Economic issues almost always touch employees' interest (there are so few true workers left today, that I kind of prefer employees).
But what would you say if your Welsh (ok, not a world economic power, but still, for the sake of example) went on strike Against Multinationals or Ultraliberalism - ie, for a clearly ideological issue. I can perfectly understand French post office employees on strike against privatisation, for instance. I cannot do the same regarding those on strike for the "preservation of the Public Service", which is a matter of public policy which in fact has only positive effects on them personally and on the respective service. They go on strike (supposedly) in the stead of the citizen, ie, opposing elections (by which people chose a non-left candidate). Hence they use their right for a kind of political coup (keeping proportions) which would not benefit them in any way. These are ideological attitudes to be avoided for their own credibility (and probably against the law as well). Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
But what would you say if your Welsh (ok, not a world economic power, but still, for the sake of example) went on strike Against Multinationals or Ultraliberalism - ie, for a clearly ideological issue.
I fail to see how going on strike against transnats is beyond the scope of labour rights. Some of the worst offenders on labour rights are precisely the transnats you don't want unions to strike against. One of the fundamental principles of all labour organisation is that abusing labour somewhere is abusing labour everywhere - partly out of an ideological sense of solidarity with the oppressed, but more pragmatically because slave labour abroad undercuts our bargaining position at home.
So dock workers refusing to unload a container of iPods because the factory they were produced in is abusive to its labour force is a strike directly against a company policy that harms the interests of the dock workers.
As for striking against neoliberalism, I can see various tactical and strategic problems - how do you know when you've won? What concessions would you demand?
But going on strike against a neoliberal government, on the other hand, is perfectly reasonable if you think the strike has a reasonable chance of hurting it more than it will hurt you. You'd support, I hope, a strike against an Islamic (or Christian) fundagelical government, even if it came to power through elections? And surely neoliberalism isn't any less noxious than Shari'a?
I can perfectly understand French post office employees on strike against privatisation, for instance. I cannot do the same regarding those on strike for the "preservation of the Public Service",
What's the difference between striking against privatisation and striking for preservation of the public service? I fail to see the distinction.
They go on strike (supposedly) in the stead of the citizen, ie, opposing elections
Bullshit.
Elections are decided on a fairly small range of issues - and the issues that unions usually strike over aren't usually among them. Further, during an election campaign, politicians will frequently make different - and conflicting - promises to different interest groups in society. Why shouldn't unions protect their interests when politicians try to undercut their own promises?
(Why people believe that a right-wing politician won't try to undercut labour rights and dismantle the public service is something of a mystery to me. But when you poll people, they apparently do. So, in a sense, when unions strike against the dismantling of the public service, they're just demanding that the politicians do what the voters apparently thought they were doing all along...)
These are ideological attitudes to be avoided for their own credibility (and probably against the law as well).
The Underground Railroad didn't have much credibility in the Confederacy either. Nor was it precisely legal...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
At any rate, the internationalisation of labour interests can hardly be laid at the feet of the unions. If you internationalise capital, you internationalise labour interests. This is straightforward, generally acknowledged economics that no serious economist - left or right - disputes: In an era of globalised capital, doing offence to workers in China does direct and measurable harm to the hard and fast numbers on my bottom line in Denmark. Permit me to repeat: This is straight out of page 0 of any textbook on globalisation you might care to pick up.
So, if labour unions aren't supposed to defend the direct, measurable and extremely concrete interests of their members, then WTF are they supposed to do?
