We need more, not fewer, strikes

From the 1980’s, again with capital’s fierce attack on unionism, the retreat from these strike tactics means unions are weaker. The employers’ counter offensive cut wages and conditions.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in the early 1990s, unions need

“their only true weapon—the right to strike. Without that weapon, organized labour in America will soon cease to exist.” (p20)

The US system, like Australia, allows only a limited lawful strike, orders return to work and enforces legal penalties against industrial action deemed “unlawful.”

In the US arbitrators and judges interpret labour laws within the acceptably narrow ‘free market’ enterprise bargaining to ensure that withdrawing your labour is risky and largely ineffective. Corporate lawyers for the employers with the state’s legal forces attack the strikers and their unions.

Burns gives a key illustration with the legal restrictions on the picket line.

This is ineffective with strikers walking around with placards, while watching scabs walk through taking their jobs.

Pickets are supposed to block all access for the strike to win. Judges deem the effective picket line ‘unlawful’. Legal decisions enforce for the employer the right to use ‘replacement labour’, scabs.

In past strikes, winning meant defying anti-strike laws and judicial injunctions.

Despite the strengths of today’s union leaders, Burns argues they do not use the strike to seriously challenge employer power - stopping production and work is a fringe idea.

Young radical union organizers today organize social campaigns and get community support, but are not allowed to win a strike.

Earlier, industry or pattern bargaining with mass strike pressure to make labour costs uniform was achieved. But this is union bargaining is also ‘unlawful’ and not attempted today (same as in Australia).