By JORGE LUIZ SOUTO MAIOR*
The stance of the IBGE management goes beyond all limits of legality
1.
The history of capitalism is marked by various forms of violence against the working class. This is not something that happens in the present day, nor is it a characteristic of specific political parties. The differences that do occasionally arise are merely of intensity. I will not go into this in depth, since the historical facts speak for themselves.
Faced with the strength of the mobilization of the working class and, above all, due to the need to reestablish some stability to the economic system based on capitalist production, there was, however, a moment when the ruling class found itself obliged to give in a little in its interests.
Even so, according to Bernard Edelman, what we saw was the emergence of a “bourgeois right for the worker”, because, even though they were conquered by the working class and served for its effective protection, labor rights do not break the stage of capitalist exploitation, which depends on many forms of violence so that the relations on which it is based are maintained.[1]
Under conditions of an idealized functioning of capitalism, it would not be the purpose of the capitalist ruling class to simply annihilate the working class, since, in order to achieve its profit objectives, it depends on the existence of the commodity labor power to exploit. However, in its real functioning, capitalism is not virtuous but rather self-destructive of life on Earth.
Thus, considering the persistent reduction of profit rates and the individualized effects determined by unbridled competition, the limit of the value of labor power, determined by the conditions of its reproduction, is repeatedly exceeded, especially on the periphery of capital.
The fact is that, in order to follow the path of capital reproduction and without exposing the class struggle, the ruling class, even making certain concessions, used legal forms so that, in the appearance of contractual freedom, the historical violence in which social relations were concretely constituted could not be glimpsed and, thus, abstractly, transformed into mere legal relations.
And, currently, the movement of international capital, to contain yet another of its crises, is to commit the violence of increasing the exploitation of labor, notably in peripheral countries, with the legal order once again at its service.
This is what explains, in Brazil's recent history, the 2017 labor “reform”, the 2019 social security “reform” and, more currently, the tax reform.
Even with all this history of violence, at least in the so-called “democratic countries”, the right of the working class to organize unions has remained, to a greater or lesser extent.
In the Brazilian Federal Constitution, this right, whose basis is the non-intervention of the State, is expressly guaranteed:
“Art. 8 Professional or trade union association is free, subject to the following:
I – the law may not require State authorization for the founding of a union, except for registration with the competent body, and the Public Authority is prohibited from interfering and intervening in the union organization”.
2.
Thus, it is truly frightening, since it goes beyond all limits of the bourgeois order itself for the worker, flirting with the still present fascist threat, to read the news that the management of a public entity, linked to the government of a workers' party, has ordered the union of employees of this same body to change its name, giving it a period of 15 (fifteen) days to do so.
The “order” was “based” on a “legal opinion”, in which its author “discovered” that the union’s “trade name” does not correspond to the objectives set out in the union’s bylaws. In short, the union’s activities are not limited to the interests of IBGE employees and, therefore, it could not have the acronym IBGE in its name.
It is as if the author of the opinion had discovered that “Casas Bahia” does not have its operations restricted to Bahia and that the company is not a representative of the State of Bahia.
The discovery made, in the case of ASSIBGE, is actually quite late, as associations of employees of entities that operate in the same area as IBGE have been using the acronym IBGE since 1947.
And it is worth reinforcing that this is a limit that economic power did not intend to exceed at any time, especially because it is a minimum form of recognition of the interrelationship between capital and labor.
The stance of the IBGE management exceeds all limits of legality which, as stated, would already be elements of affirmation of the workers' power of submission.
It is, therefore, a movement that seeks to deny the very historical existence of the union organization and even the Institute's relationship with its employees.
And this movement, tragically, is explained by the content of the same opinion, whose origin is a response to the actions of deputy Sâmia Bonfim, who, at an event promoted by the civil servants' union, questioned the use of the acronym IBGE+, as the name of the private foundation created to provide services in the same area as IBGE, but according to private law parameters.
In the opinion, the speaker denies any irregularity in the use of the name IBGE+ and, out of nowhere, without any questioning, takes the opportunity to “discover” that the wrong name would be the trade name of the union, even though it has existed for decades. And, worse, based on this, the management of the Institute sends a “notification” to the union, ordering it to change its name within a maximum of 15 (fifteen) days.
It is, therefore, an administrative act motivated by the petty feeling of revenge, in total disagreement, including, with art. 37 of the Federal Constitution and which, in addition, invades the sphere of the Judiciary.
If it were in another political context, it would certainly be said that we would have reached the explicit stage of fascist authoritarianism.
In any case, it is still a serious affront to the democratic order that cannot simply be ignored, especially in these times.
It is therefore necessary, on behalf of all of us, to express our most vehement repudiation of yet another explicit violence against ASSIBGE, which directly affects the working class as a whole.
*Jorge Luiz Souto Maior is a professor of labor law at the Faculty of Law at USP. Author, among other books, of Moral damage in employment relationships (Studio editors) [https://amzn.to/3LLdUnz]
Note
[1] Bernard Edelman The legalization of the working class. Coord. translation by Marcus Orione. New York: Routledge, 2016, p. 14.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE