Introduction by the General Secretary to the

Report on Activities to the 23rd IUF Congress,

Geneva, April 15 - 18, 1997

International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations

I have pleasure in introducing the secretariat’s report on activities to this congress, which is the largest in the history of the IUF. There are now 344 organizations in our International Union, 113 more than at the last congress four years ago, and we are present in 110 countries, eight more than when we last met.

I would like to welcome all delegates to this congress, especially those who are here for the first time, and, among those, I would extend a special welcome to the delegates of the agricultural workers’ unions who have joined our organization in the course of the past four years.

The integration of the agricultural sector into the IUF has been the main event in the life of our International Union since the last congress and it carries with it a double challenge: organizational and political. Later in the congress proceedings our agricultural coordinator, Sue Longley, will introduce a discussion on these issues.

The organizational task is easy to see because it looms very large: a majority of the world’s working population lives on the land. There are millions of agricultural workers that remain to be organized into the IUF which is today the only representative and effective international organization capable of defending their interests, and there are other many others that remain to be organized into unions even in their own countries.

In addition, there are other millions of landless farmers and small farmers, fishers and rural artisans who are our natural allies and who have no interest in common with the large farmers and the agribusiness corporations who dominate the international institutions. Many of them are already organized and it is our task to build a framework that can turn a potential into a political reality and intention into action.

Our common cause is a fundamental social interest: to develop policies and to generate political power to ensure a sustainable world society. Those who remember the resolutions and the discussions in our governing bodies in past years will know that our concern for defending the ecological balance and the natural environment is not a new insight, nor is it a concern that we have suddenly integrated with our agricultural membership. It has been, for a number of years, as much a concern of workers in the food industry and of our tourism sector and, in reality, as an overriding issue touching on the basis of life on this planet, it is the responsibility of the entire labour movement.

The difference in our present situation is that by covering all sectors who are in the frontline of this struggle, we are in a position to develop an integrated policy and to act on a much broader front. When I refer to the ecological balance and the protection of the natural environment I do not want anyone to be under the impression that we are dealing with an easy issue supported by a broad social consensus. On the contrary: we have a major political struggle on our hands.

Neo-liberalism has become a life-threatening system in more ways than one. In the 1970s Milton Friedman, its ideological godfather, wrote that "only people have responsibilities. Business as a whole cannot be said to have responsibities. The doctrine of social responsibilities is a fundamentally subversive doctrine. In a free society there is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game" - in other words, as long as it does not actually engage in criminal activities. Against this doctrine of irresponsibility, to which most of big business subscribes, stands our statutory commitment to "ensure that the world’s resources in food be utilized so as to serve the general interest." Food is too important an issue to be left to corporations who, in the context of the prevailing neo-liberal ideologies, recognize only the profit motive as a legitimate guideline.

Even today the question of food quality is a major public health issue. In the next century, the question of food security will become even more critical than it already is for many, and it will affect millions of people. According to FAO projections, the world’s population will increase in less than thirty years from the present 5.8 billion to 8.6 billion, which will require a 75 percent increase of world food production. Water will become as valuable a resource as oil. No one can foresee the long-term effects of the uses of biotechnology when it is driven by commercial interests and we already know that the patenting of living matter, which is authorized under the intellectual property provisions of the World Trade Organization, is leading to a stranglehold on agricultural production by corporations such as Monsanto, who hold patents on cereal seeds. The management and distribution of these resources is a major political issue that involves big money and powerful interests and what our International Union has to prepare for is a struggle on that scale - for our members and for the general social interest. In this struggle, we are not alone. There are many organizations in civil society, public interest groups, consumer organizations and other coalitions of concerned citizens which are already involved and who are prepared to cooperate.

Let us turn to the general situation. The general economic and political context in which we operate world-wide has not significantly changed since the last congress: the world economy and world society are more than ever in the grip of a rapid process of globalization. All over the world, we are dealing with its effects: the decline of the national state, the emergence of a global labour market and the race on a fast track to the bottom where wages and working conditions are held in place by violence and repression.

