our badges.

What have you made of the media’s treatment of the movement?
At the moment I often have an urge to turn off my television, because I get so wound up by the bulletins! What they say about the lyceéns is unsupportable: always to hear this talk of ‘manipulation’, as if they were incapable of thinking on their own. When the kids are told that they become self-managed entrepreneurs at 16, that’s not going to make anyone happy.


This interview was originally conducted by by Ivan de Roy, for BASTA! and published in Jusqu’ici (‘hitherto’ or ‘til now’), a journal of the French anti-austerity movement. It was translated by our friends at www.liensjournal.wordpress.com

India: boss shoots at striking workers
A ‘manager’ at the Combo Allied Nippon Company in Sahibabad, India, shot at striking workers before they overpowered him. Nine workers have now been arrested for his murder.

Around 400 workers had been striking over the issues of contracts, bonuses and a pay rise. Company officials went to confront strikers and opened fire with 4-5 shots, wounding a worker. Workers then fought with officials leaving several injured on both sides and the shooter dead.

Sources close to the workers claim that many of the so-called ‘management’ are in fact company goons hired to break the union, and that beatings of workers have become commonplace. Reportedly it was also “quite common for them to roam inside the factory openly carrying the guns in order to terrorise the workers.”

Warsaw rent strike
Several hundred households in the Polish capital Warsaw began a rent strike in October. The strike was called by the radical ZSP union whose members have been active in the tenants’ movement and the struggle for good public housing, in the face of increased privatisation and gentrification.

The strike represents an escalation of the struggle which has been developing since spring 2009 when rents were raised from 200-300% in public housing in the city. But the ZSP says increased rents are just the tip of the iceberg.  They cite a litany of complaints including punitive policies, illegal charges and neglectful maintenence of the public housing on which many of the city’s residents rely.

36 seconds to clean a toilet?
Contract cleaners at the prestigious University Hospital of Lund in Sweden are on strike over excessive workloads. Workers have  just 36 seconds to clean a bathroom, which their union says puts both them and patients at risk through intense physical workloads and compromised hygiene standards.

The cleaners are employed by the private company ISS, who have been involved in a number of cases of poor working conditions, including the victimisation of migrant workers at SOAS university in London in 2009. Their union, the SAC is calling for international statements of solidarity and for letters of protest to be sent to the employer.

Inspired by the recent student protests and angry about proposed local cuts, people in Lewisham stormed the town hall where a vote on the cuts was taking place. Around 100 people tried to force their way into the building in an attempt to stop the vote going ahead. Some protestors got to the council chamber whilst others faced police brutality in the lobby, where batons and fists rained down on the protest. After half an hour, the protestors were ejected from the building. The meeting was subsequently held in private where the first wave of cuts were passed by the Labour-run council.

The lobby at the town hall continued outside where several hundred people faced riot police, horses and dogs. There were so many officers that the south circular road outside the town hall was closed due to the number of police cars and vans.

The anger displayed at Lewisham and the willingness to take direct action may be an indication of things to come. As cuts are passed and implemented across the country, it looks increasingly likely that they will be faced by serious opposition. As a participant at Lewisham  put it, “the cuts must be unworkable, we must be ungovernable.”

On November 10th, the National Union of Students (NUS) and Universities and Colleges Union  (UCU) organised a demonstration against cuts in education, which ended in an occupation of Tory offices at Millbank, with smashed windows and arrests. Two weeks later, tens of thousands of students marched in towns across the country, taking over roads and buildings and scuffling with police. The Solidarity Federation, which puts out Catalyst, has been one of the groups suggested in the press as the ringleaders of the trouble. Not only do we refute this, we call for more direct action against the cuts.

Of course some of our members – those studying or working in higher education – were at the demonstrations, but we cannot take credit for the storming of 30 Millbank or the events two weeks later when even a brief look at the video and photo evidence available shows that a wide cross-section of the national student community took part.

It is absurd and grossly patronising to attempt to pin such a widespread outpouring of anger on the heads of an apparent “hardcore of troublemakers” or “protest junkies,” in articles that sit alongside footage of student participants confirming that this was their first ever demonstration. Even if we were inclined to manipulate and control crowds, the chances of us successfully doing so as a small minority in the midst of irate thousands are surely minimal.  What must really terrify the politicians is to see how red and black flags and masks have been hugely outnumbered by the hyped-up faces of students rejecting cuts to their education - cuts which now bear the fingerprints of all three major political parties.

Against this backdrop then, the treachery of NUS President Aaron Porter, who called the Millbank occupation “despicable” and accused genuinely angry students of “hijacking” his march, looks worse and worse.  We can only assume that Porter is concerned about the effect that this will have on his credentials as a future Labour Party high-flyer, following in the footsteps of Jack Straw, Phil Woolas, and the like in using the NUS as a stepping stone into professional politics.  The NUS is out of touch with ordinary students and we recommend they continue to organise themselves, rather than rely on the careerists – something which happened in places on the 24th.

Following the demonstrations, students occupied universities across the country.  Students are already making links with university staff and future students in further education and schools, who are hit particularly hard by the fees as well as the removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance. This can be a truly effective movement if these encouraging developments continue.

We hope students will be the first of many to directly reject the cuts which affect us all and we will continue to organise against this scorched-earth austerity plan in our workplaces and neighbourhoods, democratically and independently of union leaders and politicians bleating the mantra “business as usual.” Only through struggle - direct action and solidarity between workers, students, the unemployed and the retired - can we fight back in this class war of the rich against the rest.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development have predicted that 725,000 public sector jobs and up to 900,000 private sector jobs will go in the next five years, as a result of spending cuts and the VAT increase. While some will go through retirement and natural wastage, a lot more workers will be facing redundancy. Here is a brief guide to the law around it.

