When Did Strikes Become Legal
When I argue that today`s strikes can succeed despite the law, I am not suggesting that the law does not matter; The fact is that law does not exist independently of other social processes. Political conflicts will always take place on many fronts, and success in one area changes the balance of power in others. Most totalitarian systems of the left and right also prohibit strikes. In some democratic countries, such as Mexico, strikes are legal but subject to strict government regulation. AFL unions turned to politics and sought to legislate to protect wage levels and unionized jobs. The Seattle Central Board of Labor spent the first months of 1931 lobbying for a bylaw amendment that would have made the five-day week mandatory for city employees, thus distributing scarce labor. But voters, concerned either about taxes or funds to feed the unemployed, rejected it. A few months later, the labour movement rejoiced when Conservative Mayor Frank Edwards lost a recall election, and even more so when City Council appointed former union leader Robert Harlin as a temporary replacement. But Harlin has fallen out of favor with voters by seeming to care more about unionized wages than thousands of desperate unemployed. In the spring of 1932, he lost his candidacy for a full term. A sympathy strike is, in a sense, a small version of a general strike in which one group of workers refuses to cross a picket line erected by another in support of striking workers. Sympathy strikes, once the norm in the U.S. construction industry, have been made much more difficult by decisions by the National Labor Relations Board allowing employers to set up separate or “reserved” barriers for certain trades, making it an illegal secondary boycott for a union to set up a picket line at a door other than the one reserved for the employer.
that she goes on strike. Sympathy strikes can be led by a union as an organization or by individual union members who choose not to cross a picket line. The legacy of the Great Steel Strike has extended beyond its immediate consequences. When the Supreme Court upheld the NLRA against the constitutional complaint in 1937, it cited the strike—that great failure—as evidence of the constitutional adequacy of the law.61 This “illegal strike” became part of the legitimizing narrative of why state intervention in favor of labor organizing was appropriate. “The government rightly refers to the steel strike of 1919-1920 with its far-reaching consequences,” the statement said. The “determination to confer and negotiate was one of the most productive causes of conflict”. 62 Industrial disturbances interrupted the flow of trade; State regulations to prevent such disturbances were constitutional. Legal scholars have long sought to understand the ambivalent treatment of workers` power and collective self-determination by law. I would like to stress one point here. What makes the strike and the judiciary so complicated is that the strike goes beyond a simple legal categorization.
In a way, it is a form of protest, fundamentally normative and political. However, this protest takes place in an economic relationship in which property law and contract law come first.95 To the extent that a strike resembles a protest, it comes close to the type of activity that should be a fundamental right. But because this does not take place in the public sphere, but at work—within these “authoritarian and private governments,” as philosopher Elizabeth Anderson recently described them—such rights are not transferred.96 In Britain, in 1926 (the year of the general strike), about 9 working days per worker were lost to strikes. In 1979, strike losses were just over one day per worker. These are the extreme cases. In the 79 years since 1926, the number of working days lost in Britain was less than 2 hours per year per worker. In the United States, idleness due to strikes in 1948-2005 never exceeded one-half a percent of total workdays in a year; The average loss was 0.1% per year. Similarly, in Canada, between 1980 and 2005, the annual number of work days lost due to the strike never exceeded one day per employee; On average, the working time caused by strikes during this period was about one-third of a day per employee. Although data are not readily available for a large sample of developed countries, the pattern described above appears to be quite general: days lost due to strikes represent only a fraction of one day per worker per year, averaging more than one day only in some exceptional years.  A hunger strike is a deliberate refusal to eat. Hunger strikes are often used in prisons as a form of political protest.
Like student strikes, a hunger strike aims to tarnish the public image of the target. Strikes illegal due to timing – effect of strike ban agreement. A strike that violates a strike prohibition in a contract is not protected by law, and striking workers may be dismissed or otherwise punished, unless the strike is called to protest certain types of unfair labor practices by the employer. It should be noted that not all refusals to work are considered strikes and therefore violations of strike prohibitions. A walkout due to exceptionally dangerous conditions, such as a faulty ventilation system in a spray shop, was considered a violation of a strike ban. When Martin Luther King Jr. was imprisoned for civil disobedience, unions and union members often came to his aid with the legal and financial assistance he needed. Union members marched in Washington in 1963 and in countless cities across the country. King was killed while in Memphis to help striking plumbing workers. The Railroad Labor Act prohibits strikes by U.S. airlines and railroaders except in narrowly defined circumstances. The National Labour Relations Act generally allows strikes, but provides a mechanism to prohibit striking workers in industries where a strike would cause a national emergency.
The federal government recently invoked these legal provisions to obtain an injunction requiring the International Longshore and Warehouse Union to return to work in 2002 after being locked out by the employers` group, the Pacific Maritime Association. See Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacity, 1877-1920 (1982) (argues that the “new American state” of the late 1800s treated strikes as uprisings that challenged the state`s monopoly on the use of force), with Jeffrey Vogt, Janice Bellace, Lance Compa, KD Ewing, Lord Hendy QC, Klaus Lörcher & Tonia Novitz, The Right to Strike in International Law 158 (2020) (arguing, that the right to strike is so well established within the framework of the right to freedom of association that it has acquired the status of customary international law). In most industrialized countries, the right to strike is generally granted to workers in the private sector. However, some countries require specific efforts to settle before a strike can be called, while others prohibit purely political strikes or strikes by public sector workers. In the first part, I focus on the construction of the “workers` question” of the progressive era and the different responses of progressive reformers and trade unions. In the second part, I reflect on strike jurisprudence and focus on the deep ambivalence of current labour law, which manifests itself in the socio-legal construction of strikes as difficult negotiations rather than controversial policies. In the third part, I discuss whether and how today`s workers` protests have the capacity to build a new, more sustainable social pact. My argument is this: the legal construction of strikes as “economic weapons” has obscured their role as normative demands, as intrinsically political. And while grim assessments of how the current law deters strikes are not imprecise, legal rules are not the only determinant of the power or legitimacy of work. At this turbulent time, strikes can be a turning point for political-economic change, regardless of bad laws. I will conclude with some brief reflections on the role of law in social change. The limits of this understanding of strikes were not immediately clear.
Among other factors, Keynesian political economy gave unions legitimacy as agents of the common good.118 Employers, constrained in part by law and even more by institutional understanding of what was acceptable, delivered their blows. When the NLRA was first enacted, strike activity, union membership, and workers` wages increased simultaneously.119 And even after the passage of the Taft-Hartley amendments—at the time of the so-called “working capital” agreement—strikes continued to occur with some frequency and were associated with workers` wage growth.120 An important case of mass redundancies in the United Kingdom in 2005 concerned the dismissal of more than 600 Gate Gourmet employees at Heathrow Airport.  The dismissal resulted in a walkout by British Airways ground staff, resulting in flight cancellations and delays for thousands of passengers.