I do not want to extend myself on this analysis which is adequately developed in the document on Global Solidarity Activities submitted to you under Item 10 of the agenda, and I do not want to repeat what I have been telling most of you in the course of the past year or two in Vienna, Manila, Tokyo, Santo Domingo, Toronto and Prague and at several national congresses.

The question before us is: what can we do about it? Or rather, since we already know, though perhaps too much in outline only, what an alternative pattern of social and economic organization would look like: how do we put ourselves in the position to move from the present situation to a world where human needs are the priority of society?

This question, in turn, includes two others: what does an organization like the IUF have to do itself, internally, to become more effective and what can its message and its role be with respect to the general labour movement? I think the answer in both cases is the same: we have to become better organized, both in extension and in depth, we have to democratize and we have to become more political. But before I elaborate on this, I would like us to turn our attention for a moment on the practical situation of the IUF, as it is today, at the end of this congress period.

First, a word on the financial situation, since we all know that money is the sinews of war and that no combat organization, such as a trade union, can pursue goals and policies with any degree of credibility without a solid financial foundation.

Most of you will recall that four years ago, at our last congress, we faced a critical situation. We had overextended ourselves and had used up our income and our reserves. I am very happy to be able to report to you that we have been able to turn this situation around. As you will have seen from the financial reports of 1993 to 1995, submitted to you under Item 5, and particularly from the Appendix 1 covering the past year, we have been able to reconstitute reserves in a much shorter time than we were instructed to do by the last congress and our accounts have consistently shown a surplus, although admittedly a modest surplus last year.

This result is due to several factors: in the first place, the continued strong support from the affiliated unions, for which I would like to take the opportunity to thank you; in the second place, a much improved accounting system, which has been put into place largely with the help of the Swedish Food Workers’ Union and, thirdly, by stringent financial discipline in the secretariat and at all levels of the organization. It would be remiss of me, however, not to extend my special thanks to Ron Oswald, who has acquitted himself with competence and professionalism of the responsibility of financial administration since the last congress, including the difficult task of introducing and implementing the practices and policies which have made positive results possible. We all know that in every trade union organization there is a constant tension between objectives and available resources. To find the proper balance between the two, with all the uncertainties involved, is one of the most taxing problems of a secretariat, and Ron will report to you under Item 5 what this has meant in our case.

Turning to our membership: we have held our own, but only just. In fact, we have had to run fast to keep in the same place. Membership losses in key industrialized countries have not been compensated, as in the past, by gains elsewhere, and we have held our own mainly through new affiliations.

It is encouraging to note that the affiliations in Eastern and Central Europe are beginning to become significant in numbers, and will be reflected in an increased representation in our governing bodies. Wolfgang Weinz, our coordinator for this region, will report to you on our work there.

The unions in the former Communist countries are beginning to find their bearings, even in the countries where the economies and societies have suffered a catastrophic collapse. In the successor states of the former Yugoslavia it is the trade unions alone among all institutions in society that have reached out to each other across the divides created by nationalist extremism and have begun to courageously assert a common labour interest, and the common labour values of solidarity and justice. We are proud to have been able to assist this process.

A priority that remains is the development of our organizing work in the Confederation of Independent States: Russia, which spans two continents; in Europe, Belarus, the Ukraine, Moldova; and the states of Central Asia and Transcaucasia. To create effective links and working relationship between the unions in these countries and the rest of the world through international trade union organizations such as ours is an urgent task.

It is urgent because of the unbelievable deprivation that has been imposed in the name of reform according to the neo-liberal pattern on the peoples of these countries and because of the huge problems this has caused for trade union action; it is urgent because the transnational corporations are already there and because we cannot afford to let them create a major unorganized void; it is urgent because the trade union movement there needs to recover the traditions, the culture and the values of the historical labour movement in order to join us in the fight for a better world.

We cannot accomplish these tasks if we do not create a minimal infrastructure, a relay station, for our International Union. This is why the secretariat is asking you to approve the creation of a Moscow office and this is why we are appealing to those of you who can to help us support this office.

