Whose Fairness, Which Justice?

Ezra Klein makes the argument that even assuming that strikes rarely result in real financial or security gains for workers and oftentimes are net-negative due to lost wages, that they are still a good strategy because they aren’t about improving conditions, but instead “are about dignity and justice.”  He cites the widely discussed Fehr and Gaechter experiments which show that people are oftentimes willing to pay a price to punish those who they perceive to be acting unfairly, or will reject a payment if they feel they aren’t getting enough, even when the other option is receiving nothing.

Klein interprets these results to say that the efficacy of strikes should be evaluated by how they realize the ideals of “justice” and “fairness”, as separate from, say, higher wages or increased benefits.  And while strikers may feel that way, just because our brains are hardwired to promote a rather narrow conception of fairness, that doesn’t mean that we should accept a definition of justice or fairness that would lead to engaging in negative sum behavior.  Unions should be looking out for the well being of their workers, not appealing to a limited and literally primitive sense of fairness.

Like Ezra, I’ll add the caveat that the threat of strikes can increase the bargaining power of workers, meaning that if used rarely, in the long term they may be a rational strategy.

Iraqi Labor, The Eustonite Left and the Coalition Provisional Authority

One of the most persistent calls of the “anti-totalitarian”/Euston Manifesto left is that we have to stay in Iraq/support the war because we need to protect and show solidarity with unionists in Iraq.  Now, some of these soi disant “leftists” are honest about their support for unions – BobFromBrockley has real labor credentials — others, like Jamie Kirchick seem to only be fans of labor unions in Iraq (or Iran).  We’re also told that there “is so much the left could have done to make the aftermath of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq less destructive.”  Hitchens constantly berates the “left” for not supporting our trade unionists “allies” in Iraq.  If the plight of Iraqi trade unionists is the number one cause of the left these days, then perhaps we should look at exactly who has been worsening their situation since the invasion.  Well, via Kevin Drum, we have this Washington Monthly article entitled “Pinkertons at the CPA.”  That’s right, it was the Bush administration’s Coalition Provisional Authority that have been the pointmen for degrading and marginalizing Iraqi labor unions — here is one of the most stomach churning bits.

The U.S. government further signaled its attitude towards Iraqi labor unions in early December 2003 when coalition troops stormed the IFTU headquarters in Baghdad, ransacked their offices, arrested eight union workers, and shut down the office. Within a day, the arrested were released uncharged from Al Muthan airbase, but IFTU headquarters remained shut for seven months. The jailed men accused the United States of relying on information provided by a member of Saddam’s old regime, Abdullah Murad Ghny, who owns a major private transport company whose workers had begun to organize. While in jail, Turkey Al Lehabey, the General Secretary of the Communication and Transport Workers Union, an IFTU affiliate, said a local American commander named Kelly had told the men, “Iraq has no sovereignty and no political parties or trade unions. We do not want you to organize in either the north or south transport stations.” He added, “You can organize only after June 2004; for now, you have an American governor.”

The article also details how the occupation and the CPA especially was run like a Heritage intern’s dream — massive , indiscriminate privatization and a 15% flat tax were all implemented with greater vigor than retaining the Army. The CPA even maintained Saddam era restrictions on union activity.  So, where were Nick Cohen and Jamie Kirchick as the Bush administration’s CPA failed the Iraqi trade unions?  The way the Euston left would have it, those of us who opposed the war and continue to do so are responsible for the plight of the Iraqi trade unionists, even when their war leader (Bush) and his CPA were gutting the unions and leaving them out to dry.  Why wasn’t Nick Cohen devoting maybe 1/3 of the columns where he was otherwise bashing the left for being soft on “clerical fascists” to examining how the administration he supported was trying to implement the Thatcherite/supply side revolution in Iraq?  Michael Weiss, Oliver Kamm, Christopher Hitchens, anyone?

When we all look back on the Iraq debacle, the “leftists” who were so willingly duped and used by the most reactionary, militaristic, authoritarian president in recent memory will be seen as a sad, pathetic lot.