The Right to Strike the most oppressed workers to go on strike with some The best justification of that right is that it is one form reasonable chance of success.The radical right to strike of the right to resist oppression.Once seen as a right to does not ex ante prohibit the use of those means and resist economic oppression,a right justified in response given the actual social effects of the legal protection to legal protection of the basic liberties that coercive of basic liberties,it has priority over the basic liberties strike tactics violate,then we can see why,on this radi- Moreover,those strikes can be aimed at the full range cal account,workers would be permitted to use some of oppressions workers in those industries might face- of those tactics as part of the exercise of their right. not just denial of adequate respect for their labor rights Other conclusions follow from the radical account of or poverty wages,but as acts of resistance to various the right to strike,but those are for another paper.In- features of workplace oppression and the unfair distri- stead,I conclude with two quick thoughts about poten- bution of work requirements. tial objections. We can also see that this version of the right to strike One might object that the right to strike is the wrong permits-though does not require-mass civil disobe- answer to the facts of oppression.Isn't the proper re- dience in those frequent instances where the state de- sponse to argue for social policies that would eliminate cides to enforce the law against strikers.For one,the that oppression?Why bother with the chaos and collat- property,contract,and related laws that strikers break eral injustice that often follows from strikes?The short are the ones that create systematic oppression.The sys- answer is that this is a non sequitur.I am asking,"given 4 tematic and serious character of that oppression un- the facts of oppression,what may those who suffer it dermines any general claim to political obligation,or do to resist it?"The objector is asking,"What would local claim to an obligation to obey those laws.35 More- the ideal,or at least reasonably just,society look like?" over.when the state decides,as it historically has done The latter is its own question,but as a response to my that coercive strike tactics violate the law or otherwise question it is unacceptably quietist.It verges on arguing violate the fundamental rights of legal persons,it has that those who are oppressed must suffer it until utopia used sometimes quite extraordinary violence to sup- becomes possible. 4号元 press strikes.36 Workers would be within their rights to One might also object that it sounds like I am saying resist that illegitimate use of violence,though it will of- there are no restraints on what strikers may do.I am not ten be prudential not to do so.It is important to draw saying that either.I am explaining why a specific set of this conclusion because it is a direct implication of the coercive strike tactics,which have been the centerpiece argument.Moreover,if one does not agree that work- of the strike repertoire whenever the majority of work- ers are justified in mass civil disobedience as part of the ers have had it in their mind to strike,are not limited by exercise of the right to strike,then one is committed to the requirement to respect those legally protected eco- arguing that the state is justified in the violent suppres- nomic liberties that they violate.There are,nonetheless. sion of strikes-a violence with a long and bloody his all kinds of things strikers are not justified in doing to tory.One might very well draw that latter conclusion, win a strike.But that is a complex and separate problem 是 but then one must be clear about the side one is choos- of political ethics,which we can only tackle once we ing.Either workers are justified in resisting the use of have taken the first step of understanding why some of legal violence to suppress their strikes,or the state is the conventional restraints of liberal political morality justified in violent suppression of coercive strike tactics. do not apply to these kinds of labor disputes. There is no way around that stark fact about the liberal state and coercive strike tactics CONCLUSION REFERENCES The dialectic of this article has been to use a dilemma American Civil Liberties Union.2017."Privacy in America:Work- to point out that the justification of the right to strike place Drug Testing."Accessed June 1,2018.https://www.aclu.org/ matters and then to use that iustification to resolve the workplace-drug-testing. Anderson.Elizabeth.2015."Equality and Freedom in the Workplace: dilemma.The dilemma was that the worst-off workers Recovering Republican Insights."Social Philosophy and Policy 31 typically cannot go on strike with a reasonable chance (2):48-69. of success without using some coercive strike tactics Anderson,Elizabeth.2017.Private Government:How Employers that both appear to violate the basic liberties of oth- Rule Our Lives (And Why We Don't Talk About It).Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press. ers and potential involve substantial lawbreaking.To Andrias,Kate.2016."The New Labor Law."The Yale Law Journal know which has priority,their right to strike or those 126(2):47-70. legally protected basic liberties,we first need to know Arnold,Sam.2017."Capitalism,Class Conflict,and Domination."So- why actually existing workers have the right to strike. cialism and Democracy 31 (1):106-124. Atleson,James.1983.Values and Assumptions in American Labor Law.Boston:University of Massachusetts Press. Axt,Deborah.2013."End Wage Theft:Stop the Billion Dol- 35 My argument here broadly follows what Shelby and Lyons say lar Swindle."Cornell University International Labor Relations about obligations to obey under conditions of intolerable injustice School Digital Commons,http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/ (Shelby2016,201-227:Lyons1998.33-39). cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=institutes. 36 Historically,strike-related violence most frequently occurred Barth,Erling,Alex Bryson,James C Davis,and Richard Freeman when police and soldiers attempted to break up strikes or when pro- 2014."It's Where You Work:Increases in Earnings Dispersion voked by employer's private security forces(Gourevitch 2015:Lam- across Establishments and Individuals in the U.S."NBER Working bert2005;White2010-11). Paper No.20447. 