Sony France: Employees "arrest" executives instead of taking control of plant

[cyu]

Bad idea in my view - taking control of the plant and ignoring the executives would have been much more pragmatic, productive, and popular.

Excerpts from http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0314/1224242848106.html

The plant’s 311 employees were notified in December that they would lose their jobs when the factory closes on April 17th. Mr Foucher... was detained by workers objecting to the severance package they’d been offered. They blocked access to the plant with branches and tree trunks

“Job offers have shrunk down to nothing,” a Sony employee named Philippe told France Info radio. “There’s no work to be found in the entire region. If I have to move, I will. I’ve lived here 24 years, and I never imagined the place would shut down.”


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/images/2009/0314/thumb/1224242848106_1.jpg (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/images/2009/0314/1224242848106_1.html)


The government is bracing for nationwide strikes and demonstrations on March 19th.

Last year, an Englishman who was running a car parts factory in eastern France was held for 48 hours by his employees.

[Bitter Ashes]

Hmmm. I think I'd agree. When there's a life involved, it will probably antagonise the police to react quickly, as opposed to the long drawn out process of evictions. It turns a squatting case into a hostage case and that's when the gloves come off.
What cannot be disputed though is that this is a great example of workers working together to fight for thier rights. Everyone who was involved should be proud of themselves for working together for the common goal of giving the bourgeois a kicking.

[bretty]

This shows some of the frustration of being part of the surplus labour force that exponentially increases annually on a global scale. I'd agree though that the methods will make the police get involved quickly.

[Zurdito]

it is not mutually exclusive to occupy the factory and kidnap the executives. that used to happen a lot in the 1970's, at least in Argentina.

One one occasion the workers even doused the capitalist in petrol, got the matches out, and waited for their pay rise.

[Yehuda Stern]

This is a great and brave action on the side of the workers. And any socialist who says otherwise in the name of not antagonizing the police should be ashamed of himself.

[redarmyfaction38]

it is not mutually exclusive to occupy the factory and kidnap the executives. that used to happen a lot in the 1970's, at least in Argentina.

One one occasion the workers even doused the capitalist in petrol, got the matches out, and waited for their pay rise.
"direct action"!:D
aahhh "the good old days"

[Yazman]

it is not mutually exclusive to occupy the factory and kidnap the executives. that used to happen a lot in the 1970's, at least in Argentina.

One one occasion the workers even doused the capitalist in petrol, got the matches out, and waited for their pay rise.

Really? LOL, that is awesome if true.

[cyu]

This is a great and brave action on the side of the workers. And any socialist who says otherwise in the name of not antagonizing the police should be ashamed of himself.

While I am as encouraged by union militancy as you are, there are militants that use smart tactics and there are also militants that use less effective tactics. I'm not so worried about antagonizing the police as I am about antagonizing the local community.

So let me give you a few examples of tactics that I do not think are smart: beating up the executives, killing the executives, dismembering the executives, putting the executives in a blender, cutting open the skulls of the executives and eating their brains. It just gets silly after a while, and is not going to win you more supporters.

Capitalists would love it if the only tactics that union members can think of are tactics that will turn off the local community. Work-stoppage strikes are one example - if the union stops work, then the local community is hurt because they are no longer getting the services they depend on. Capitalists can then use this discomfort in the local community as a weapon against the strikers. To prevent this, I would instead encourage "working strikes" - strikes in which union members disobey the executives, but continue to serve the local community.

Another criticism I have against this action is that it is still putting the power in the hands of the executives - in other words, they still assume that they have to change the minds of the executives before they can get anything done. That is not what real direct action is about. You're not after changing the minds of the executives or the politicians - you implement the policies you want regardless of what they want. Forget about changing their minds, just assume democratic control - voluntarily giving them the power to decide your lives is thinking like a slave.

[Sam_b]

So let me give you a few examples of tactics that I do not think are smart: beating up the executives, killing the executives, dismembering the executives, putting the executives in a blender, cutting open the skulls of the executives and eating their brains. It just gets silly after a while, and is not going to win you more supporters.

So what? That has nothing to do with the situation at hand here.

Maybe it would be better to show your solidarity with these workers, and then see what actually happens in their struggle, before condemning their tactics?

[cyu]

Maybe it would be better to show your solidarity with these workers, and then see what actually happens in their struggle, before condemning their tactics?


Sure I support them - just like I support union members that go on work-stoppage strikes, but that doesn't mean I think they have chosen the best course of action. If I were discussing tactics with them, I would be advising them to do other things.

If you were the trainer or coach of a boxer or basketball team, of course you support your players, but still, you are trying to find strategies that they can use that will most likely get them what they want. Even if you weren't the coach but just a player in the team or a fan of the team, you'd still want the team to use good tactics.

