The world’s biggest ever strike, India, 28th February 2012

Whose up for a solidarity strike that day? I know I am!

Will you report back on the day as to how this goes?

The Indian economy robust by capitalist standards elswhere has not been unaffected by the current ecomomic crisis.

There have been increasing levels of struggle by workers in India, sometimes winning small improvements but often, as elsewhere, against a deterioration in conditions, including failure to pay wages, closures, speedups etc. Some, but not all, of those strugges have been organised by the trade unions, but I'm not sure that this example of a planned future strike by a combination of unions, is necessarily, depite it's potential size, any different in principle to the kind of token negotiating strategy of say the TUC here more recently?

It will be interesting to see if it happens and whether it becomes a trigger for a more widespread struggle or a means of restraining it?

Some good material on workers struggles in India can always be found at:

http://gugaonworkersnews.wordpress.com/

Just FYI, this is the most popular article on libcom so far this year!

Any updates on how this went?

28th Feb, my friend.

Interesting!! Wonder how many of the 400 million of those people who are living in absolute poverty are a part of unionized labour that is going on strike. Go ahead!! Have your strike but please do not say you hold a torch for the people living in abject poverty, Their improvement requires much more effort than a token strike by a fraction of the labour force.

archieishere

Interesting!! Wonder how many of the 400 million of those people who are living in absolute poverty are a part of unionized labour that is going on strike. Go ahead!! Have your strike but please do not say you hold a torch for the people living in abject poverty, Their improvement requires much more effort than a token strike by a fraction of the labour force.

I don't understand really what you're saying. Those of the 400 millions can join to protest too, unionized or otherwise. Or again, just trolling here to say that 100 million workers striking is just plain greed. (A'la mainstream liberal bs).

deleted

1/12 of the population, not just the workforce, on strike. That's over 5M people in England. If the numbers are correct then I can't see how the 400M can't be involved to at least some extent.

All I am saying is that the strikers should not say that they are striking on behalf of the 400 million who are living in abject poverty. Even if the management was to meet all the demands of the unions, would that lift the people living below the poverty line in one go?

So you think the strike is to change the perception of the "wankers". :)

One, I don't know if anyone has said that that the 100 million are striking on behalf of the 400 million. The only reference I can find to 400 million in the original article is in relation to the India's inequality:

Indian's are sick of the rich getting richer, record economic growth, whilst 400 million people have not got a pot to piss in.

Presumably, the majority of the 100 million strikers will be from the "400 million people who have not got a pot to piss in".

Two, it's a labour market. Good wages for one section of the class put upward pressure on wages across the board. For this particular strike, however, this is even more explicit as the strikers are not simply concerns with their immediate wages, but pushing for wide ranging societal reforms like an increase in the minimum wage, price controls, and a national social security fund:

The different unions have a variety of different demands, they include gaining the same rights and protection for temporary and contract workers that permanent workers have, raising and extending the minimum wage, resisting the attacks on trade unions, stopping price rises, the creation of a national social security fund, increase in pensions, and combatting corruption

Those are things that are going to help the entire Indian working class.

But, really, I just think you're a trolling x. admin: no flaming, even if we agree with your point

I am not sure if you are aware of India's labour market. Have a look at the periodic Employment Unemployment survey brought out by NSSO. India's labour market is extremely dichotomous. The unionized workers constitute less than 10% of the workforce. Majority of the workforce works in the unorganized sector and do not have the luxury of going on a strike for their demands. This 90% of the labour comprises bulk of the 400 million and not the unionized labour force.

Two, if the unionized workers were so much concerned about "wide ranging societal reforms" they would ask for disbanding of the Act, which does not allow firing of workers even if the business closes. Which corporate will like to employ workers if he knows that he can not lay them off if he goes bankrupt? Finally, if your labour market "theory" was true then wouldn't it be the case that the surge in wages of managers/engineers would have put an upward pressure on wages of landless labourers. The key reason is skill deficit in India, which has caused this huge gap. Focusing just on entitlements and doles will not solve the situation. I am sure you have heard the saying -- give a man a fish and he can feed of it for one day, teach him to build a net and ............

