Yesterday evening was programmed on France 2 crossed the Mots emission, presented by Yves Calvi.
The second debate suggested was summarized by the following question: Sequestered owners: until where? (French people sequestered owners when the do benefits but they delocalize)
And as with each time the subject is tackled by the media and that a trade unionist or left-wing policies points the end of his nose, it is the subject of harassing to know if, yes or not, it condemns the process.
Free to ask him the question on several occasions, as if it were there the only element of the debate which is worth and which it had to be forced costs that costs the interlocutor to denounce the practice.
Because, of course, the line pushes cries of sea eagles. " Inadmissible, unacceptable, intolerable! " , Braille in a beautiful unit chorus of UMPistes. (UMP is the president Sarkozy band, Sarkozy who is called the little dog of GW Bush)
They acknowledge well, constrained and forced, " to include/understand the colère" employees, but from there not to respect the law, thus think, nothing could not justify it.
And they have only the word " violence" with the mouth.
However the managers of undertakings are not hurt, one brings to them to eat and of the mattresses to sleep.
They are just retained to force them to negotiate. Which is greatest violence?
Isn't it rather to close a factory and to throw to the street of the hundreds of men and women, who will not be able to make any more live their family?
With the place, like Arlette Chabot also a few days earlier, unceasingly to require left which she disapproves sequestrations, why not ask to the representatives majority and employers, with our virgins startled in front of the " violence" employees, if they do find acceptable to lay off just to increase the dividends of the shareholders, including when the companies carry out benefit?
After having sequestered leaders of their companies, the employees of Sony obtained 100.000 euros additional to finance the formation and a lengthening of the leave of reclassification; at Caterpillar, the payment of the days of strike, 1,5 million euros in more for the social plan and a number of redundancy brought back from 733 to 600; at Scapa finally, the starting premium will rise to 1,7 million euros, i.e. practically the double of what was envisaged before the takeover by force of the employees.
It is thus that these companies can allow it. But that they did not want it. And that the traditional forms of fights - those which are legal - were impotent with leading to it.
Were the employees to thus let their employers destroy their lives without fighting?
The proof is made that it is seriously necessary to be annoyed to obtain something finally.
Under these conditions, even if the trade unionists and the policies authentically of left do not dare it to acknowledge, no matter what openly the representatives of the party of the money and the owners say some - " What it is that this history to go to sequester people! " , Sarkozy himself was indignant - and even if that annoys our social-liberals in rabbit skin of the PS, let us assume for our part our statute of abominable blog of ultra left and affirm sabres it with light: yes, to sequester the managers of undertakings which carry out against the employees a true war of the classes is perfectly legitimate.
Illustration: The war of the classes of François Ruffin (Beech, 2008): “The war of the classes exists, it is a fact, but it is mine, the class of the rich person, which carries out this war, and we are gaining it. ” It is Warren Buffett who formulated this judgement. The first world fortune.
Never we would have dared, us, to pronounce these words, “war of class”: by fear to appear “antiquated”, “simplistic”, “Manicheans”.
And, with us, it is a whole left which enlise in the salmigondis of “complexity”.