The remaining blank spots on the map are mostly in Asia: small in number but huge in terms of population: they are Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia and the Future Former Communist Countries (the "FFCCs"): China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and Cuba. To enter these countries is not a simple organizing problem: it is a political problem and relates to our struggle for human and democratic rights.

China, of course, looms largest, and a great deal in the world balance of power between capital and labour depends on the workers’ struggle in that huge country to break the stranglehold of the ruling bureaucracy over society and to establish democratic trade unions. I regret the absence of the leader of the Chinese democratic trade union movement, Han Dong Fang, who has been unable to join us from his home in Hong Kong, where the very existence of a democratic trade union movement, as well as his own freedom, will be under threat in a few weeks’ time. I would like him to know that despite his physical absence he is with us in spirit and that he can be assured of our solidarity. Today’s China is a military dictatorship which combines the worst features of capitalism and of Stalinism. It looks formidable on the outside, but it also has a formidable enemy: the Chinese working class. We must trust the intelligence, the organizing talent and the militancy of the Chinese workers, with its deep roots in their past experience. They are our allies and the time will come when they can openly join us.

Cuba is, at this point, a political irrelevancy. We find its regime repellent, but we must remain open to the needs of the Cuban workers to deal with the problems of market Stalinism on that small island. Our last congress already declared that the politically senseless and vindictive blockade imposed by the United States should be lifted. Cuba is in no way a national security threat to the United States. If there is any good we can do in strengthening the resolve and the ability of the Cuban unions to defend their members’ interests it is our duty not to ignore this opportunity.

Closer to our traditional fields of activity, important organizing targets remain: agricultural workers in Brazil, already organized into unions but without meaningful international links; agricultural workers in the United States, with some international links, but still lacking a representative national union; hotel and restaurant workers in Latin America; the food workers’ union in South Africa, still hesitating to join the world, unlike their employers who are all over Eastern and Central Europe.

When we talk about organizing, about membership education, about union building, about coordinating transnational company work, we have to remember the crucial role about our regional organizations. I have said before that the regional organizations are the structures that give the IUF its flexibility, its adaptability and, ultimately, its strength. They are the reason why the mesh of international relations that links our affiliates with each other and with the International Union is more tightly woven in our case than in many other international organizations, why the international network and the international presence is relatively strong.

The IUF regional organizations are unique among ITSs: perhaps not at formal level, but certainly in the degree of genuine authority and responsibility delegated to their elected governing bodies and in the degree of democratic involvement of the affiliates. They play a crucial political and industrial role: they

are not administrative or project machines but fortresses of the democratic culture of our organization.

And, even so, the network is not tight enough, and does not reach deep enough into the membership. The need of the hour is for us to develop, far more than we already have, a capacity for militant, sustained, in depth action at international level. We will not be able to achieve this unless the membership itself of our affiliates becomes actively involved in the formulation of international trade union policy and in international trade union action, and in order to secure such an involvement a massive information and education job is needed.

In many of our affiliates, particularly I would say in the industrialized countries, the rank-and-file and in some cases even the middle-level leadership, hardly know that the IUF even exists, much less what we do, what we do not do and why. This knowledge, and awareness of the issues, is confined to a thin layer of top leaders - you who are in this congress hall today -, and as long as it remains confined to that level it will be very difficult to build an international trade union movement capable of successfully dealing with the challenges of the future.

There is a paradox about international trade union education inasmuch, in past decades, such education was intensively developed in Africa, Asia and Latin America because government funding for development was available to support it. We are of course continuing these activities as you will hear from Barbro Budin, our trade union development coordinator, who will also report on our equality program.

In fact, however, and therein lies the paradox, it is in many of the industrialized countries of Western Europe and North America that workers most needed to be educated about the potentialities of the international trade union movement and their role within it. This education, however, has been left to the national unions who themselves are not always clear about the issues and the potential of international trade union action, and we all know that very often the budgets for education and for international activities are the first to be cut when unions try to save money.

