At a May Day celebration ten years ago, a prominent trade union official painted a bleak future for the trade union movement giving those present the impression that our struggle was hopeless. Frustrated at the lack of understanding of how far we had come, I wrote this piece. Although things are more difficult than they were a decade ago, for trade unions and for democracy, there is always hope.
May Day is a time for reflection, but also of celebration. It is a reminder that times have always been tough for workers, but that, through their struggle and their solidarity, they have won dignity and respect and have been able to change the world. It is not a time for despair. It is, rather, a time for hope.
Although the origin of May Day is the struggle for American workers for the eight-hour day and police attacks and killings of workers at the Haymarket in 1886, it is not necessary to reach back to the 19th century to gain historic perspective. If one looks at the period of the existence of the ILO, founded in 1919, it already shows the enormous progress that has been made as well as the fundamental challenges that remain for workers.
At the time that the ILO was founded, the world was emerging from a devastating World War that began 100 years ago. The ILO was based on the notion that peace among nations had to be based on peace and social justice inside nations. Freedom of association was a right that carried with it the hope for peaceful resolution of conflict.
In 1919, much of the world was still under the yoke of colonialism and there were only a few islands of trade unionism. Few nations were democracies, including in Europe. Totalitarianism was gaining ground. Various workers’ movements, political parties, and other social organisations were being formed and, often, repressed. In addition, representative employers’ organisations barely existed.
Yet, in spite of that situation, a tripartite organisation was created to set standards to protect workers and their rights. In 1921, the first Director of the ILO, Albert Thomas, described tripartism with these words; “there must be an organisation of all the forces interested – Governments, employers and employees. Failure to include any of these elements is sufficient to make any organisation ineffective.” Thomas believed that the vital forces of the workplace would lead to progress that was never possible with earlier, academic-based attempts to set international labour standards.
Neither the founders of the ILO nor the fledgling trade unions threw up their hands and said that workers have to be taken care of by progressive politicians or paternalistic employers or advocates for workers. They didn’t believe that trade unions were irrelevant because they represented a tiny percentage of the work force. Instead, workers were to take care of themselves. That was their right. The founders of the ILO placed their faith in values despite the harsh reality of that time.
Thirty years later, in May of 1944, the ILO Declaration of Philadelphia was adopted. It stated, “Labour is not a commodity”. The idea that labour was not a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market became the basis for a fundamental distinction between labour markets and markets for products and services. It is, in fact, a pre-condition for social progress. If one could not take certain elements, including workers’ rights, out of competition, social progress would not be possible. That was done with social protection, with minimum wages, with standards for occupational health and safety, and with collective bargaining (particularly comprehensive, sectoral bargaining), nearly all of which took place at national level.
The integration of the global economy put workers back into competition. The deterioration of employment relationships and a competitive ratcheting down of employment protections, growing inequality, and the de-valuing of public service and public services also resulted from global trends as well as political and economic pressures.
It undermined progress that had been the result of workers’ struggles. It did not, however, mean that the idea that labour is not a commodity was wrong. It did not reduce workers to commodities; to factors of production.
It just made it crystal clear that that fight needed to be extended beyond national and regional levels to the global level. Purely national responses were no longer sufficient. And, as at national level, those responses need to be both political and industrial.
CEOs may have the “advantage” of being able to call all the shots in their companies. Dictators may have the “advantage” of being able to make all of the decisions in their countries. They may not have “time” for democracy.
Fortunately, the power of the trade union movement comes from below, not from above. Tyrants, public or private, do not, in the long run, have the power of workers.
Despite all their differences, workers and their trade unions, coming together democratically and building consensus for action around common values can and do combine the force of their argument with the argument of their force.
It is their collective force and that of other communities, not isolated individuals, that will change the world.
Views of a trade unionist 
Leave a comment