Now who is a trolling wanker.:)

Well, besides being inconsistent in your own arguments, you have just proven your own right-wing trolling credentials.

This is a communist forum dude, what's needed to increase the standard of living is the repeal of an act that's designed to protect workers when a firm goes bust. If you think we, as workers, need to court corporations through our own precariousness so they give us jobs.

Now, you do raise one point that labour markets can be industrial as well as national so, of course, wage increases in one industry are most like to be felt in that particular industry.

However, good "wages" for managers don't put pressure on the wages of workers. In the US, CEOs make on average 500 times that of their employees and that doesn't do do shit for workers wages because--and here's where the communism comes in again--it's workers that create wealth. The salaries of managers, bureaucrats, consultants, politicians and executives are paid out of the wealth that is extracted from the labour of the working class.

On the unions, most regular posters on this site have a far deeper critique of trade unionism than you could ever offer. That said, according to Wikipedia, the Indian labour force is 467 million. That means over 20% of workers will be coming out for this strike. (More, hopefully, if unionised workers link up with non-unionised workers, the unemployed, and social movements).

So even if only 10% of the workforce is union, this strike has already spread beyond the unionised workforce.

Admin edit: removed insults and swearing. This is a no-flaming forum.

Also,

Majority of the workforce works in the unorganized sector and do not have the luxury of going on a strike for their demands

You don't need a union to strike, it happens all the time both in non-union workplaces and against the wishes of union officials:

http://libcom.org/tags/wildcat-strikes

archieishere

I am not sure if you are aware of India's labour market. Have a look at the periodic Employment Unemployment survey brought out by NSSO. India's labour market is extremely dichotomous. The unionized workers constitute less than 10% of the workforce. Majority of the workforce works in the unorganized sector and do not have the luxury of going on a strike for their demands. This 90% of the labour comprises bulk of the 400 million and not the unionized labour force.

100 million is 1/12 of the population, which is 8.5 % So virtually all of the population would have to be in the workforce for that to be true. Unlikely.

CS-- Other that questioning my beliefs I did not see any consistent argument on your part. The argument that you have offered is precisely the reason why India continues to have a high unorganized sector. The handful of unionized workers are the biggest obstacle to the dilution of the unorganized sector through their insistence on preservation of an archaic law. Nobody is questioning the social security that needs to be offered to the worker in case of him being asked to leave. However, this is very different from not allowing the corporation to close down a business in case of bankruptcy. If this happens corporation with their capita, which is far more mobile than labour, always has the option of setting their business in a more investor friendly destination and employ workers there. Then who will be the loser?

Your second argument -- "However, good "wages" for managers don't put pressure on the wages of workers." is in direct contradiction to your post on 23rd Feb where you said "Good wages for one section of the class put upward pressure on wages across the board". You need to be more consistent.

Archie, you've not addressed any of the points made, you've only restated your original point - that labour markets need to be boss-friendly so as to attract investment..

You don't address CS's point at all. That is, do "you think we, as workers, need to court corporations through our own precariousness so they give us jobs"? And if so, how then do you think this will lead to improvements for the lives of people in India (beyond just simply 'having work', no matter how bad the pay, conditions etc)? I'm basically asking you to compare sweatshop labour to the workers' movement for increasing living standards.. and let me give you a hint, it wasn't sweatshop labour that won us the weekend.. ;)

As for this bit..
archieshere

Your second argument -- "However, good "wages" for managers don't put pressure on the wages of workers." is in direct contradiction to your post on 23rd Feb where you said "Good wages for one section of the class put upward pressure on wages across the board". You need to be more consistent.

.. I think there's a basic misunderstanding of who we mean when we say workers and you seem to have ignored CS's next sentence (that of CEO's wages). So, for us, 'workers' wouldn't include CEOs.. they would be bosses, capitalists or whatever you want to call them. If you want to read more about class and class struggle, read our introduction.

You also don't address the points made about your slightly dodgy looking numbers (that unionised workers are only 10% of the workforce when the 100 million expected to strike would be 10% of the entire population) or that you don't need a union to strike (see any of the massive strikes that have happened in China) or recently un-unionised sectors have been getting organised.

The question that needs to be asked is, if everyone refused crap wages then where would the capitalist class get their cheap labour?

And if managers are workers, then how comes their wages are in almost all cases, determined very differently to that of average workers. In this country, they supposedly require very different skillsets (there are all sorts of management courses and qualifications, all BS of course).

Also, workers who aren't unionised have gone on strike in India and in many other places, for example the recent rickshaw drivers strike in New Delhi.

Ed, you're being too friendly to this guy.

In any case, here we come to the crux of the matter:

Your second argument -- "However, good "wages" for managers don't put pressure on the wages of workers." is in direct contradiction to your post on 23rd Feb where you said "Good wages for one section of the class put upward pressure on wages across the board". You need to be more consistent.

You, archieishere, don't understand what class is.

Now, I could forgive this if it wasn't for the fact that the same Feb 23rd post explains it to you:

it's workers that create wealth. The salaries of managers, bureaucrats, consultants, politicians and executives are paid out of the wealth that is extracted from the labour of the working class.

Also, admins, fair enough you edited where I said "fuck you" to another poster. But you also took out me saying "fuck you" to corporations which not only leaves an incomplete sentence, but is not very FULL COMMUNISM at all :x

Ed. If you could change the world to where labour was as mobile as capital then you could treat them symmetrically. If the idea is to generate employment so as to improve livelihood of workers then you need to create conditions to attract investment that will employ labour. The alternate, that labour will go to work in places where investment is being undertaken is not possible. Otherwise every unemployed worker would have flocked to China.

The class distinction that you talk about is difficult to distinguish in reality. At what position in the spectrum of a corporation do you draw a line between workers and managers. If it is based on payoffs then again in most corporations the composition of payoffs only change gradually across the spectrum.

CP The Rickshaw drivers that you refer to are a part of union. Infact there are 3 to 4 rickshaw drivers unions in Delhi itself.

Well, mate, even if those particular rickshaw drivers were in a union, lots of non-unions wildcats happen around the world all the time. And, as someone pointed out, a lot the industrial action in India is with newly organised unions, like nurses.

Workers = people who sell their labour time and don't own the means of production.

Capitalist = those who own the means of productions; could be individuals, corporations, or even the state.

Bosses/Managers = those in the workplace with the power to hire and/or fire or the power to discipline workers.

What do you call those who receive part of their salary in cash and another as employee stock options as is the increasing trend?

archieishere

What do you call those who receive part of their salary in cash and another as employee stock options as is the increasing trend?

Depends on whether they have the power to hire and fire. It's also pretty irrelevant to strikes in India.

Archie, you seem a bit like you're doing your best not to answer any of the substantive points here but rather move the discussion onto things you feel more comfortable with (like whether being paid partly in stock options blurs class lines - in short, no, but if you want to discuss that you can start another thread)..

You see, because you came here banging the war-drum for the poorest-of-the-poor against this "token strike", and asked:
archieshere

Even if the management was to meet all the demands of the unions, would that lift the people living below the poverty line in one go?

Now, the obvious answer to this (as you sneakily stuck in "in one go") is no. But, historically, it has been the labour movement that has improved conditions, won things like shorter working days, better pay, pensions, free healthcare and education etc etc

However, your alternative way to help those in absolute poverty seems to be just about creating "conditions to attract investment that will employ labour" to "generate employment so as to improve livelihood of workers". This translates to "give businesses what they want, or they'll go elsewhere".. so, if you don't mind me asking a cuntish question..

Even if workers were to meet all the demands of businesses, how would that ever lift the people living below the poverty line?

Related to this, another thing you say, which is very interesting is this..
archieshere

If you could change the world to where labour was as mobile as capital then you could treat them symmetrically.

I have to say I don't know what you mean by 'treat them symmetrically' but anyway the thing about capital being more mobile than labour these days is true. However, the struggle of labour against capital is definitely as mobile.. and so where there is investment of capital, it creates workers who then fight against it.

For instance, if I remember right, in the 1960s there was a massive increase in foreign investment in Brazil following their military coup (especially car manufacturing).. this foreign investment led to the creation of a big working class, and big strikes which raised wages and lifted a lot of people out of poverty.. this labour movement was also instrumental in fighting the military government which was eventually brought down in the 1980s, I think..

Similarly, in apartheid South Africa, businesses invested throughout the late-1960s until the 1980s because of the abject poverty blacks were kept in. The investment brought about a working class, whose struggle raised working conditions, wages and also played a massive part in the anti-apartheid struggle..

And its the same now in China and India, as money is invested it creates exactly the class that is also then exploited. And we have seen the beginnings of massive struggles against it..

This is not to say that everything is sorted now in all the places I've mentioned, far from it.. but it does highlight a certain pattern: that is, of investors as basically amoral vultures swooping in on any situation where they think they can get a penny (military dictatorships, apartheid, whatever..) and improvements (economic, social, political) all coming from the movements that fought them..

However, you then slam these movements as not doing anything to lift 'the poor' out of poverty while implying that capital will.. but I don't see any historical evidence for that, I just see free market economic theories.. do you seen what I mean?

On stock options (and as Ed points out, this is simply a distraction on your behalf to avoid discussing anything substantive), capitalism is full of contradictions. Some of the largest shareholders in the world are pension plans, but that doesn't undermine that fact that capital (money invested to make money) acts in a particular way regardless of who owns the shares--including the employee stock options you reference.

Once again, those of us who regularly post on these boards have thought pretty long and hard about questions like this. So if you want to discuss them on another thread, I'm sure there are other folks who will give you much more in-depth answers then me.

On this thread, however, can you try to address some of the earlier responses people have given you? Perhaps start with things like wildcat strikes, your inconsistent strike numbers, and capital's insistence on demanding insecure working conditions in to invest (and how this could possibly bring people out of poverty?).

archieishere

Ed. If you could change the world to where labour was as mobile as capital then you could treat them symmetrically. If the idea is to generate employment so as to improve livelihood of workers then you need to create conditions to attract investment that will employ labour. The alternate, that labour will go to work in places where investment is being undertaken is not possible. Otherwise every unemployed worker would have flocked to China.

The class distinction that you talk about is difficult to distinguish in reality. At what position in the spectrum of a corporation do you draw a line between workers and managers. If it is based on payoffs then again in most corporations the composition of payoffs only change gradually across the spectrum.

CP The Rickshaw drivers that you refer to are a part of union. Infact there are 3 to 4 rickshaw drivers unions in Delhi itself.

Well then, tell me why non-union replacement workers at the major unionised factories went on strike in solidarity with their unionised comrades, as you keep trying to move the discussion on yourself others are entitled to do also.

I think you realise your points are futile, you are implying that workers are in some way just as bad as managers because they might have small amounts of stock, or they might receive pay that sometimes comes close to managers. Or that workers will undermine other workers by being in a union and having better pay than other workers, as you've implied by saying that the unionised workers in India do nothing for their un-unionised comrades (which is untrue as in the factory disputes mentioned above). If management had it their way, no worker (as in, proper worker) would be unionised, no one would get a good wage apart from those willing to tread on others to get to the top, companies would have a huge arsenal to dispose of and control the workers in any which way they like and all their power would stretch a long way into workers' lives more than it currently does (for example, being able to blacklist them from other jobs etc).

You seem to think this would be a good thing, as it would enable India's "economic progress" to continue and more people would get rich quick and all of that sort of thing. History teaches us that this doesn't really happen and even now, if workers across India both in unions and out did not fight, they would have a far worse time of it.