Daniel Rodriguez, secretary general of the union of Mates. ( Photo: Seb )
Daniel Rodriguez is a member of the collective Marea Socialista and general secretary of the union of Mates (Materiales Siderúrgicos), one of the four nationalized brick. The Argentine group Techint had bought the company for $ 120 million in 2004 to contribute, ultimately, increase production of Sidor.
At the time of nationalization of the latter, workers Mates also discussed their collective agreement. Barely three months after approval of this agreement, private business decided to break his commitment and reduce workers' wages by 45% (but not administrative staff), arguing an impending financial crisis.
How have you led the fight in favor of nationalization?
Daniel RodrÃguez: The attack on wages has acted as a detonator and highlighted the degree of exploitation practiced by the multinational. This has also strengthened our work in the politico-strategic, with a broader view including the four brick. Initially Mates was not directly affected by the nationalization of Sidor. The Techint group was the largest shareholder but we were taken up as a mercantile entity separately.
When the decision to nationalize Sidor was taken, we realized what was the project currently boosting the President of the Republic: A New Steel Corporation of Venezuela. We also realized how we represent an important branch in the cycle of production of iron and steel.
With the pay dispute arose among Mates, the directions of other brick had agreed to generate chaos (by layoffs in particular), to mobilize workers in the street and go to a sector strike. If they could paralyze the four brick, it would have caused problems both upstream (Ferrominera, the mining company) and downstream (Sidor). Their strategy was to create a mass movement of workers and redirect it against the government. But this strategy has been unsuccessful with the president's announcement to nationalize the four companies.
What role did the workers in this decision?
The nationalization of Sidor was an impetus for us that allowed us to unite ourselves as industry. Before that, despite the work that had been conducted within the brick, the ideological differences between workers was not possible to go on the offensive. With Sidor, we realized that it was possible for us also and he had to push in that direction with concrete proposals.
Given that there was a proposed reorganization of the steel industry and that we were in the middle of the chain of production, we proposed to the President nationalization. Firstly to support the conformation of this new steel corporation but also to reduce the cost of raw material for Sidor and thus allow a reduction in selling prices to final consumers.
Our proposal is that everything we produce to serve the community and at an economical price. We want to move towards creating a link between the company and community, between workers and the community. All this of course by pulsing the workers' control. There is no other mechanism for running our business effectively, especially in times of crisis. It must course have a concrete definition of what workers' control and a law giving it a legal character, as there are also many trade union sectors that oppose it.
Do you think the government has the same definition of workers' control you?
I doubt it (laughs). But even if it's very complicated, I think we must conduct this struggle, we the workers. With consciousness and ideology, we can do it. It is about controlling finances, know the production model, to know consignee, etc.. from mine where the ore out to selling the finished product. Faced with this, there is a bureaucracy within the government that is starting to respond. This was seen with the brick; the bourgeoisie and the state bureaucracy did everything for that nationalization is not successful. What we need to do is get to the counter.
What do you think of Hugo Chavez's proposal that the choice of the direction of the business is done in consultation between the President and Workers?
is an important first step. But before looking for outside people probably competent but not knowing the problems of the factory, it may be wise to see the talent that may emerge internally. And the workers are without doubt, from this point of view, the best position to know them.
interview published in the Swiss daily Le Courrier August 15, 2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment