Julian Assange
617 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
617 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
Mobility is one of the conditions for not being excluded in our society. Take for example an unemployed worker who cannot refuse a job 60 kilometers from his home, whereas before 2011, a job was considered suitable if it was within 25 km. It doesn’t matter if you can’t afford to buy a car, if you have to pick up your child from the daycare center before 6 p.m. (where you were lucky enough to find a place), if there is not enough public transportation between your home and your workplace. Public institutions are very concerned about the duties of their population, but are they as concerned about their own? Do they promote accessibility for all to the territories that give them their chances to live, work or develop personally? Are they making the best use of public money to improve the quality of life of their population? Do they support the development of quality jobs? Do they protect collective interests from the ravages of certain private interests? The analysis of federal and European railway policies unfortunately gives us negative answers to these questions.
Rail transport, if it is public, is a social response to the need for mobility by guaranteeing a service accessible to all, in keeping with the quest for equality that characterizes(1) PUBLIC SERVICE. Moreover, it is one of the modes of The most environmentally friendly way to travel with external costs five times lower than road transport. However, European and national railway policies are exactly the opposite of its development and the strengthening of its public character. The deterioration of public transport is due in particular to the outsourcing of part of the SNCB’s activities to the private sector, to the introduction of commercial and managerial logics, to the compression and degradation of employment (all the more harmful to the quality of the service as the number of passengers transported increases), to the staggering costs of external consultancy(2) (225 million euros in 2010 according to the CSC Transcom), to the decrease in public allocations and the strangulation by debt. But the worst is certainly the liberalization.
On February 26, the European Parliament voted by a majority of 57% for the fourth railway package. The announced objective is to open national passenger transport to competition. Since 2001, three sets of legislation known as « rail packages » have succeeded one another to allow new operators to take charge of the international and national transport of goods and then the international transport of passengers. Without having assessed the effects, the European Union is now moving into the final phase with the liberalization of national passenger transport. The enemy to be defeated would be the public monopoly. Which of these two words is really meant? According to neoliberal dogma, nothing beats competition, which, according to Siim Kalas, European Commissioner for Transport, will result in » greater freedom of choice and savings of public funds and, for users, an improvement in quality . But the missionaries of neo-liberalism do not say that in the last 40 years of liberalization and privatization, the disappearance of public enterprises has been to the benefit of private oligopolies, even monopolies. According to Alain Cambi, federal secretary of the French union Sud Rail: » There will be a regrouping of several large companies and we will end up with a levelling down. Free » competition leads to the law of the strongest, the strongest being the company capable of crushing the unions, imposing its prices on subcontractors, absorbing smaller companies and… to lobby on political decisions in its favor. The countries of the South on which « structural adjustment plans » have been imposed, under the pretext of their indebtedness, can testify to the power taken by multinationals over their economies and their future.
A private company would provide better and cheaper transportation than a public company and would pay its shareholders handsomely, who would otherwise go elsewhere? Currently, in Belgium, the state contributes two thirds of the price of the ticket. In the event of liberalization, would this translate into public subsidy to private companies that would arrange among themselves to set prices that benefit them or save on personnel and maintenance costs? At the risk of seeing the safety of users endangered? One has to wonder whether the apparent fight against « monopolies » does not rather camouflage the interest of private investors in diverting public money into sectors where the big investments have been made and which can yield big returns. A move supported by so-called left-wing politicians, such as the French socialist, Frédéric Cuvillier, Minister of Transport: « This is a major challenge for our manufacturers and the thousands of employees in this high value-added sector, where our know-how is widely recognized, and which will benefit from easier access to other European markets.
On February 26, among the 23 Belgians in the European Parliament, the votes on the fourth railway package were close. 8 MEPs voted in favour (CD&V, sp.a, cdH, MR) and 7 rejected the text (PS, Ecolo, Groen, VB), the others abstained or were absent. The vote concerned three aspects: a single standard for the certification of railway equipment, provisions to open up passenger transport to competition and a provision separating the activities of operator and network manager. The games are not yet completely set, since the liberalization will then be submitted to the member states and positions are contrasted in Belgium. The position of the PS MEPs differs not only from that of their European group (favourable) but also from the measures taken by Paul Magnette (PS) when he was in charge of the dossier. The latter had in fact remained deaf to the proposals of the unions to build an integrated structure. He imposed the splitting of the SNCB into two to pave the way for liberalization, even though the split was not imposed, which made Siim Kalas say that Belgium was a good pupil.
The day before the vote, on February 25, 4,000 railway workers from 17 countries demonstrated at the call of the European Transport Federation (ETF) in Strasbourg. This demonstration certainly contributed to the rejection of the questioning of the right to strike with the implementation of a minimum service, which was proposed in the basic text. But even though liberalization has been postponed somewhat, with the 2019 deadline pushed back to 2022, it is well on its way. Without significant mobilization of railway workers and users to put pressure on their governments, liberalization will be gradual. The current project consists of opening up the competition through calls for tender but also allows the contract to be awarded directly. In this second case, various conditions must be met, particularly in terms of punctuality, quality of service and « staff productivity ». If these conditions are not met (who will judge and according to what criteria, with what guarantee of neutrality…), a call for tender will have to be launched. The breach is open. The opening of public procurement is also an important point in the transatlantic partnership project between the United States and the European Union (TTIP or TAFTA)(3)), under discussion for the moment. The transport sector is clearly identified as being subject to the market logic
To find arguments against rail liberalization, an evaluation of the first three packages would not be a luxury. A French MEP, Jacky Hénin (PCF-FdG) quoted, in a written question to the committee, » the dramatic consequences of the three previous railway packages: a decrease in rail freight in favor of road freight, a decrease in safety conditions, a decrease in the quality of services to users, an increase in costs for users and a questioning of the working conditions of employees « .
The example of freight transport clearly shows the limits of liberalization. In 2004, before liberalization, freight transport represented 60 million tons. Since then, the sector has been opened up to private players, in particular because liberalization was intended to help increase the market share of railways compared to road transport. As a result, in 2013, freight dropped to 37.5 million, a 40% decrease. The liberalization of freight transport by rail has led to the elimination of hundreds of jobs and the restructuring of freight transport, resulting in even more trucks on the road. According to Filip Peers, permanent secretary of the Brussels regional union of railway workers, the privatization of freight transport has led to the disappearance of diffuse traffic. In contrast to direct traffic, where a complete train is loaded with goods to be transported, for example, from a car company to the port of Antwerp, diffuse traffic consists of a train made up of containers from different companies, which stops at several stations to drop off some containers and load others. This type of traffic requires a lot of workers and does not generate sufficient profits in the face of the appetite of private investors. And since the prices of road transport are drastically reduced by social dumping, the transport of these containers is cheaper by truck. This is estimated to add 300,000 trucks to the road.
To this we can add the increase in freight train accidents since liberalization, with twelve operators running on the network at the end of 2011 (let’s mention: at Remeresdaele on January 25, 2012, at Melsele on April 12, 2012, at Tintigny on May 4, 2012, at Godinne on May 11, 2012, at Hever on February 19, 2013, at Schellebelle on May 4, 2013, at Fourons on October 1, 2013, at Wilsele on November 4, 2013). Knowing that rail transports 20% of the chemicals, most of which are extremely dangerous because they are flammable, it is frightening. These accidents may be due to the loss of communication time between operators, each following his own hierarchical voice, the lack of coordination between competing operators, the increase in profitability requirements and the pressure on workers with untenable schedules, the lack of training and even information of which the workers are victims, the decrease in equipment maintenance costs, etc. More and more railroaders are saying that if things continue to go the way they are, they will discourage their family and friends from taking the train.
As far as employment is concerned, the European Commission itself is announcing a massacre. According to her, liberalization will cause the loss of 92,600 jobs in Europe over 10 years. At the same time, the deterioration of employment will increase. Gone are the statutory employees, targets of the Troika, because they hold back the private sector in its race to make employment and workers more precarious.
The public companies are thus launched in a race to the lowest cost in the hope of not disappearing, with consequences on the offer, the quality of service, safety and working conditions. In Belgium, the SNCB is also weakened by a historical debt that has not always served the development of the railways. If it has to reduce its production costs without radically different management and adequate financing, bankruptcy may knock on the door. There would no longer be a public railway operator to influence « market » prices, with private and/or foreign companies taking control and able to demand ever higher sums from the public authorities to fulfil public service missions. In England, the « market » is already open. The rates are the highest in Europe. There are more than 100 private companies operating on the rail network.
Both users and workers of public transport are particularly affected by the policies, but the whole population is concerned because it finances them through taxes. In a context of imposed austerity, the minimum alliance is the one that brings together the common union front and the users. It can of course go beyond this by bringing together others such as environmental organizations, groups of passionate users of the networks, feminists and youth and student movements (audiences more dependent on public transport), health workers (concerned with the fight against fine particles), associations of people with reduced mobility, etc. A broad and combative alliance would be able to build a balance of power favorable to the maintenance and development of public transport. Platforms already exist in Brussels (Transport TOUT public) and in Wallonia (Pour un rail performant), they must be reinforced to stop the train of liberalization.
Myriam Djegham
CIEP-MOC Brussels and Transport TOUT Public
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Transports Tout Public, the user-worker platform TTP is a joint initiative of IEB, SIEP-MOC, CGSP and CSC. To defend public transport, in the interest of all, workers and users are engaged in a common struggle. We are organizing to react to the European, national and regional attacks on public service transport. We are convinced that the answer to the social, environmental, energy and economic needs of mobility can only be found outside the commercial sphere. Private transport and infrastructure companies are squeezing wages, reducing the quality and number of jobs, directing supply to the richest users, profiting from large investments and neglecting the general interest. Public transport, on the other hand, can guarantee stable and well-paid jobs, as well as a service accessible to all, in keeping with the quest for equality that characterizes public service.
www.transporttoutpublic.net
facebook : public transport
Twitter : @TransToutPublic