[Sam_b]

Sure I support them - just like I support union members that go on work-stoppage strikes, but that doesn't mean I think they have chosen the best course of action

Wait, are you saying that you disagree with 'work-stoppage' strikes as well?

Thats just crazy.

[cyu]

are you saying that you disagree with 'work-stoppage' strikes as well?
Exactly. From above:

"Capitalists would love it if the only tactics that union members can think of are tactics that will turn off the local community. Work-stoppage strikes are one example - if the union stops work, then the local community is hurt because they are no longer getting the services they depend on. Capitalists can then use this discomfort in the local community as a weapon against the strikers. To prevent this, I would instead encourage "working strikes" - strikes in which union members disobey the executives, but continue to serve the local community."

[PoWR]

"I know a strike causes inconveniences. It is supposed to." - Terry Duffy, PATCO rank-and-filer.

[cyu]

"I know a strike causes inconveniences. It is supposed to."

Some things you have to resort to when you have no other options - sometimes you even find rationalizations for it. However, the goal of the strike is not to make the general population hate unions. The goal of the strike is the improve the lives of the union members. What if union members who went on strike also went around raping people? That's an inconvenience right? Would you say that's the point of going on strike? Of course not.

I judge actions based on how likely they are to improve the lives of the union members. If you want to argue that inconveniencing the general population is more likely to improve their lives, then fine, let's have a discussion about whether that is really true or not, but don't tell me pissing off the local community is the point of a strike unless you are actually trying to turn union members into society's outcasts.

[Yehuda Stern]

What if union members who went on strike also went around raping people? That's an inconvenience right?

Do you even realize how stupid that argument is? Do I have to explain to you the difference between rape and militant working class action? Is violating a woman's body on the same moral level as violating a capitalist's 'right' to own property and exploit his workers?

The workers didn't "piss off the local community." They attacked their boss, something which they are justified in doing. This pisses off the part of society which accepts that the capitalists have a legitimate right to exploit the working class - which apparently includes you.

[cyu]

Is violating a woman's body on the same moral level as violating a capitalist's 'right' to own property and exploit his workers?

Of course not - I think we obviously both agree here.



The workers didn't "piss off the local community." They attacked their boss, something which they are justified in doing.


You are referring to the original post of this thread, however, the post that you are replying to is not talking about the same thing. The part about "pissing off the local community" is in reference to this:

"Capitalists would love it if the only tactics that union members can think of are tactics that will turn off the local community. Work-stoppage strikes are one example - if the union stops work, then the local community is hurt because they are no longer getting the services they depend on. Capitalists can then use this discomfort in the local community as a weapon against the strikers. To prevent this, I would instead encourage "working strikes" - strikes in which union members disobey the executives, but continue to serve the local community."

In other words, I would prefer it if union members found ways to fight capitalists without drawing fire from the general population. If they can do this, then they will win more supporters.

[fabilius]

"Capitalists would love it if the only tactics that union members can think of are tactics that will turn off the local community. Work-stoppage strikes are one example - if the union stops work, then the local community is hurt because they are no longer getting the services they depend on. Capitalists can then use this discomfort in the local community as a weapon against the strikers. To prevent this, I would instead encourage "working strikes" - strikes in which union members disobey the executives, but continue to serve the local community."

In other words, I would prefer it if union members found ways to fight capitalists without drawing fire from the general population. If they can do this, then they will win more supporters.

Doing what you quoted seems a great idea. F.x. one action could be giving the company´s property away. I think the local community would be thrilled to get free food, or free stuff while the owners of course would gnawing their hands over their losses.

Continue production and give it away.

Also, teachers that strike could still show up and make sure the kids can go to school. What irritates working parents most is the fact they have to take care of the kids.

Then the teachers all hold history courses in labor strikes and the history of the labormovement and ignore the school´s curriculum completely.

[cyu]

Then the teachers all hold history courses in labor strikes and the history of the labormovement and ignore the school´s curriculum completely.


Awesome idea :lol:

[Enragé]

the heart of the problem in schools is not the curriculum, but the way in which teachers and students are continuously put up against eachother by the way the school is structured, leading to an almost ever-present continual war between teacher and student even though in the larger picture they share the same interest.

The rammifications of this could be seen in the student (high school) strike last year in the netherlands, where students undertook action and the teachers mostly sat back and were all like "zomg! the youth dont listen no more!". The point being, the curriculum should be changed according to the wishes of the students and teachers together, not simply brought forward by some teacher.

Anyway, not completely relevant to the topic but yeh, felt like posting, got exams tomorrow, should start studying, don't feel like it :P

more on topic: i agree with the idea of continuing production and then giving shit away, however the strike as such (work stoppage) also shows that society is dependent on the services of whichever group is striking (since all goes to shit if they stop working).

even more on topic: ofcourse, solidarity with the workers of sony france