Redundancy happens when an employer ceases to carry on its business, or stops or diminishes some part of its business. The law covers England, Scotland and Wales, with different legislation in Northern Ireland, though its provisions are similar.

For a worker to be made redundant, their dismissal has to be attributable to the reduction in employees. It doesn’t need to be motivated by a company in difficulties, any reorganisation that results in fewer staff will be a redundancy.

Replacing a worker with a cheaper one is not redundancy and the worker has a case for unfair dismissal. In cases where this is done, the employer will often redefine work that was previously done by those workers as a “special project” to try to get round this regulation.  When Parker Pens made people redundant in 2008, they got experienced workers to train agency staff to replace them by threatening that enhanced redundancy pay would be lost. This was effectively an unfair dismissal, though lack of organisation on the part of the workers concerned and the meagre prospects of compensation from a tribunal meant the firm got away with it.

If a redundancy situation occurs as outlined above and an employee is dismissed this is a redundancy. Notice is required to be given, which is one week for those with less than 2 years service rising to a maximum of 12 weeks for those who have 12 years or more, these provisions may be more if it says so in your contract. Redundancy pay is only payable after 2 years continuous service. 

Temporary workers are also eligible for redundancy providing they qualify under the 2 year rule. The Fixed term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 make it unlawful for an employer to put a clause in a fixed term contract waiving the right to a redundancy payment.

Redundancy can be ‘unfair’ and this can be taken to a tribunal within 3 months with a claim for unfair dismissal. It is automatically ‘unfair’ if the selection for redundancy was because the employee exercised any of the following rights: jury service; leave for family reasons; refusal of Sunday working by a shop or betting worker; working time; being a trustee of an occupational pension scheme; acting as or being elected as an employee representative for collective redundancy or TUPE purposes; protected disclosure; asserting a relevant statutory right; National Minimum Wage; tax credits; flexible working; participating in official industrial action; consultation of employees regulations; part time workers regulations; fixed term employees regulations; European public limited company regulations; trade union membership or activity; non-membership of a trade union; pregnancy.

The selection can also be ‘unfair’ if there was no genuine redundancy, there was a lack of consultation, an ‘unfair’ selection procedure or a failure to offer alternative employment.

Those affected have a right to consultation if more than 20 workers are affected. The consultation must be timely and meaningful. Failure to consult is a reason to go to an Employment Tribunal (ET) which can make a protective award. Consultation has to begin at least 30 days in advance if more than 20 workers are to be made redundant, and at least 90 days in advance if there are 100 or more.

Redundancy is a “fair” reason for dismissal but the employer must act reasonably. Criteria used to select employees for redundancy must not be discriminatory – a number of things are ‘automatically unfair’, such as singling out union members or activists. Temps directly employed are covered by the Fixed Term Employees Regulations but not agency workers unless they can prove that they are deemed to be an employee.

The selection is still a dismissal, as well, and the employer has to go through the statutory or company dismissal procedure. This must state in writing the selection criteria for those workers to be made redundant, arrange a meeting for the employee to discuss the application of the criteria to them before making a final decision and allowing an appeal against the decision.  Failure to adopt this procedure (provided you have 12 months continuous service) is an unfair dismissal (in procedure) and allows you 4 weeks basic pay compensation (at a maximum of £310 a week).  This is useful for those workers who haven’t qualified for the 2 years redundancy payment.

Ill health and maternity do not preclude redundancy, but an employer has to act fairly. You can be offered alternative work but can turn it down if it is of lower pay or status. You have a right to time off during the redundancy notice period to look for work.

Entitlement to redundancy pay depends on whether the statutory scheme is used or the employer has a different one. If different groups of workers in a firm have significantly different terms and conditions (for example after a transfer from a different employer), it may be that some will get significantly better redundancy pay than others. If this is the case, it’s worth checking because it could potentially be ‘unfair’. There is a ready reckoner for the statutory scheme at http://www.direct.gov.uk/redundancy.dsb.

The maximum payable is for 20 years service. There is also a statutory maximum for redundancy pay which is currently £380 per week since October 2009. Anyone earning more than this will only get £380 per year of service. If the employer is insolvent, the redundancy pay (and any other pay owing) must be claimed from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), and the statutory redundancy pay is subject to tax and national insurance deductions, making it even less.  Other than that, if redundancy pay is under £30,000 it’s not taxable.

I work in an FE college which has a very autocratic management which operates by bullying, intimidation and isolation.  No unions are recognised and new members of staff are given the impression that they may not join a union.  But...  There is a rising level of dissatisfaction and discontent, connected to the idea that people may like to talk and do something about it (mainstream union membership is actually on the rise).

Recently a ‘request’ came down from senior management to a certain group of staff that they must consider themselves to be on call on demand.  This was justified as coming under that lovely catch all contractual phrase “any other duty necessary to the fulfilment of your role.”

Needless to say, those involved were not happy about this (me being one of them).  After some co-ordinated discussions with those involved, it was quickly agreed that we would not comply with the request.  The first to refuse received a response which threatened their position and wage (the typical response).  By the time a higher proportion had refused it became simply a comment regarding the ‘co-ordinated response’ (some staff sent identically worded replies.)  Finally, all had replied negatively. Nothing has happened, the request appears to have been dropped.

This may seem to be a minor event, but within the culture of the college it is hugely significant.  The general feeling amongst staff is that it is impossible to say NO to management if you wish to keep your job.  This case proves otherwise.  Also, the management thrives on the fact that the staff are fragmented – it is difficult to communicate between departments, and fearful.  But in this case, people from different departments came together and acted together, successfully defying the management’s overbearing demand.

As news of this spreads, so does the realisation that it may after all be possible to fight against some of the appalling ways in which the management treats the staff.

Watch this space, as they say.