Once, now, here, and in Estonia today

When one looks at the issue of striking - or more precisely having the right to go on strike, then one cannot escape two facts. First, striking is an industrial action designed as a demand to wrest concessions of some kind ( wages, better working conditions or hours, sometimes even control of decision-making in the workplace). Second, striking has many forms: from physical plant or factory, office takeovers, to peaceful picketing or reduced work to rule campaigns. Inescapable is the point that striking occurs when negotiation fails or is not allowed. This due to political, financial or societal pressure. Strikes were politically motivated at a time, now more - least here, because of cold, hard cash.

It is interesting to note that the roots of industrial action are historically so enmeshed with left-wing politics (reacting to capitalism, or overthrow of a state) that in the year 2002 people opposed to strikes still call them pinkos, reds or commies. The French syndicalists (syndicat = trade union) of the 1890’s were militant unionists who tried to fuse the ideas of Georges Sorel with the anarchism of Proudhon and introduced violence into strikes, seeing strikes as the only true means of winning the class struggle. The concept spread with bloody results all over, not only to tsarist Russia where successful strikes in St. Petersburg led to the Bolshevik Revolution (and look at the “victory” there for the workingman!) but also to North America, the bastion of capitalism.

Decades of violent labour strife tookin the early years of the 1900’s (The Winnipeg General Strike, the continual work of the Wobblies being but two examples). The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, enacted after Congress had overridden a presidential veto was criticized by unions like the powerful Teamsters because it attempted to make illegal unfair labour practices, also to assert the rights of an individual against unions. The American working man cried foul - this land is your land, this land is my land - but had to settle for a peaceful, yet also ironically unfair to the worker position and voice in the political process.

For in unions you must do as the collective has voted - strike, even if you do not want to. Participate on picket lines or lose your union card, in association with that your job. And that is why some aspects of unionism are unfair and wrong, for all their praise of fighting for human rights. You grieve as a union member - the grievance directed either at the employer - most often the taxpayer, or a fellow duespayer. Depending on seniority, of course. Let’s be fair - growing public opposition to strike action is because we know that we don’t live in imperial Russia, the USA of ruthless labour practices, the Canada of no medicare, no pensions, no benefits. And strikes disturb the social fabric.

Although unionists anywhere are loathe to admit this, even if their wages may not match the private sectors - the benefits sure make up for a lot. We live well here, and it is hard to sympathize with the vitriol spewed by (some) striking Ontario Public servants and their supporters in organized labour. One fears they will just strike again after their latest contract expires. It is not like anyone is toiling in Newcastle, the Gulags or Asian sweatshops. Those without pensions, benefits, like many pensioners who worked before the good times are often the most resentful when strikes take place.

(Estonia’s pensioners are known for voicing - peacefully - their dismay about how government indexed pensions are not keeping up with spiralling costs. That is certainly one reason why President-elect Rüütel garnered public support.)

What about Estonia’s version of the OPSEU, the public servants? Well guess what - they are not allowed to strike. And this is evidently contrary to the International Labour Organizations (ILO) principles. The ILO is a UN organization acting in the interests of unions, governments and management/owners. This is the classic three-party balance and check system in the capitalist world, because most often two of the three band together against the other, enabling resolution of effect in most cases. That is how the American super-rich a hundred years ago - the likes of mining magnates, railroad men, factory owners, who made their vast sums on the backs of workingmen in industrial enterprise were able to resist the strength of the union movement - thanks to the support of government Big and Small. Those legendary American workingmen, to whom songs were dedicated, enshrined in lore like Joe Hill, must certainly have turned in their graves when they saw how the social conscience of the very wealthy were assuaged by the “philantrophy” of the capitalist 'überklass'. Let’s build libraries for “all” with “our” money (made thanks to your efforts). Just like their ancestors built churches and universities in Europe.

Cynical? Somewhat, especially when one considers how more recently Ray Kroc, later his family and his McDonald’s moneymaking empire has resisted the threat of unionism. And while philantrophism should never be decried, Lord knows we know the good George Soros did in post-Soviet Eastern Europe with his foundation, others make donations for even further tax-breaks. To Soros’ credit he fled the communism that unionism wrought, and made his mark in the free, not planned economy, and cannot be compared to the many other Americans who move their dead Presidents from one pocket to another, all over the globe.

The moral question that unionists have always raised, and has stood them in good stead, is how much is enough for anyone? No matter the largesse of the world’s wealthiest men (Bill Gates and Ted Turner’s foundations today come to mind), the fact remains that their wealth is obscene, and the millions, even billions doled out do little to raise the lifestyles of the hoi polloi. In the wealthy, populated west, this may not be noticed. In a small country like Estonia, with our own heroes, workingmen - not communist strikers - the extremes are more pronounced. North and South, urban versus rural, educated versus agrarian - all common, long-time problems, these the world over. Hence the appeal for trade unionism, the right to protest against the Big Bankers and the State is visible beyond the pages of letters to the editor columns. Poorly recompensed professionals - doctors, teachers, not given the right to strike by social contract have been remunerated for decades under Soviet values. The appeal of being a Soviet bureaucrat with the residual perks no longer exists. Unless you are a diplomat posted overseas, perhaps.

At a conference in Estonia dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the founding of the ILO’s freedom of membership committee Kadi Pärnits, head of the Central Council of Estonian Union’s addressed many concerns, noting that Estonia became a member of the ILO in 1921, and again in 1992. Pärnits emphasized that the ILO bans political strikes but compels member nations to strike in protest against the Government’s financial or social policies. Furthermore, strikes to seek concessions against mass lay-offs, for example are condoned.

Estonia, regrettably, is experiencing internal strife among unions, (not a major problem in Canada when CAW or the Teamsters send in reinforcements to rallies and picket-line support, never mind snaring valuable media time and presence with their opinions. Why are Sid Ryan and Buzz Hargrove so loathed outside of union circles? There are reasons.

Estonia has no high paid Earl Manners, Hargroves, or Ryan types. Nor their clout within political and financial circles.That is a problem Pärnits asked the ILO to send a delegation to Estonia to investigate protecting the rights of local unions. That, in her view is one of the most fundamental human rights principles. She also acknowledged that co operation between the ILO and Estonia has bettered the state of affairs for Estonian unions. At the same time she should acknowledge, that for the ILO - Estonia, with less than 20% of, say Ontario’s population - is a small fish in a big pond.

One can argue - and should - that Estonia has achieved a lot in the last 10 years. Estonians are by and large honest workers, who put in effort and pride daily at the workplace. Yet, as the divide grows between the haves and havenots, legislation is not the answer. It just divides the sides, as some of the more ridiculous demands made in the OPSEU strike show.

The trick - and no easy task - is to expect accountability at all three levels. Canadian union leaders are recompensed at the level of private CEO’s, government leaders receive early pensions and incredible perquisites, the list is long.

Do not brand me a syndicalist, anarchist or commie. But those early unionists fighting for the workingman’s dignity and right to have a clean, safe, working environment would trample over each other leaving picket lines to get what unionists in most places in the West receive.

Estonia’s day will hopefully come when the nation is integrated fully into the European body politic, in not only the European Parliament, where it already has a voice but the EU, NATO, and other non-partisan organizations, NGO’s. This needs not mean that the the Estonian nouveau riche, the new Mellons and Carnegies need or should (if they really are) to suppress because of their own vested self-interest the old and tired, overworked Joosep Künkad, the Joe Hills, as was done in the past. But give them a fair and equitable hearing. It is hard to know that Estonia has so many millionaires, while doctors nearing pension age are working two jobs, just to make ends meet, and know not how they will stretch a miniscule state pension after forced retirement. Yes, Soros and Gates can work as long as they want, but Estonia’s labour laws, for MD’s at least foresee retirement in certain fields. Labour issues are divisive, and incendiary. Labour needs to have a forceful voice everywhere, but one that is balanced, fair and non-violent, character traits that gratefully most Estonians are aware of. No syndicalists, anarchists or Marxists need apply there, or anywhere.

Märkmed: