Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Ready or not? Twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at Breaking Points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 1: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 1: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 1: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 1: it means the absolute world to have your support. What
Speaker 1: are you waiting for? Become a premium subscriber today at
Speaker 1: Breakingpoints dot com. Hi, I'm Matt Stoler, author of monopoly
Speaker 1: focused newsletter Big and an anti trust policy analyst. I
Speaker 1: have a great segment for you today on this Big Breakdown.
Speaker 1: It's about how Wall Street and passwords intersect. Now, passwords
Speaker 1: are an inescapable part of our lives. I have a
Speaker 1: lot of passwords, and so do you. I actually have
Speaker 1: a list, and I tried to count the number I
Speaker 1: have and I counted nineteen just for the sites and
Speaker 1: apps that start with the letter A. Of course I
Speaker 1: can't remember them all because they try to have different
Speaker 1: passwords for different sites. Now, a cottage industry of solutions
Speaker 1: has common gone in waves, all trying to help us
Speaker 1: safely create, store and use dozens of different passwords while
Speaker 1: only having to remember one to unlock them all. And
Speaker 1: in the past few years, a handful of startups competed
Speaker 1: to be the leader in cross platform password protection and storage.
Speaker 1: A very popular password management program is called last Pass.
Speaker 1: In twenty nineteen, the software provider that owns last pass
Speaker 1: is called Logmian was purchased, however, by two private equity firms,
Speaker 1: Francisco Partners and Evergreen Coast Capital Corporation. Now, two weeks
Speaker 1: after the purchase, last Past raised prices on those who
Speaker 1: are basically locked into its system. So who are Elliott
Speaker 1: Management and Francisco Partners. They are what are known as
Speaker 1: private equity firms, which are giant pools of money run
Speaker 1: by financiers who buy stakes in private companies and hopes
Speaker 1: they can sell those stakes for a profit later on.
Speaker 1: That seems fine, it's just investment, but for a variety
Speaker 1: of legal reasons, the financiers behind private equity by companies
Speaker 1: without putting themselves at risk. If anything goes wrong, the
Speaker 1: company might go bankrupt or lose money, but the financiers
Speaker 1: themselves don't. They are protected by corporate law, and that
Speaker 1: creates an incentive for destructive behavior because financiers can make
Speaker 1: a lot of money if things go well, but can't
Speaker 1: really lose that much if things go badly, they're really
Speaker 1: losing other people's money, and they're blocked from even losing
Speaker 1: too much of that. So private equity firms are very
Speaker 1: short term oriented and tend to make their money by
Speaker 1: buying companies then raising prices on customers, cutting workers, or
Speaker 1: undermining the quality of the product. And this might long
Speaker 1: term hurt the enterprise value of the company, but in
Speaker 1: the short term it increases the amount of cash generates
Speaker 1: and so the amount that they could flip that company for.
Speaker 1: In this case, Elliott Management and Francisco Partners made Last
Speaker 1: Pass unusable unless customers paid, and this was active, making
Speaker 1: it slightly less annoying to pay than to move all
Speaker 1: your passwords to a different firms products. Okay, so then
Speaker 1: late last year, so that's one thing, right, that's pretty annoying,
Speaker 1: but it kind of happens. Here's the real problem. Late
Speaker 1: last year, information began to trickle out regarding new management
Speaker 1: or lack thereof at Last Pass. Apparently hackers had stolen
Speaker 1: encrypted password vaults from the company, and this hack was
Speaker 1: all over the internet. Here's what one security pundit said
Speaker 1: about the breach, But there were many of them who
Speaker 1: are talking like this. Last Pass has effectively suffered the
Speaker 1: worst breach possible for a password management company like it.
Speaker 1: It could get a little bit worse if they were
Speaker 1: truly negligent, like willfully malicious, but in terms of not
Speaker 1: wanting it to happen, it's pretty much as bad as
Speaker 1: it can get. Last Pass employees fell victim to a
Speaker 1: phishing attack in which hackers successfully obtained proprietary information. Phishing,
Speaker 1: which is spelled with a pH, is when a hacker
Speaker 1: sends an email or message purporting to be from a
Speaker 1: reputable source in order to induce someone to reveal personal information,
Speaker 1: to click on a link, and then often get access
Speaker 1: to an entire system. So they did this to last
Speaker 1: Pass employees and it worked. Now months later, the hackers
Speaker 1: then used this knowledge to launch an even more sophisticated
Speaker 1: phishing attack, which subsequently laid led to a data breach
Speaker 1: during which they took almost all last Pass user data.
Speaker 1: Though much of it is encrypted, or so it would seem,
Speaker 1: last Pass Management is under no requirement to tell us
Speaker 1: exactly what happened, and with the data hackers fished from
Speaker 1: last Pass, scammers are going to try and trick users
Speaker 1: into giving them their passwords for years to come. Now,
Speaker 1: last Pass itself recommended some extreme measures, including in some
Speaker 1: cases changing every password you stored in Last Pass. Kind
Speaker 1: of defeats the whole point of having a password manager. Okay,
Speaker 1: so the situation can look like a simple hack, something
Speaker 1: that happens all the time, But let's not lose sight
Speaker 1: of the root cause here, which is not hackers or
Speaker 1: port it practices, but a business model focused purely on
Speaker 1: financial extraction. Last Pass is one of dozens of examples
Speaker 1: since poor quality is common in private equity owned software,
Speaker 1: which means cybersecurity vulnerabilities quickly follow. For instance, the New
Speaker 1: York Subway was hacked through commercial software it used called
Speaker 1: Pulse connect Secure. This software was owned by Ivante, a
Speaker 1: software roll up owned by private equity firm Cheerlake Capital
Speaker 1: Group and THA Associates. A few years ago, thousands of
Speaker 1: companies and government agencies were hacked through this software of
Speaker 1: a private equity owned company called Solar Winds, which was
Speaker 1: controlled by the private equity giant Toma Bravo Partners. And
Speaker 1: now there's last pass. Now, every one of these private
Speaker 1: equity transactions makes the world ever so slightly worse, And
Speaker 1: at this point it's time to recognize that ownership and
Speaker 1: management of software firms by private equity them itself is
Speaker 1: a security risk. We can't eliminate hackers trying to do
Speaker 1: bad things, trying to steal passwords, trying to steal identities
Speaker 1: and money, but we can change the law to stop
Speaker 1: Wall Street from burning down the companies who build products
Speaker 1: designed to protect us. Thanks for watching this big breakdown
Speaker 1: on the Breaking Points channel. If you'd like to know
Speaker 1: more about big business and how our economy really works,
Speaker 1: you could sign up below for my market power focused
Speaker 1: newsletter Big in the description, Thanks and have a good one.
Speaker 1: Joining us now on Counterpoints is the Lever News is
Speaker 1: David Sarota. David, welcome, Thanks for joining us, Thank you,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me, and so we wanted to have
Speaker 1: you on to talk about some of the latest reporting
Speaker 1: from Lever, particularly this piece that we can put up
Speaker 1: here now, the lawsuit that could freeze speech against billionaires
Speaker 1: by Jordan Yule of Lever News. And so this is
Speaker 1: about a kind of a defamation case that has been
Speaker 1: filed against a Beto O'Rourke that could have dramatic implications
Speaker 1: for the role of money and politics going forward. Can
Speaker 1: you talk a little bit about this lawsuit? Sure. During
Speaker 1: the course of Beto o'rocks scubernatorial campaign, he criticized Republican
Speaker 1: Governor Greg Abbott for accepting a one million dollar donation
Speaker 1: from a major oil and gas company CEO pipeline company
Speaker 1: CEO after weeks after the legislature and Abbot signed a
Speaker 1: bill it included basically a loophole in weatherization mandates for
Speaker 1: fossil fuel infrastructure. This was after the storm that shut
Speaker 1: down the Texas power grid. So a bill comes through
Speaker 1: the legislature, it includes language to exempt various parts of
Speaker 1: the natural gas infrastructure from its mandates, which would require
Speaker 1: them those companies to make more investments in weatherization. And
Speaker 1: soon after that happened, the CEO of the company made
Speaker 1: a one million dollar donation to Governor Abbot. Beto o'rot
Speaker 1: criticized that, insinuating that it was corrupt, that it was
Speaker 1: essentially a quid pro quo, it was a reward for
Speaker 1: the legislation moving that moved through the Texas legislature. And
Speaker 1: now the CEO is suing veto O'Rourke saying this is
Speaker 1: a defamatory saying that criticizing and insinuating that the donation
Speaker 1: is corrupt is essentially libelists. And what's important here to
Speaker 1: understand is that this case revolves in part around whether
Speaker 1: the legal system sees the CEO of this company, Energy Transfer,
Speaker 1: and the CEO's name is Kelsey Warren, whether the legal
Speaker 1: system sees people like him as public or private citizens.
Speaker 1: Basically a private citizen, it's easier for that person to
Speaker 1: prove libel a public citizen, the threshold is much much lower.
Speaker 1: The idea being that if you're in the public arena,
Speaker 1: the back and forth over your political activity, it has
Speaker 1: much more flexibility. There's much more allowed for a much
Speaker 1: more wide ranging debate. This is a huge free speech
Speaker 1: case because ultimately, if the courts rule for the plaintiff
Speaker 1: and say that effectively criticizing money in politics as corrupt
Speaker 1: money goes in legislation comes out, you could face a
Speaker 1: political candidates across the country could face financial ruin and
Speaker 1: financial punishment for saying that in the context of an election. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was just going to ask David, what's on the
Speaker 1: line here. If we extend this to potential hypotheticals and
Speaker 1: other campaigns in the future, depending on how this case
Speaker 1: is ruled, what might that look like going forward? This example,
Speaker 1: we have a gas executive, but what would that look
Speaker 1: like in another case, or how might that come up
Speaker 1: in campaigns if the decision goes in a bad direction. Sure, Look,
Speaker 1: I mean I think you know you look across the
Speaker 1: country and there's big debates about where pipelines can be built,
Speaker 1: whether fracking and drilling happen. Lots of money goes into
Speaker 1: the political system from the fossil fuel industry, and what
Speaker 1: this could do is say to political candidates campaigning in
Speaker 1: the context of that that if you criticize big donors
Speaker 1: from the fossil fuel industry or really any industry, and
Speaker 1: you suggest that the money that's going into the political
Speaker 1: system is buying something, is going into that system to
Speaker 1: influence anybody, that you could face a situation where you
Speaker 1: are not only sued. Look, anybody can sue anybody in America,
Speaker 1: but you're not only sued by the donor, but that
Speaker 1: the courts have created a precedent making it easier for
Speaker 1: the courts to side with the plaintiff and punish you
Speaker 1: as a candidate. So essentially it's a message to candidates
Speaker 1: that talk about money in politics at your peril. And
Speaker 1: the term gaslighting is overused in our discourse, but I
Speaker 1: actually think it really does apply here in this way,
Speaker 1: in that you're being asked to look at something and
Speaker 1: see it for what it obviously is, but then being
Speaker 1: told that you can't describe what it's so very obviously is.
Speaker 1: And so forget politicians, what about the public here? And
Speaker 1: what about the press? I would think half of my
Speaker 1: reporting over my career would constitute defamation if this actually
Speaker 1: goes through. Well that's for other reasons, yes, for other reasons.
Speaker 1: The other half would be defamation for different reasons. But yours,
Speaker 1: probably one hundred percent of the reporting you've done throughout
Speaker 1: your career is connecting the dots between money going in
Speaker 1: and legislation coming out. So what does this do to
Speaker 1: shows like this or journalism like the kind that you
Speaker 1: do over at the lever It's a great question. I mean, yes,
Speaker 1: the media writ large, no matter what side you're on,
Speaker 1: should be concerned about this, about the precedent that it
Speaker 1: could set if we say the legal system says that
Speaker 1: the CEO, a billionaire CEO of one of the largest
Speaker 1: pipeline comes companies in the country making million dollar donations.
Speaker 1: If the legal system says that person, for the purposes
Speaker 1: of the law, is a private citizen, not a public figure,
Speaker 1: that creates a precedent saying that you're right, not only
Speaker 1: political candidates, but news organizations, advocacy groups and the like
Speaker 1: on all sides of any issue can face punishment for
Speaker 1: connecting the dots. It really is a way to freeze
Speaker 1: free speech against the powerful. And here's the thing. This
Speaker 1: case is in a court in Austin where, if not
Speaker 1: all the justices are elected, they were Democrats. It's an
Speaker 1: elected court, but it moves to the Texas Supreme Court
Speaker 1: that is chock full of Republicans. So the case can
Speaker 1: be appealed by the plaintiff to a much more Republican
Speaker 1: dominated Supreme court, a Texas Supreme Court, and if he wants,
Speaker 1: it can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. To me,
Speaker 1: this is the biggest free speech case, or at least
Speaker 1: one of the biggest free speech cases in the country
Speaker 1: in the society right now, and there's been a lot
Speaker 1: of talk about free speech with Elon Musk's social media.
Speaker 1: This is a direct assault on free speech, on the
Speaker 1: ability and I want to be clear, I know there
Speaker 1: are some conservatives say, oh, you know, I'm excited that
Speaker 1: Beto o'rouric is, you know, potentially in legal trouble here.
Speaker 1: That's the wrong way in my view to look at this.
Speaker 1: This is not only about Beto O'Rourke. This is about
Speaker 1: the entire discourse that how are conservatives going to feel
Speaker 1: the next time they criticize a democratic billionaire and a
Speaker 1: democratic billionaire can use this precedent if it's set to
Speaker 1: go after them, that it is a way to chill
Speaker 1: speech against or criticizing billionaires wealthy corporations that have unlimited
Speaker 1: legal resources to file these kinds of cases. I'm just
Speaker 1: going to ask that as well. Next with this question
Speaker 1: of as conservatives have tried to sort of squeeze all
Speaker 1: the juice out of the populist moment and rhetoric and
Speaker 1: level all kinds of potentially defamatory accusations against you know,
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg. If this case were to go in a
Speaker 1: certain direction, it absolutely would affect their ability to make
Speaker 1: those arguments. Have you seen any pickup from anyone on
Speaker 1: the right that's concerned about the implications of this case.
Speaker 1: I haven't. And I think part of it, though, is
Speaker 1: that there's not a lot of awareness of this case,
Speaker 1: and I think maybe there's a presumption that the courts
Speaker 1: will throw it out. I don't presume that, knowing that
Speaker 1: while it is in a democratic dominated court right now,
Speaker 1: a lower court, it can move up to a republican court.
Speaker 1: And the question with our courts now, are they going
Speaker 1: to behave in a partisan way? I mean, on its face, look,
Speaker 1: let's be honest. On its face, the idea that the
Speaker 1: CEO of one of the largest pipeline companies in the country,
Speaker 1: who's made a million dollar donation into the political system,
Speaker 1: the idea that that person is just a private citizen
Speaker 1: is just preposterous and absurd. But this is a politically
Speaker 1: active company, a politically active billionaire. I think this is
Speaker 1: not in my view, I'm speculating here. This is not
Speaker 1: just about, as the plaintiff said, it's you know, he
Speaker 1: experienced mental anguish when O'Rourke was criticizing him, and I
Speaker 1: think it's less about you know, his individual feelings and
Speaker 1: more about an effort to try to set a precedent
Speaker 1: about what can be said and what can't be said
Speaker 1: about the rich and powerful he can afford the therapy. Yes,
Speaker 1: and they also they bring up mean tweets in reply,
Speaker 1: like you said, when you look at little the lever
Speaker 1: quotes the attorney, his attorney saying, when you look at
Speaker 1: the comments that his followers put in on his tweets,
Speaker 1: they believe a Rourke. They believe that mister Warren is
Speaker 1: a criminal that has engaged in profit over lives of Texans.
Speaker 1: So literally citing you know, mean mentions replies saying that
Speaker 1: this has done kind of you know, created mental anguish. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's no fun to get ratioed, right, sure, but
Speaker 1: you're sure. I mean I kind of enjoy it sometimes
Speaker 1: actually shutting down free speech because you don't like getting
Speaker 1: radio insane, insan, completely insane. And also for any conservatives
Speaker 1: who are happy that O'Rourke might be out a million dollars,
Speaker 1: really bad news for them. Guy is super rich. He
Speaker 1: married into a very wealthy family. So nobody. Again, That's
Speaker 1: why I go back to that's why I think this
Speaker 1: is not necessarily only about this case. I think it's
Speaker 1: about trying to create a larger legal precedent. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: billionaires fund these attacks on other billionaires, so I'm curious
Speaker 1: to see how those are discourse around around this. Sometimes
Speaker 1: they fund these attacks. Last question, did your reporting turn
Speaker 1: up any indication that this is one of those politically
Speaker 1: strategic lawsuits that's funded by kind of an organization that
Speaker 1: is trying to create legal crimps on political speech for
Speaker 1: the benefit of billionaires or is this just a mentally
Speaker 1: anguished billionaire who just wants to lash out at bet Well.
Speaker 1: I'll say this, we haven't discovered that yet, but there
Speaker 1: are definitely motives that this particular billionaire has that we're
Speaker 1: going to be reporting in a couple of other stories,
Speaker 1: in other words, engagements and entanglements that he's been in before.
Speaker 1: So it's not just he randomly kind of popped up
Speaker 1: and did this. So stay tuned for our reporting on that,
Speaker 1: which Well I'm sure wind you in court next right
Speaker 1: after bet orourk David, thanks so much for joining us,
Speaker 1: great reporting, Thank you, thanks to both of you. All right.
Speaker 1: A Maximilian Alvarez, I'm the editor in chief of the
Speaker 1: Real News Network and host of the podcast Working People
Speaker 1: and This is the Art of Class War. On breaking points.
Speaker 1: France was rocked this past week when well over a
Speaker 1: million working people across the country took to the streets
Speaker 1: to protest President Emmanuel Macron's proposed changes to the country's
Speaker 1: beloved pension system. Macrome, who was in his second and
Speaker 1: final term, is pushing to raise the official retirement age
Speaker 1: from sixty two to sixty four years, and this is
Speaker 1: not the first time that Macron has pushed for such reforms.
Speaker 1: In true diehard neoliberal fashion, Macron managed to piss off
Speaker 1: practically the entire country three years ago by attempting to
Speaker 1: force through drastic changes to the French pension system, prompting
Speaker 1: a general strike that brought everyone from railroad workers to
Speaker 1: teachers to even museum workers and ballet dancers to the
Speaker 1: streets in one of the largest mass demonstrations that the
Speaker 1: country has seen in a generation. Now. That was right
Speaker 1: before COVID nineteen turned our world upside down, and I
Speaker 1: actually published a special episode of my podcast Working People
Speaker 1: in January of twenty twenty, in which I interviewed eight
Speaker 1: French workers who were on strike at the time about
Speaker 1: why they were hitting the streets and why they were
Speaker 1: fighting so hard to maintain the existing pension system. One
Speaker 1: of those workers was Mattheu Boulredat, a train operator and
Speaker 1: general secretary of the Versailles branch of the CGT Union
Speaker 1: or the General Confederation of Labor in France. In this
Speaker 1: Breaking Points exclusive segment, I'm honored to be joined by
Speaker 1: Mattheu once again, who is calling in from France as
Speaker 1: we speak now. Due to the time sensitivity of this
Speaker 1: interview and the time difference between the East Coast of
Speaker 1: the United States and France, I could not make it
Speaker 1: down to DC to the Breaking Points studio to record
Speaker 1: this interview, so we're recording it today on Sunday, January
Speaker 1: twenty second from the Real News Network studio here in Baltimore. Matthew,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us today on Breaking Points. Brother,
Speaker 1: it's great to see you again. Thank you, Thank you
Speaker 1: very much. Max, thank you very much to call me again. Well,
Speaker 1: I know you got a lot going on and I
Speaker 1: really appreciate you calling in. It's been a busy week.
Speaker 1: And before we get to the strike this past week,
Speaker 1: I wanted to actually take us back to that moment
Speaker 1: before COVID nineteen in December of twenty nineteen, in January
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty, when you and your fellow workers hit
Speaker 1: the streets once again in opposition to Macron's proposed changes
Speaker 1: to the pension system. Now, I imagine a lot of
Speaker 1: folks who are watching this may not remember that too well,
Speaker 1: or maybe don't know about it at all. So can
Speaker 1: you just give our viewers and listeners a little background
Speaker 1: on what those the size of the strikes three years ago,
Speaker 1: and what they were really about. Yes, of course, first
Speaker 1: of all, I own you an apology. Excuse me for
Speaker 1: my bad English. Of course, because I'm French, so I'm lazy,
Speaker 1: and especially about my bad accent. My accent, but I
Speaker 1: think my English is better than your French, so you
Speaker 1: have to figure out that. So, yes, thank you for
Speaker 1: this question about twenty twenty, because it's very important. It's
Speaker 1: the roots of this situation. Now, the president Macron was
Speaker 1: very confident. Okay. So you try to break our pension
Speaker 1: system in twenty nineteen December, okay, just like I think
Speaker 1: three weeks before Christmas, okay, and so we start and
Speaker 1: unlimited strike for our stronger sector, unionist sector. Those so,
Speaker 1: for example, the transport workers you mentioned the opera, It
Speaker 1: was very important of course there are not plenty, but
Speaker 1: it's very symbolic. Okay, the postman's, the fireman's, including the
Speaker 1: camera from refinery or from electric power. And so we
Speaker 1: start this unlimited strike the December fifth, and there also
Speaker 1: a sector less strong. Okay, they joined us every Tuesday
Speaker 1: for a general strike and massive demonstration in Paris. So
Speaker 1: it was a huge moment because it was like, for example,
Speaker 1: for me, I do literally fifty three days of strike,
Speaker 1: you know, so with two pay, because we have pay
Speaker 1: by months, not by weeks, two pays with zero a
Speaker 1: row literally, so it was a huge adventure, you know,
Speaker 1: a huge fight, and finally we won. We won against him.
Speaker 1: He take back his bill, and it put it in
Speaker 1: his natural place, in natural space, the basket, the trush garbage.
Speaker 1: So it's and for example, the people from collecting garbage
Speaker 1: in Paris, in Marseille, the second city of France, was
Speaker 1: in stride and stride during three or four weeks. So
Speaker 1: can you imagine the bourgeois. He finally smells the real
Speaker 1: life on Paris because they have mountained the hill of
Speaker 1: garbage in all the street in Paris. The tourist was gone,
Speaker 1: the Palace of Versailles was closed, the Effel Tower was closed,
Speaker 1: the underground was tough, et cetera. Because we fighted to
Speaker 1: defend the legacy of our grandfather who fights against the
Speaker 1: Nazi fascist occupation. And after the war they build our
Speaker 1: social security system. Okay. I know in the USA a
Speaker 1: lot of politicians called a socialist, and one of the
Speaker 1: target one of the things they hate is our social
Speaker 1: security system because is the efficientists in the world, and
Speaker 1: it's the system we guarantee the less number of pension
Speaker 1: they are poor in all over the world, less than
Speaker 1: in USA, of course, but less than in Germany, in England,
Speaker 1: in Italy, etcetera, etcetera, because we have a very generous system.
Speaker 1: For example, the common law is the pension in the
Speaker 1: common law is sixty two for everybody, okay, and the
Speaker 1: for the highway, for example, our system it's fifty seven.
Speaker 1: But for the drivers as me, our system is the
Speaker 1: punsion in fifty two years old. So basically, in eight
Speaker 1: years I will do punsion man, and I can and
Speaker 1: I can do a good travel to meet you in
Speaker 1: Baltimore and visit your great country. So that that that's
Speaker 1: that's that's a great legacy, you understand, Okay, I insist
Speaker 1: because I know in USA it's definitely not the same system. Okay,
Speaker 1: So that's a big legacy and we want to keep it.
Speaker 1: And after there is this crazy COVID pandemic situation in
Speaker 1: all over the world. So Macrow's stop his attacks. And
Speaker 1: now he was really acted and it guess what he
Speaker 1: did it again, you try again to attack our pension system.
Speaker 1: So the new bill plan in next July two more
Speaker 1: years for everybody. So for me it will be not
Speaker 1: fifty two, it will be fifty four. For the common
Speaker 1: people it will be not sixty two, it will be
Speaker 1: sixty four, okay, and the other things. Because there is
Speaker 1: a troll in the bill. It's you have to work
Speaker 1: until sixty two, but in sixty two you have not
Speaker 1: the full pension. You can you can go become pension air,
Speaker 1: but very poor, and if you want the full pension,
Speaker 1: you have to continue until sixty seven. So basically the
Speaker 1: choice to the working class it's you have to choice
Speaker 1: to be a poor punsionaire in sixty two or a
Speaker 1: grandpa an old man at work in sixty seven. Not
Speaker 1: the choice for us. That's the statistics. The studies from
Speaker 1: the University from the public organism, from the government, the
Speaker 1: claims that's sixty four. It's the point where the majority
Speaker 1: of the manual workers, of the poor people, of the
Speaker 1: people with casual job dying or start to dye in
Speaker 1: So it's there this pension bill, it's really it's a
Speaker 1: retreatment for the dead people. That's very important because if
Speaker 1: you are if you work outside on the cold weather
Speaker 1: or the hot weather, if you walk during the night,
Speaker 1: very early in the morning, if you if you work
Speaker 1: with asbestos or with many a tiica laser, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, all this difficult condition of work for the
Speaker 1: majority of the poor people of the working class. Okay,
Speaker 1: you lose between seven and twelve years of life. That's
Speaker 1: the point. So it's why it's important to have a system.
Speaker 1: We guarantee for our for we the working class, an
Speaker 1: early retreatment because we will dying soon. That's a problem.
Speaker 1: So we fight for this principle. We fight for our
Speaker 1: our by respect to our grandfather who fought for this
Speaker 1: system against Nazi fascists. We fight for us, and we
Speaker 1: fight for the next generation. Even for the working class
Speaker 1: they are not born now. We fight for them. We
Speaker 1: fight for principle. That's very important. So three days ago
Speaker 1: we was on general strike. There is seventy percent of
Speaker 1: the schools was closed in the entire country. The train,
Speaker 1: the buses, the metro, the airport was paralyzed, the factory
Speaker 1: was closed, the refinery was the pipes was turned off,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. And we was about two million
Speaker 1: people in the street in the entire country, including half
Speaker 1: million people in Paris. And we claim not one years more,
Speaker 1: not one euro less. That was our claims. And because
Speaker 1: the government doesn't want to negotiate with us, we decide
Speaker 1: a new day of general strike for January twenty one,
Speaker 1: no thirty one, sorry, thirty one, so in two weeks,
Speaker 1: ten days basically, and if they still not want to negotiate,
Speaker 1: we will start in the beginning of February. Then limited
Speaker 1: strike like in twenty nineteen. I'm sorry, maybe I was
Speaker 1: long and confused. No, no, that was That was great, brother.
Speaker 1: I mean again, it's really important for folks watching and
Speaker 1: listening to this to have that context. And I wanted
Speaker 1: to kind of ask you if we could, if we
Speaker 1: could talk a little bit more before I let you
Speaker 1: go at that principle at the heart of everything, because
Speaker 1: I know there are gonna be a lot of folks
Speaker 1: here in the United States who are thinking, well, I
Speaker 1: don't have a pension system that allows me to retire
Speaker 1: at age sixty two, so why should the French have one? Right?
Speaker 1: And the French, you and your and your fellow workers
Speaker 1: are looking at our system where people like my parents
Speaker 1: will never be able to retire where they work until
Speaker 1: they die, often in debt, the the the even the
Speaker 1: notion of retirement is becoming a thing of the past,
Speaker 1: as you know, and you guys are saying, we don't
Speaker 1: want what you and the United States have, right. We
Speaker 1: want the system that we fought for after World War
Speaker 1: Two because we believe there is more to life than work.
Speaker 1: Could you could you? Could you, like I guess, if
Speaker 1: you could talk directly to people in the United States
Speaker 1: and beyond about why that is such a sacred principle
Speaker 1: that it would bring millions of people to the streets. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, it's a it's tricky, uh. The history as
Speaker 1: many tricks. The working class of the United States, the
Speaker 1: United States, Sorry, was the lighthouse of our fight in France.
Speaker 1: Our may day It's coming from your your your martyrdom
Speaker 1: in Chicago. Okay, we we we we follows you followed,
Speaker 1: followed you. You give them the start of the struggle
Speaker 1: in all over the world. The beautiful strike in Chicago,
Speaker 1: the beautiful strike in for example, in Patterson, New Jersey. Uh,
Speaker 1: A lot of a fight in a Mussachusetts, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And I know I know this stroke from the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: They called the Massachusetts taxas set. And it's very important
Speaker 1: to fight as working class because and I know it's difficult,
Speaker 1: but I think you are you are, you have the
Speaker 1: age to listen to that, you're you're a growing up guy.
Speaker 1: Santa Claus doesn't exist. I know, I know it's difficult
Speaker 1: to to hear, but Santa Claus doesn't exist. We we
Speaker 1: don't have collective agreements. We don't have good wages, we
Speaker 1: don't have pension systems. We don't have free school and
Speaker 1: education for all people. Because a sovereign, a president, a
Speaker 1: good prims minister, a good Congress give it to you
Speaker 1: to us. We have that because our grandfather or father
Speaker 1: fight for this. That's very important, and they fight for this,
Speaker 1: and the majority of them they don't. They could not
Speaker 1: profit of the benefits of that. They fight for that,
Speaker 1: for the future, for the children. And we have this
Speaker 1: legacy in our hands. So who the fuck are we
Speaker 1: if we don't fight to keep it and to give
Speaker 1: this legacy to our children. You know that that's the
Speaker 1: point today. You know, for example, in twenty nineteen, just
Speaker 1: an example about this principle. In twenty nineteen, uh, they
Speaker 1: ask to us an agreement. Okay, we passed the bill,
Speaker 1: but not for you, for the workers in two years,
Speaker 1: so you can keep it. And they call that the
Speaker 1: grandfather close, you know, the grandfather agreement. But if we
Speaker 1: accept that, if we have accept that, which grandfather, we
Speaker 1: are not a very good, not a very cool grandfather, okay,
Speaker 1: a very bad grandfather, a grandfather who said to his grandchildren, okay,
Speaker 1: for keep my profits, I cut yours. No no, no,
Speaker 1: no, no no, for keep keep my benefice, I cut you.
Speaker 1: So I'm a father, I hope one day will be
Speaker 1: a grandfather, and I fight for me, but for my daughter.
Speaker 1: And I'm proud of that, and I'm proud of that.
Speaker 1: And so to the American people, I will tell you
Speaker 1: to you, mhm, we are workers, and we are proud
Speaker 1: to be workers because we create all the beautiful things
Speaker 1: in the world. The trader they create nothing. The CEO,
Speaker 1: they create nothing that we the workers, the working class,
Speaker 1: we have gold in our ends from nothing from the nature.
Speaker 1: We create buildings, train with bread, especially in France, because
Speaker 1: I know you have not bread good likely in France.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry about that. And we create all the wealthy thing,
Speaker 1: all the beautiful things in the world. And we prove
Speaker 1: that when we are on strike, because we prove when
Speaker 1: we stop the works, the friends collapse. So we prove
Speaker 1: that we are the only the only class, the walking class.
Speaker 1: We have the only class. We create something. So they
Speaker 1: have to respect us, and they have to share with
Speaker 1: us all the profits we create for them, for the companies.
Speaker 1: So we want, as a margat save give me my
Speaker 1: money back. I create, you know, I create the profits.
Speaker 1: I want my share and I want it to know.
Speaker 1: Hell yeah, I think that's beautifully put man. And uh yeah,
Speaker 1: let's make Margaret Thatcher proud. And it wasn't an unexpected
Speaker 1: I said from exactly unlikely, Comrade Margaret Thatcher. Well, and
Speaker 1: I know I got to let you go, but I
Speaker 1: just wanted to stress for people watching and listening, how
Speaker 1: important what you said is right? Because this is something
Speaker 1: that I see all the time in the reporting that
Speaker 1: I do for the Real News, for Breaking Points, for
Speaker 1: my podcast Working People, so often I talked to workers
Speaker 1: who were going on strike not because they want a
Speaker 1: better contract for themselves, but because they know that if
Speaker 1: they accept a contract that a company is offering, that
Speaker 1: every worker who comes in after them is going to
Speaker 1: get screwed. Right that this is what happened when Kellogg's,
Speaker 1: the serial company, went on strike. They knew that the
Speaker 1: contract was going to protect the benefits and wages of
Speaker 1: workers who had been there for a long time, but
Speaker 1: for new workers they were going to get shit. And
Speaker 1: the old workers said, we're not going to, you know,
Speaker 1: take the benefits for ourselves and leave everyone else out
Speaker 1: to dry. We're going to go on strike for everybody.
Speaker 1: And that's what you all are doing in France is
Speaker 1: you you want to keep a system that allows people
Speaker 1: to retire with dignity, that allows people to enjoy some
Speaker 1: of their life without having to work until they die.
Speaker 1: And you're doing that not just for yourselves, but you're
Speaker 1: doing it to carry on the legacy of the generations
Speaker 1: that came before you, and you were doing it to
Speaker 1: pass that legacy on to the generation. That the point
Speaker 1: and how you can explain you have to work until
Speaker 1: seventy and there is a alpha. There is like six million,
Speaker 1: ten millions of young people from the next generation. They're unemployed.
Speaker 1: How you can explain that, how you can accept this system?
Speaker 1: You know, if you, if you, if you have your
Speaker 1: new life pension, the life, you give your job to
Speaker 1: a young guy, and that's great. That's a sickle of
Speaker 1: the life, you know. Uh, May I just please before go,
Speaker 1: just say a big hello to all my brothers and
Speaker 1: sisters in USA, especially to comerat from the Ruffer and
Speaker 1: what a proofer Local thirty six Union in La Uh
Speaker 1: my comrades, brothers and sisters from a school job teacher
Speaker 1: from Minneapolis, and from my very great camera and I
Speaker 1: met in the last Congress of the World Federation of
Speaker 1: Trade Unions, the new cameras organized from the Starbuck Coffee.
Speaker 1: Big up to you. You are great, You're beautiful, especially
Speaker 1: in your country. I love you really, really, and like
Speaker 1: Joe Hill said, is better than than Like Joe Hill said,
Speaker 1: don't moon organized, no mourn organized. I think that's beautifully
Speaker 1: put baby. And I guess the final question, like you
Speaker 1: said there's a new date the end of this month,
Speaker 1: January thirty first, where you and workers are going to
Speaker 1: be hitting the streets again. What can folks inside and
Speaker 1: outside of France, What can working people do to show
Speaker 1: solidarity with you and your fellow countrymen on January thirty first.
Speaker 1: That's an important question because since we create the May
Speaker 1: Day in the nineteenth century, the international story dearity between
Speaker 1: walkers was very, very important to help us to win,
Speaker 1: because I think your lost enemy when you are on
Speaker 1: strike during days and days, weeks and weeks, is the
Speaker 1: feeling of loneliness. That's a big enemy, Okay, because it's
Speaker 1: a psychologic war. You need to be support. You know,
Speaker 1: the buses there have no borders. The buses, they have
Speaker 1: no borders. They could be nationalists, but there have no borders.
Speaker 1: They work together to to to break us. So we
Speaker 1: have to have to to be no borders between working
Speaker 1: class and support each other. So we can just make
Speaker 1: a sign, take a pictures, put it on the social media.
Speaker 1: That's very important. We can make a meeting with in
Speaker 1: university or in your union or in your district to
Speaker 1: support us, and maybe we can have a zoom zoom
Speaker 1: connect to exchange. That's possible. We can collect money and
Speaker 1: send it to support people. That's that's a solution too.
Speaker 1: And there is another thing. You can come. You can
Speaker 1: come to meet us, fight with us. Max. You are
Speaker 1: my guests. I tell you you are my guest. We
Speaker 1: will host you, will feed you, you will demonstrate with us,
Speaker 1: and you can and tell you people literally on the
Speaker 1: picket lines no problems. It's very important to have delegation
Speaker 1: to support each other. There is a waves in the
Speaker 1: all over the world, waves of struggle and strike, of
Speaker 1: course in the north of Europe, but in South America,
Speaker 1: in India, in Bangladesh, UK yea UK that this movement
Speaker 1: whose name enough is Enough is a beautiful movement, and
Speaker 1: we go, we go in the picket line to support them.
Speaker 1: The thirty one of March, there is people from Britain
Speaker 1: and from Greece coming in Paris to demonstrate with us.
Speaker 1: I think it's very important to show to the brothers
Speaker 1: and sister the message, the sentence you are not alone.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, so I couldn't have said it better myself,
Speaker 1: and that is Matthieu Bouleredat, a train operator and general
Speaker 1: secretary of the Versailles branch of the CGT Union in France. Mattheu,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining me today on Breaking Points. Brother,
Speaker 1: I really appreciate it. Thank you very much. We're sending
Speaker 1: all of our love and solidarity from here in Baltimore.
Speaker 1: Thank you all for watching this segment on Breaking Points.
Speaker 1: Be sure to subscribe to my news outlet, the Real
Speaker 1: News Network, with links in the show notes. See soon
Speaker 1: for the next edition of the Art of Class War.
Speaker 1: Take care of yourselves, take care of each other. Solidarity forever.