>Introductory remarks: Strike breaking and union busting in the
>1990s: What can we learn from the past to combat it?
Ask yourself, "what is a strike?"
If your answer is something like "a tactical withdrawal of labour", ask
yourself, "how effective is a tactical withdrawal of labour likely to be in
a situation in which there is a substantial surplus of labour (reserve army
of unemployed)?"
If your answer is "not very effective", ask yourself, "what strategies might
the labour movement adopt to try to eliminate that substantial surplus of
labour?" (note that I said "what strategies might the labour movement
adopt", not "what policies might labour call on government to implement")
What I'm getting at is the need to move from a series of isolated *tactical*
withdrawals of labour to a generalized *strategic* withdrawal of labour.
After all, labour can perform one potentially decisive act -- the withdrawal
of labour. But there are several forms in which the withdrawal of labour can
occur:
- the tactical strike
- on the job resistance, ranging from the formal work-to-rule to the
informal 'pacing' to the insurrectionary occupation
- the general strike
- the reduction of work time
A labour movement that systematically abstains from any one of the possible
forms for the withdrawal of labour ceases to be effective as a labour
movement. There is nothing new here.
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-3286 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
