Those striking and marching in defence of Renault workers at Vilvorde have posed the question of a different Europe. Manuel Ferdanez from Renault in Seville argued that workers must press for a "social Europe" instead of a "sweatshop Europe".
He told journalists " This movement proves that workers throughout Europe can get together in the face of employers who just want to play the European subsidies game and divide us".
Those politicians on the other hand who have raised the issue of Renault have concentrated their objections on the supposed infringement of European law that the closure procedures are meant to have made.
Such a stance has been given credibility by statements from the European Commission itself that it was dis. pleased with Renault.
In tact European law gives workers little protection. The real concern is that workers, eyen in the heart of Europe, are increasingly beginning to look for a different alternative Rouge, the paper of the French Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire, interviewed Eliane Vogel-Polsky, lecturer in social law at the Free University of Brussels on some of these questions: Rouge: Has Renault infringed European law? Eliane Vogel-Polsky: Yes and Renault has not infringed the directive on works councils within European businesses, because Its WOrKs formed before this directive came-into force. Its functions are minimalist and in line with the directive.
They relate solely to giving information on corain matton. The workers' delegates cannot demand information. The directive does not stipulate warning the unions of cale. Renault has met its obligations in orzanising & works counci artel announcing the closure.
Renault's only infringement of the directive has been its failure to inform the Belgian works council of its intentions, here is no real sanc tion in European law, though, as just referred back to the law of the Rouge: Some Euro-MPs repeat that Renault shows the need for "more Europe" - that is stronger powers to intervene.
Vogel-Polsky: "More Europe but which Europe? That is the question.
If the directive on large scale redundancies in case of restructuring of companies which are not in financial difficulty were implemented, closures would be very expensive for companies.
Morements to other EC countries would be more difficult. This would create more favourstruggle, for the reduction of working hours, for example.
You can imagine European law which would be more beneficial to workers, but it will never be more than & minimum ac mand, and should not replace social struggles. In this capitalist system, we need to fight for jobs, as the trade unionists are doing at Renault.
German resistance I through Bonn with placards asking "Where would Germany be without coal mining?" union leadership persuaded the sceptical miners to leave Bonn. However, they only went as far as nearby Cologne, and 10,000 awaited the outcome of the negotiations on an improvised mass camp site.
The government obviously feared that further sectors could be drawn into the struggle. However the union leadership did not organise any kind of solidarity.
Under this pressure a compromise was formulated: the subsidy would not be reduced by as much as planned. Over the next 8 years the German level. Suddenly, they changed their minds and insisted on an 8 per cent reduction in wage rates.
All this led to an explosive mood. Starting on the March 10, the union organised a week of action in Berlin, a centre of building activity. Union activists were also mobilised to Berlin. All week between 8,000 and 15,000 building workers demonstrated every day.
The actions went further than the union planned and they turned a blind eye to them. "We know