Foreign Workers Fight Hard to Save Jobs;
U.S. Workers Take Mass Layoffs in Stride

Twenty-five women in Egypt climbed to the roof of the garment factory where they had been striking and threatened to commit mass suicide if the government didn’t intervene to end their shameless exploitation by the bank that owns the factory. The 25 were among the 150 workers, mostly women, who had been conducting a sit-in at the factory since April 21 to protest salaries as low as $21 to $44 a month.

This militant resistance in Egypt, where the government has zero tolerance for worker rights, is an example of how workers are fighting back in countries across five continents to save their jobs and gain a decent livelihood. They often face opposition, not only from multinational corporations, but their own governments and the military.

Many of the strikes, particularly in developing countries, are called to prevent the government from privatizing state-owned industries. Privatization would mean a loss in the number of jobs and a reduction in wages and benefits by a privately-owned enterprise based on maximizing its profits. In more economically advanced countries, workers are reacting to the threat of mergers and corporate “restructuring” plans, which would result in mass layoffs.

Especially in Europe, where strong unions have won benefits that are the envy of American workers, conservative governments, encouraged by employers, are proposing legislation that would erode these benefits. The unions are threatening to strike against laws that would deprive workers of basic rights that they’ve enjoyed for years.

A new militancy is emerging among workers in at least 50 countries, both large and small, as they are being asked to make sacrifices under a globalized economy. From copper miners to college professors, from airline pilots to steel workers, from teachers to construction workers, virtually every occupation has felt the chill wind of unemployment and insecurity and is receptive to the idea of fighting back.

“Industrial action,” the term European unionists use for strikes, has taken many forms. In some instances, workers have occupied the enterprise and refused to leave after they were fired. There are also “stay away” tactics, in which employees don’t show up for work. And the one-day “warning” strike, letting the employer know that there are longer walkouts awaiting him if he doesn’t negotiate fairly. There is the “rolling strike” in which a schedule of walkouts takes place from city to city or company to company.

Many unions use the 2-hour, 4-hour or one-day strike to persuade the employer that his workers are unhappy. These quickie work stoppages are obviously less costly to finance. And then, there is the “hunger strike,” that is bound to influence public opinion of the desperate state of the strikers.

Actual strikes, or serious threats of a walkout, usually put pressure on the employer to negotiate, with at least the appearance of good faith. The public, generally inconvenienced by a strike, becomes interested in a quick settlement. The negotiations assume a public character, which a smart union leadership can use to advantage.

Why Do Our Workers Accept Layoffs Without a Fight?

It is perplexing why American workers and their unions are so docile about challenging major corporations when they announce layoffs, that can come to 10,000 or more, to “reduce labor costs.” They don’t seriously complain, even when the company is operating profitably. Please explain: How does a company increase its profit margin by firing, say, 1,000 or 5,000 employees?

In the past decade, we’ve lost hundreds of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs that have been “outsourced” to low-wage regions to make our corporations more competitive at our expense. We’re also exporting an enormous number of “white collar” jobs to countries that can offer American business a cheaper price for computerized services.

Our top union leaders have done nothing to stop, or even reduce, the exodus of jobs that have left so many of our workers unemployed and facing a dismal economic future at a critical point in their lives. They have allowed these heartless corporations a free hand to make juicy profits from U.S. consumers, while they exploit workers in other countries. Why can’t our leaders find some workable solution to this man-made problem?

Labor’s blank check to corporations also extends to the heavy layoffs that follow mergers and takeovers. A few years ago, when the merger between Chase and J.P. Morgan took place, 13,000 bank employees were laid off. The AFL-CIO never challenged either the reason or the size of the layoffs.

Indeed, it is remarkable how resigned and passive most American workers are when some board of directors whom they have never seen meets somewhere and unilaterally decides that they and hundreds of their co-workers must surrender their jobs and livelihood. Workers who have been employed for ten, twenty years, maybe longer, don’t rebel in anger or refuse to accept the layoff when they are ordered to clear their lockers and desks and vacate the premises. Under corporate-imposed rules, workers are at the complete mercy of their employers.

Unions were formed to give workers some control over their working lives and to provide them with whatever legal protections they need, on and off the job. In this era of globalization, American labor must find effective ways to deal with multinational corporations in the global job marketplace.

Throughout the world, workers and their unions are finding new ways of fighting against greedy corporations and the governments that collaborate with them. Can American labor learn from their struggles?

Our two weekly columns and their archives (LaborTalk and The World of Labor) can be viewed and downloaded at our website: www.laboreducator.org.