915The Right to Strike the most oppressed workers to go on strike with some reasonable chance of success. The radical right to strike does not ex ante prohibit the use of those means and, given the actual social effects of the legal protection of basic liberties, it has priority over the basic liberties. Moreover, those strikes can be aimed at the full range of oppressions workers in those industries might face— not just denial of adequate respect for their labor rights or poverty wages, but as acts of resistance to various features of workplace oppression and the unfair distri￾bution of work requirements. We can also see that this version of the right to strike permits—though does not require—mass civil disobe￾dience in those frequent instances where the state de￾cides to enforce the law against strikers. For one, the property, contract, and related laws that strikers break are the ones that create systematic oppression. The sys￾tematic and serious character of that oppression un￾dermines any general claim to political obligation, or local claim to an obligation to obey those laws.35 More￾over, when the state decides, as it historically has done, that coercive strike tactics violate the law or otherwise violate the fundamental rights of legal persons, it has used sometimes quite extraordinary violence to sup￾press strikes.36 Workers would be within their rights to resist that illegitimate use of violence, though it will of￾ten be prudential not to do so. It is important to draw this conclusion because it is a direct implication of the argument. Moreover, if one does not agree that work￾ers are justified in mass civil disobedience as part of the exercise of the right to strike, then one is committed to arguing that the state is justified in the violent suppres￾sion of strikes—a violence with a long and bloody his￾tory. One might very well draw that latter conclusion, but then one must be clear about the side one is choos￾ing. Either workers are justified in resisting the use of legal violence to suppress their strikes, or the state is justified in violent suppression of coercive strike tactics. There is no way around that stark fact about the liberal state and coercive strike tactics. CONCLUSION The dialectic of this article has been to use a dilemma to point out that the justification of the right to strike matters and then to use that justification to resolve the dilemma. The dilemma was that the worst-off workers typically cannot go on strike with a reasonable chance of success without using some coercive strike tactics that both appear to violate the basic liberties of oth￾ers and potential involve substantial lawbreaking. To know which has priority, their right to strike or those legally protected basic liberties, we first need to know why actually existing workers have the right to strike. 35 My argument here broadly follows what Shelby and Lyons say about obligations to obey under conditions of intolerable injustice (Shelby 2016, 201–227; Lyons 1998, 33–39). 36 Historically, strike-related violence most frequently occurred when police and soldiers attempted to break up strikes or when pro￾voked by employer’s private security forces (Gourevitch 2015; Lam￾bert 2005; White 2010–11). The best justification of that right is that it is one form of the right to resist oppression. Once seen as a right to resist economic oppression, a right justified in response to legal protection of the basic liberties that coercive strike tactics violate, then we can see why, on this radi￾cal account, workers would be permitted to use some of those tactics as part of the exercise of their right. Other conclusions follow from the radical account of the right to strike, but those are for another paper. In￾stead, I conclude with two quick thoughts about poten￾tial objections. One might object that the right to strike is the wrong answer to the facts of oppression. Isn’t the proper re￾sponse to argue for social policies that would eliminate that oppression? Why bother with the chaos and collat￾eral injustice that often follows from strikes? The short answer is that this is a non sequitur. I am asking, “given the facts of oppression, what may those who suffer it do to resist it?” The objector is asking, “What would the ideal, or at least reasonably just, society look like?” The latter is its own question, but as a response to my question it is unacceptably quietist. It verges on arguing that those who are oppressed must suffer it until utopia becomes possible. One might also object that it sounds like I am saying there are no restraints on what strikers may do. I am not saying that either. I am explaining why a specific set of coercive strike tactics, which have been the centerpiece of the strike repertoire whenever the majority of work￾ers have had it in their mind to strike, are not limited by the requirement to respect those legally protected eco￾nomic liberties that they violate.There are, nonetheless, all kinds of things strikers are not justified in doing to win a strike.But that is a complex and separate problem of political ethics, which we can only tackle once we have taken the first step of understanding why some of the conventional restraints of liberal political morality do not apply to these kinds of labor disputes. REFERENCES American Civil Liberties Union. 2017. “ Privacy in America: Work￾place Drug Testing.” Accessed June 1, 2018. https://www.aclu.org/ workplace-drug-testing. Anderson,Elizabeth. 2015. “Equality and Freedom in the Workplace: Recovering Republican Insights.” Social Philosophy and Policy 31 (2): 48–69. Anderson, Elizabeth. 2017. Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (And Why We Don’t Talk About It). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Andrias, Kate. 2016. “The New Labor Law.” The Yale Law Journal 126 (2): 47–70. Arnold, Sam. 2017. “Capitalism, Class Conflict, and Domination.”So￾cialism and Democracy 31 (1): 106–124. Atleson, James. 1983. Values and Assumptions in American Labor Law. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. Axt, Deborah. 2013. “ End Wage Theft: Stop the Billion Dol￾lar Swindle.” Cornell University International Labor Relations School Digital Commons, http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=institutes. Barth, Erling, Alex Bryson, James C Davis, and Richard Freeman. 2014. “ It’s Where You Work: Increases in Earnings Dispersion across Establishments and Individuals in the U.S.”NBER Working Paper No. 20447. 915 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000321