This is why it comes about that works councils or union delegates in certain companies, as they come across our work, for example through TNC coordination, are shocked by the discovery that an international trade union movement exists, with its own policies, requirements and expected discipline, all of which was decided by their own union in concert with others, and that they are actually expected to observe these policies, requirements and discipline. No one told them.

It is not helpful if our activities are underreported or not reported at all in the publications of our affiliates, or if some of the results achieved through international action are reported as though they happened by themselves, so to speak through spontaneous generation, and when the international dimension of trade union action is never part of a seminar or of any sort of educational activity. To tolerate or nurture this kind of ignorance consolidates the perception of international activities as a formal diplomatic exercise that represents a drain on the time of the national union leadership and the resources of the organizations rather than a natural extension of their own trade union action and a useful tool to solve their own problems.

What is at stake here is the proper perception of international trade union action and of international trade union organizations as trade unions, with all the seriousness this implies. An increasing number of IUF affiliates are recognizing that in future far more trade union issues will be resolved at international level than national unions will be able to solve themselves. The logical consequence is that the international trade union organizations of the future will need to be far sronger at the center than the ITSs are today, and this of course includes the IUF. It implies that national affiliates will have to transfer more authority and resources to their international organizations than they have been willing to do so far. In practice, the opposite reaction has been more frequent: under the impact of the crisis, national unions tend to withdraw into their national shell. This is a natural reaction but a wrong reaction, in the same way as putting on the brakes when driving on sheet ice and meeting an obstacle is a natural reaction but a wrong reaction. I would appeal to the leadership of all our affiliates to force themselves despite all pressures to think and react logically, not instinctively - just like they taught you in driving school.

Democratization has to go together with centralization of action, and there is no contradiction there. What needs to remain decentralized to the greatest possible extent is the elaboration and formulation of policy: that is a requirement of democracy. Decentralizing action, on the other hand, that is the actual operations of the International Union, is possible only to a limited extent. Beyond these limits, it is a recipe for confusion and, in its logical consequence, for dismantling the International Union.

This is another important point we need to keep in mind about our regional structures: the purpose of regionalization has never been to weaken the center. On the contrary: regionalization does not make sense without a strong center both for political and for organizational reasons.

The organizational reasons arise from the needs of the affiliates for a flexible, efficient and agile center capable of servicing and backing up both the regional organizations and the individual affiliates, capable of responding promptly to emergencies and to shifting priorities.

The political reason for a strong center are the need to ensure global accountability. It has always been true in the international labour movement, but much more so in an age of globalization, that none of us can effectively defend themselves unless we defend everyone else at the same time and that we stand and fall together. No one is so strong that they can afford to stand alone and it is foolish in the extreme to believe that standing alone gives you more strength than standing together. It is on the recognition of that reality and on this experience that solidarity was based in the past and it is based on the same reality today.

But this also means that we are all accountable to each other and that in an international organization such as ours there is no room for exterritorial enclaves that feel free to conduct what they regard as their business without reference to the views of other members or, indeed, to statutory provisions. The recognized autonomy of regional organizations or of trade groups, or of any other grouping of member unions, does not imply any right to unilateral declarations of independence. This is why all such groups are ultimately accountable for all their actions to the IUF governing bodies and why every one of their actions must always remain subject to scrutiny and discussion by any other member and by the governing bodies of this International Union.

Democratization of international thought throughout the membership, centralization of international action in the general and regional secretariats, in the coordinating unions when transnational corporations are involved, and by delegation in other bodies that may be charged with special missions, under the supervision and control of the governing bodies of the IUF - these are the organizational principles that will enable us to go forward in the foreseeable future.

Coordination of union action at the level of transnational corporations, and the organization of solidarity actions at that level, as well as servicing our sectors, has remained one of our principal priorities, as in previous congress periods. The documents submitted to you under item 8 of the agenda speak for themselves, and Patrick Dalban-Moreynas, Paul Garver and Emiko Murakami will introduce a large part of the discussion under that item.

