This is a CTP of initiative: ICA/Fucvam (Uruguay)
This CTP is about the strike fee payments of mortgage loans by FUCVAM in the 1980s. This strike movement facilitated the maturation and strengthened its relative power position against the State. This CTP was chosen because in previous investigations showed that the "strike" was a very important element to show the power of FUCVAM and consolidate the federation as the main co-housing movement in Latin America. In 1983, in a context of inflation and indexation of mortgage fees, FUCVAM decides make a pay strike. After numerous meetings and discussions about on the strategy to follow, the cooperative movement suspended, in protest, payment of contributions to the state bank. This policy was the main strategy to fight against the attack of the militar government and the economic crisis. As long conflict, the federation decided make the payment of credits in parallel bills, for not fall into default. At that time the government was in the hands of a dictatorship that in response to that measure made a decree law 15,501, to change collectively owned cooperatives to individual property. Individual ownership would allow the government and banks identify each cases of non-payment and make eviction judgments faster. In that context, the military considered the cooperative movement as" subversive. The 15.501 decree, affected the heart of FUCVAM: collective ownership. The Pay Strike was very well received by society in general. In that years, any action which claimed to oppose and confront dictatorship, generated adhesions and solidarities. The strike represented the consolidation of the Federation and his co-housing method in general (mutual aid and collective ownership). It is clear both from the interview as academic literature that, the strike and subsequent day of protest of FUCVAM, operated as first political steps to the end of the Uruguayan dictatorship. Finally, after a decade (11 years realy) and after several studies by FUCVAM and the State, it was found that the debt was much lower than claimed by the military government in the dictatorship years. "It was recognized that the originals numbers, were an abuse, what they wanted to charge were much money, was a scam to break the federation. The original debt was calculated for the military government in U$D 400,000,000. When we did numbers, it was determined that the Federation owed only U$D 80,000,000."
In June 1973, there was a coup in Uruguay. Unlike other countries in the region, where the military overthrew the democratic government, in Uruguay was the then president Juan Maria Bordaberry who carried out the actions of transfer of power to the military. The president dissolved the Chamber of Senators and Representatives with the support of the Armed Forces, announced the creation of a Council of State with legislative, constituent and administrative supervision functions, restricted freedom of thought and empowered the armed forces and police to ensure the provision of public services interrupted. The argument was the same as in all of Latin America to carry out the so-called "Plan Condor": the fight against the communist guerrillas and/or. "The criminal action of the conspiracy against the country, asociated with the complacency of groups of political without national sense, is inserted into the institutions, in order to formally present, and disguised as a legal activity. However, studies during and after this process showed that the main element of the plan, in a scenario of neoliberal mark, was the techno-productive reconversion of these countries and therefore a decline of State in public policies of social intervention . The dictatorship brought about the dismantling of social and union organizations, their banning, detention of its members under a tactic of systematic torture, prolonged and mass imprisonment, exile and forced disappearance. On 30 November 1980, the de facto government made a plebiscite to approve a new constitution that would allow institutionalize military intervention in government. An unexpected result was the victory of the "no" with 946,176 votes (57%), compared to 707,118 votes (43%) in favor of "yes". In that context, was made a movement against the banning of political parties that was called "The intersocial". That movement was composed of the Uruguayan Inter-Union Assembly of Workers (PIT, for its acronym in Spanish), the Association of University Students (ASCEEP, for its acronym in Spanish), NGO Peace and Justice Service (SERPAJ, for its acronym in Spanish), an organization for human rights and FUCVAM. Workers, students, cooperatives and human rights activists were held against the dictatorship.
One of the most important events related to the Pay Strike was the confrontation with the military government that at that time rule the state. Against the Pay Strike, the government decided to confront FUCVAM, from a law amending a central element of cooperative mutual-aid housing. The law proposed by the government intended to dissolve the collective ownership, a fundamental principle of the creation of FUCVAM, considered by its members as the identification element against other styles of intervention. From the law, FUCVAM reacts with an action that is considered by cooperatives, academics and society in general, as the first political act against the dictatorship. This action promoted the beginning of a process that ended with the military government. As a strategy to visualize the fight and get social support, FUCVAM hit the streets to gather signatures to repeal the law and support the cooperative movement. In a country with 4 million inhabitants, mobilization got 330,000 signatures, just under 10% of the Uruguayan population, supported FUCVAM and the cooperative movement in general. Faced with an event of such dimension, the government repeals the law and did not produce changes in the regulation of the sector. "The underlying conflict was not resolved, but the cooperatives continued to make payments in courts and not the Cooperative Bank where they should to do so. Finally, there was no interventions". After the whole process of fighting between the military government and FUCVAM, there were other significant events. It can especially identify the final resolution of the conflict with the state and the agreement to restructure debts and recovery of the previous situation. The debt settlement allowed, among other things, that the cooperative could access a state subsidy in the event that a family has financial difficulties and could not pay its share. From subsidy, more debt by the cooperative was not generated. The state absorbs a portion or the total amount of the fee.
This CTP has an important contribution to the level of the different views of FUCVAM regarding the strike. Because it is as important in the history of the federation as it was a center moment for learning (allowing discussion and reaching agreements) as well as for institutional strengthening and consolidation of the project. "The good thing about these processes is that leading to build arguments and made agreements. At that time there were people who did not want to go to strike, presented their arguments and finally decided for the majority vote.” As heir to the labor movement, the cooperative movement followed a set of practices of direct democracy for resolved disputes. "Assemblies, meetings, debates, plenary of delegates per district were all methods learned the trade union movement and were moved by the workers themselves to within the cooperative movement." The CTP had two opposing positions: on one side were those who promoted the strike as the only truly direct tool to show opposition to the increase in quotas. On the other hand, although there were those who disagreed with the increase in the payments, they considered the Pay Strike could disrupt the continuity all public policy promoted by the state in democratic times. These two groups (the first majority) were subjected to a very interesting debate that legitimate the policy adopted at the end. The group that opposed the measure had two arguments: first, opportunity to declare the strike illegal and that the government to intervene directly and exhaustively about the ownership of housing, generating evictions and / or arrests; second, the interruption by the government of the Housing Fund, an instrument that was feared managed, coordinated and financed everything related to co-housing movement. The debate was intense but ultimately the position that promoted the strike was imposed. "Go to the strike, positioned us strongly with the institutions of the time. FUCVAM became a pole of resistance. Was demonstrated that the organization was strong and united. If not paid, nobody pays. "
During the dictatorship, the Uruguayan government developed a policy of repression and reduction of the state in terms of social rights. The frame was a process of rising inflation and lack of rights for social intervention and exercise of rights. This situation was pressing at the cooperative movement, especially those with fewer resources, more affected by economic policy.
The military government did not respond to any of the demands of the cooperative movement, so take some action of protest was inevitable. For more than six months FUCVAM members discussed the strategy to be followed for solving the problems they had for make the monthly payments. The possibility of proposing a moratorium, also would rejected for the government. The possibility to suspend payment and enter a strike was an strong measure, but little by little that turned the only alternative.
The time before the strike was a turning point for the Federation, in which all members were aware of the importance of the situation. The economic crisis continued and worsened, the cooperatives could not afford the pays and the alternative of the strike was imposed.
Therefore, FUCVAM found himself in a situation of two fronts. At first level, the cooperativist who could not afford the monthly instalments and could lose their homes, and at a second level, a government that reduced civil rights, and especially social. In that sense, the process had some level of anticipation. Especially at anticipating a fight against the government. On the one hand, at the level of the co-housing sector, it was regularized the debt situation. On the other hand, as a political institution, promoting activities to end the military government. "All people we needed a house, but FUCVAM was also a way to fight against the system."
The strike represented for the cooperative movement, a unit that still had not had and a positioning unprecedented in Uruguayan society. "One of the main lessons of the Pay Strike is that when you review the process are not proper names, the protagonist of the process was FUCVAM."
While FUCVAM already had several years operating, the strike gave awareness to becaime very strong to movement. Among other actions, the FUCVAM activity helped end the dictatorship: "With the strike learned to fight collectively. Especially we learned the importance of discussing, but once a decision is collective, assumes the process as one, without fractures. "
The transition from the strike to the board of firms, as a challenge to the repression itself and authoritarian dictatorship operated in members FUCVAM as a process of unification, identification and positioning of the institution: "The strike helped us the State respect us as a federation and sit to discuss with us otherwise."
The project for the renegotiation of debt (a technical document), was written by FUCVAM, an unprecedented event in the history of the cooperative movement. This agreement showed great institutional learning of FUCVAM and increased participation of society directly in the creation of laws and projects. "When the Ministry of Economy officials saw the document, they asked if they could participate as authors of the project. Especially the strength it had in a technical level ".
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
