Why Has Strike Activity Increased Recently Compared with the Past - Essay Example

?Why has strike activity increased recently compared with the past? Workers’ strikes had won labour not only economic and democratic gains, but most importantly, the power to negotiate with employers and government authorities. Through strikes workers were able to force their employers to negotiate; through strikes they were able to pressure governments to change polices to their favour. As Cohn (1993, p. 8)states, ‘employers usually raise wages as a result of economic pressure’. Such power of strike comes from its paralysing effect, which is detrimental to the interest of capital and to the economy, because lost hours means lost profits and lost profits could mean lost revenue to the government. Aside from its adverse economic effect is its adverse political effect, which cannot be ignored, because of its possible ripple effect [loss of confidence of foreign investment]. Thus unsurprisingly, employers and governments had vehemently refused to recognise strike as workers’ legal course of action in airing their demands/grievances. And even when strike was finally recognised as among the right of workers, it was loaded with requirements. For example, for a strike to be protected [legal] the workers’ issue must be strikable and the strike conducted should follow the prescribed procedures (Jordan et al. 2009, p. 72). Contrary to employers’ desire, this has further strengthened the labour movement. As defined, ‘strike is an organized collective work stoppage undertaken by employees to pressure their employer or employers into meeting their demands’ (Dictionary of American History 2003, par. 1). ‘Although strikes are only one manifestation of industrial conflict they are in many periods the most spectacular and easily visible’ (Jackson 1991, p. 248). A strike may be partial [work stoppage in one or more departments/lines] or complete [stopping the whole operations of the company] (Jordan et al. 2009, p. 68). Unsurprisingly so, employers had vehemently refused to recognize strike as workers’ legal course of action to air their demands/grievances. But the strong labour movement left governments no other choice but to grant labour its right to strike. Having proven its power, strike has become a form of protest by other sectors of society. For example, student strikes, which are generally characterised by the refusal of organised students to attend their classes, have left their indelible marks in history –Among the most notable are the student strike of 1970, which had successfully mobilised universities against US aggression in Vietnam and Cambodia and had also successfully transformed the institutional structure of the academy (Katsiaficas 1987, p. 127); the Athens Polytechnic uprising in 1973 which led to the successful downfall of the Greek military junta of 1967-1974 (Panourgia 1995, p. 32); the 2005 Quebec student strike, which opposed the Charest government’s policies of tuition fee deregulation and reduction in student grant funding (Lawrence 2006, p. 10). In the past, especially during the industrial revolution when workers were much needed and much exploited en mass, strikes had been the best found weapon of workers to fighting for their rights to be recognised, such as the right to be unionised, the right for humane working conditions, the right for decent wage, and more. Thus incidences of strike activity were unsurprisingly high. To bring their employers to the negotiating table, workers have to be unionised; to be recognised as union, workers have to hold a strike; for their strike to be successful, workers union has to be strong. As such, the improved conditions of labour have been largely attributed to the rising power of organised labour, Cornwall (1994, p. 31) says. Following the historical evolution of the labour movement and the recognition of its right to strike with its corresponding improved labour condition, two assumptions can be reached: first, that strike activity is more likely to increase when the economy is in downturn and that strike activity is less likely to occur when the economy is in upturn; and second, strike activity is more likely to increase during political unrest and less likely to increase during political peace. However, current trends seem to contradict the above assumption, because in the absence of cold war and at an era of relative global progress, strike activity has increased compared with the past. So, what would explain this phenomenon? According to Kelly and Hamann (2010, p. 2), the incidence of economic strikes in Western Europe has in fact declined since 1970’s, but interestingly though, general strikes to protest against government policies have increased since 1980. So here, there are two opposing realities – a decline in economic strike but an increase in general strikes. To see the difference of these two phenomena, it is best to define general strike. Hyman’s (1989, p. 17) reference to general strike as ‘a temporary, national stoppage of work by workers from many industries, directed against the executive or legislative arms of government, to enforce a demand or give voice to a grievance’ is not enough to capture the character to general strikes in Western Europe today. Thus Kelly and Hamann (2010, p. 3) modified Hyman’s definition by expanding those involve in the strike to non-union members and organised not only of one confederation but more. But since the main target of strike is no longer a specific employer or capitalist but the government as represented by its corresponding entities, it could be added that general strikes are mainly directed to the government. The implication of which is in negotiation – workers are negotiating with the state, because the issues to be resolved are government policies. As such, Kelly and Hamann (2010, p. 6) found existing theories of strike – economic theories (business cycle, globalisation), labour force composition, industrial relations institution (union structure, bargaining coverage and coordination), and power resources – less suited to explain general strikes. Thus they analysed the increased in general strikes based on the following factors: government policies, parties and governments, trade unions, opportunity structures, costs of strikes, state intervention, and varieties of capitalism. Their findings show that institutional factors and political factors determine the increase in general strike. In short, general strike is more likely to occur in countries where the state recognises unions and their right to strike and where there are compelling issues affecting workers which traditional bargaining processes are constricted to address. Kelly and Hamann (2010, p. 20) furthers that this trend shows the redirection of the union’s target from employer to the government. This also reflects the changes in the strategies of corporations to weaken the bases of unions and their right to strike. For example, to evade from other labour benefits as mandated by the state, multinational companies tried to get rid of regular workers (qualified for union membership) through flexible hiring and subcontracting. Such strategy freed capitalists from the threat of union and strike, and other economic benefits required of regular workers. This also has resulted to a strategic shift in labour’s main target [from labour versus capital to labour versus state] thus dulling the once sharp labour-capital conflict, but on the contrary heightening the politicisation of labour. This finding is also supported by the ‘party control hypothesis’, which Cornwall (1994, p. 35) explains: What determines the distribution of conflict [the increase or decline in strike activity] is party control, as the arena of conflict is strategically shifted from the factory to the walls of congress. Although, strike in itself is a political activity, as defined by the tedious process by which a strike is held, what differentiate it to be a political strike from the traditional economic strike of workers are both the issue it deals with and the main target to which the issue is addressed. Also, if traditionally, unions act as intermediary between workers and employers in order to improve the worker’s working condition and terms of employment (Burtt 1963, p. 2); today, unions essentially act as a strong lobbying group that compels congress to legislate laws in favour of labour; if before, the role of government in labour dispute is to act as mediator between labour and capital (Northup & Bloom 1963, p. 4); today, the government is directly confronting labour. Thus under this context, the ‘party control hypothesis’ argues that strike is more likely to occur if many in the congress are anti-labour. Such argument resides on the assumption that a parliament that is anti-labour and pro-capital is more likely to enact laws that are more favourable to business than their workers. However, if the labour movement is strong, it may influence the decision making in the parliament. On the other hand, the occurrence of strike is more likely to decline if many in congress are pro-labour, because policies would be more favourable to labour. So, there are fewer reasons for workers to strike. As such, the assumption given earlier is correct. General strikes increase in Western Europe because there are issues which are more political and that are beyond the jurisdiction of traditional bargaining processes. Meaning there are political reasons that call for strike. Moreover, political peace could also be the context wherein the legitimacy of unions and the right to strike is no longer anathema to people’s consciousness. Therefore, the increase in strike activity today is primarily due to political considerations: (1) the democratisation of most states has given relative freedom to labour to organise and to strike; (2) the strategic shift of conflict between the labour and capital to labour between the state due to changes in company’s techniques and systems to avoid unions and strikes; and (3) the current state policies towing globalisation. Reference List Burtt, EJ. 1963, Labor markets, unions and government policies, St. Martin's Press, New York. Cohn, S. 1993, When strikes makes sense – and why: lessons from third republic French, Plenum Press, NY. Cornwall, J. 1994, Economic breakdown and recovery: theory and policy, M.E. Sharp, Armonk, NY. Dictionary of American History 2003, Strikes, Gale Group, MI, viewed 09 March 1012, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Strikes.aspx Hyman, R. 1989, Strikes, 4th edn, Macmillan, Basingstoke. Jackson, M. P. 1991, An introduction to industrial relations. Routledge, London. Jordan, B., Le Roux, R., Van Jaarsveld, MI, Kalula, E.& Strydom, E. M. L. 2009, Understanding the Labour Relations Act, Juta & Co., Cape Town. Katsiaficas, G. 19897, The imagination of the new left: a global analysis of 1968, Author, US. Kelly, J. & Hamann, K. 2010, ‘General strikes in Western Europe, 1980-2008’, paper presented at the European Congress of the International Industrial Relations Association, 28 June – 1July 2010, viewed 10 March 2012, http://faos.ku.dk/pdf/iirakongres2010/track4/28.pdf Lawrence, F. L. 2006, Leadership in higher education: views from the presidency, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ. Northrup, H. R. & Bloom, G. F. 1963, Government and labor: the role of government in union-management relations, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Panourgia, N. 1995, Fragments of death, fables of identity: an Athenian anthropography, The University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin. Read More