The main development in the period under review has been the constitution of European Works Councils in some fifty companies within our jurisdiction, under the provisions of the European Works Councils Directive. As most of you are aware, the major issue our European affiliates have encountered as they negotiated the establishment of EWCs is union recognition, for which there is no formal provision in the Directive. We have insisted that EWCs be negotiated with union structures and that it should be unions that represent the employees of the company in its different subsidiary firms in Europe, and in mosts cases we have been successful. This has enabled us to formalize and institutionalize our relations, at least at European level, with key companies such as Danone, Nestlé, ACCOR, Kelloggs, Parmalat, Philip Morris, United Biscuits and others.

Where we have not been successful, despite a strong union presence on the surface, for example in Unilever, Danisco and Oetker, it is because of the failures in the in-depth union organization and education I referred to earlier. In other cases yet, such as McDonalds and Pepsico, companies have been able to avoid union recognition and have created fake councils largely composed of company stooges. These cases, fortunately very few, are those where companies are largely unorganized and worthwhile targets for future organizing campaigns.

On balance, our European affiliates have been successful and they, as well as the European regional secretariat, should be complimented on the fact that in our sector the results of the EWC organizing campaign have been significantly better than in others.

Everything I have said up to now has had to do with strengthening the organization. The question that remains to be addressed is: what do we want to be strong for? What is the objective? There are in fact two objectives: a trade union objective and a political objective.

The trade union objective has to be to put into place a new system of global industrial relations. The principal long-term significance of the EWCs, for example, is that they represent the beginnings of a new system of industrial relations which are supranational or transnational, and which foreshadow what labour/management relations are likely to become in an age of globalization. As such, they should serve as a pattern for similar institutions in other parts of the world. In the case of Danone, we have made a small beginning, since all regional secretaries are entitled to participate in the meetings of the Danone Council. In the case of other companies, regional councils are in preparation in addition to the existing European one. It should be our objective to turn EWCs, wherever possible, into world councils and to federate existing regional councils into world councils. What is achievable in the foreseeable future is global coalition bargaining resulting in framework agreements such as those we have already concluded with Danone and ACCOR guaranteeing, for example, the respect of basic trade union rights.

The political objective is one without which nothing else we do makes sense. There is a fallacy which used to be quite widespread some years ago that there could be such a thing as a non-political or an a-political trade union movement and that this was even a desirable state of being. In fact, everything we do is political, and nothing trade unions can do is secure and of lasting value unless we succeed in changing society so that the well-being of ordinary people becomes its principal priority.

This means that the trade union movement, which is unique in that it is the only universal and democratic force in world society, based on millions of people democratically organized to defend their interests, has the responsibility of organizing civil society at global level around a political agenda, in a broad industrial and political alliance with single-issue and public interest groups whose objectives converge or coincide with our own: movements for democratic and human rights, women’s movements, consumers’ movements, movements for the protection of the environment and others.

That is the mandate we already gave ourselves at the last congress in the resolution on Global Solidarity: the struggle for a new democratic world order based on a commitment to human solidarity. That is a socialist agenda, and I am saying this in the broadest sense of the term without any sectarian intent. Trade union organizations, also at international level, are pluralist organizations, the IUF more so than many, and we can say with Isaiah Berlin, that "we do not see variety as something threatening our fundamental unity; on the contrary, we consider uniformity the lack of creative imagination or of narrow-mindedness and, in some extreme cases, even as the seal of slavery."

But, for all the variety of our views and traditions, we have one single, common interest to defend, which is the one the historical labour movement has always defended: the common class interest of workers. This interest has not changed, although the working class has changed and is still changing. In all its forms and in all its diversity, however, it comprises, more than ever, the overwhelming majority of the world’s population and its interest therefore coincides with that of civil society in general.

Our traditional political relays can no longer be taken for granted. This is a time when the broad-based parties of the Left are moving to the Center while the Center is moving to the Right. None of the mainstream parties of the left any longer declares any intention to work for a fundamental social change. Because of the economic constraints imposed on national governments by globalization, because of their inability to control transnational corporations and finance capital, most parties of the Left who are - or hope to be - in government are backing away from a commitment to labour interests and labour demands. I think it is safe to say that, regardless of its politics, hardly any organization represented at this congress derives much satisfaction from its association with the party it traditionally regarded as its ally. Yet, trade union action needs a political dimension, both at national and at international level and this political action can only take as a point of departure the interest of our members. That is where we must make a stand because our members have no other place to go.

This means that we must forcefully reassert both the legitimacy and the necessity of the politics which are naturally ours. We are not an "interest group" among others but a movement which represents the general interest of society against the economic and political power structures of a capitalist system that is leading the world, yet again, into a new crisis. That system has no future except its own implosion but it has the capacity of inflicting enormous social damage while it runs its course. As against that system we have been in the past, we are at present and we will be in the future the liberation movement of humanity.

The world-wide broad coalition of social solidarity that needs to give this politics a practical expression and momentum still needs to be built. Our task is to rebuild confidence in our politics: undo the confusion and the ideological damage done by Stalinism, denounce the cynical exploitation of that disaster by the neo-conservatives, puncture the balloon that "there is no alternative" to the present system and organize, not only workers at the point of production but workers in society, in their different social roles as citizens and consumers.

I know that some of you might say: this is a very grand program, but the IUF is after all only a small part of the labour movement, and besides the labour movement as a whole is not in such a good shape; the members are passive and afraid, we do not hear the call from our national centers, or from the international organizations who are supposed to lead us.

I would make three points in reply: in the first place, that there is no one to lead you unless you are able to lead yourselves. If the turmoil of this century has done some good it is insofar it has finally put to rest the concept of the labour movement as an army. The worst defeats we have suffered this century happened when this disciplined army was awaiting orders to fight that never came and, still disciplined, sank like a stone.

The top-down model has failed, both in its social-democratic and communist versions, as of course it must. There is no hierarchy as far as thought, good sense and judgment is concerned. All of us who have been elected to positions of responsibility by our members, at any level and in any capacity, having listened to our members, are under the obligation to do our own thinking and to act according to the dictates of our conscience.

Whether our organizations be small or large, we are all responsible citizens of the labour movement and it is our right and indeed our duty to tell our national centers or our international organizations what to do, not the other way around.

The second point is that we are not alone. Look at the world around you! Look at all the struggles that are going on, the courage, the creativity, the astonishing break-throughs where nobody, looking from afar, expected anything to happen: yesterday it was Poland, Brazil, South Africa, today it is Korea, tomorrow - who knows, maybe Indonesia, maybe China, maybe Russia, maybe the United States. Rosa Luxemburg, in a letter to a friend, wrote that "the mass is always that which it must be according to the circumstances of the time, and the mass is always at the point of becoming something entirely different than what it appears to be" and she added: "the ‘disappointment over the masses’ is always the most shameful testimony for a political leader." Trust the members. We are only the tip of the iceberg.

This brings me to the third point, which is actually a question, and that question is: what is the alternative? Our movement is made up of hundreds and thousands of struggles, large and small, that are going on all over the world every day, which workers are conducting because they have no alternative and no other place to go. What is our alternative? The alternative is to give up, to submit. That is neither a realistic nor an acceptable possibility.

So let us be absolutely clear that we have a trade union task, which is to extend organizing and bargaining to the global level, and we have a political task which is to help create a world-wide, broad coalition of social solidarity in order to bring about a new democratic and social world order. With that clear, it remains for us to give ourselves the tools for the job and get on with it, one step after another. Never let them tell you that politics is the art of the possible: politics is the art of making possible what is necessary.

Chair and Delegates: this concludes my introduction to the activities report of the secretariat. However, before closing, it remains for me to thank you, the Chair of this congress but also and above all the President of the IUF for the last four years, on my behalf and on behalf of the whole International Union.

I said earlier that the IUF was a pluralist organization, and Willy Vijverman has been the first president out of the Christian trade union movement this organization has ever had. He runs a pretty tight ship back home and his union is one of the strongest member unions in the IUF. He and his union have been a tower of strength for this organization. The secretariat is deeply grateful for his support and his commitment, and for his critical and perceptive, and always helpful involvement in our activities. The IUF is a better organization for his presidency.

I thank you for your patience and for your attention.