The Right to Strike bathroom or to get a drink of water.As one striker said subject to dominating authority,and made asymmet- in an interview,"Do I have to tell my boss every single rically dependent in the economy does not produce minute of what I am doing?This is basic human dig- a fair way of distributing the obligation to work and nity"(Gourevitch 2016b).If they did not ask or wait to the rewards of social production.Rather,it constrains get clear approval from their manager,then they were their freedom in a way that secures the exploitation of guilty of a time code violation and were suspended for one class by another.The weight of these different op- up to six weeks.The strike made workplace control a pressions is unevenly experienced across different seg- direct issue and one measure of its success was a change ments of workers.Various factors modify the basic facts in disciplinary proceedings(ibid.).To take another ex- about class and oppression.We have seen,for instance, ample,the Fight for $15 strikes have made control over the difference between being in a high labor supply ver- scheduling a central demand,even managing in certain sus a low labor supply sector.High labor supply sec- states and municipalities to pass laws mandating min- tors involve more intense labor competition,resulting imal regularity and predictability in weekly schedules in weaker bargaining power for workers and intensified (Andrias2016,47-70). oppression.The opposite holds for lower labor sup- So,if the first face of oppression is that workers are ply sectors-like software programmers or fiber-optics forced to work for some employer or another who technicians-whose greater bargaining power means does not face a similar kind of forcing:the second face they face class-based oppression less intensively.This is that workers are forced to become de jure and de has downstream consequences for our analysis of par- facto subordinates to a specific employer.16 The third ticular strikes,but it does not affect the argument for face of oppression is the systematic distributive ef- the right to strike itself. fects of structural and interpersonal oppression.While My description of the economy is controversial. some instances of class-based oppression are idiosyn- Some will either reject aspects of the empirical descrip- cratic,in general it has consistent distributive effects. tion,find it too underspecified to agree,or they will The structural and interpersonal oppression of work- disagree with the normative interpretation of it as in- 4号元 ers produces wage-bargains and limits on wealth ac- volving systematic,unjustified restrictions on workers' cumulation that reproduce workers'economic depen- freedom.Any attempt to give a more detailed account dence on employers,their over or underemployment, of this political economy of exploitation would leave and thereby allows a relatively small group of owners no room for the rest of the argument.In what follows, and highly paid managers to accumulate most of the the reader does not have to agree with every aspect of wealth and income.I cannot discuss the extensive lit- my description of liberal capitalist arrangements.One erature on inequality.I can only cite some generally need only agree that the typical liberal capitalist econ- well-known facts and papers pointing to the role of in- omy is characterized by considerable,class-based op- equalities in power as determining factors in these out. pression of workers,for reasons similar to the ones I comes.17 To the degree that inequalities are a product of have just provided,to then think that the right to strike structural and workplace oppression,distributive out- can be seen as a right to resist oppression. comes are their own dimension of oppression and serve to reproduce those basic class relationships.Above all, there is one unjustifiable distributive effect of this op- THREE VERSIONS OF THE RIGHT TO STRIKE:RADICAL,SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC, pression:that the majority of wage-bargains ensure the AND LIBERAL reproduction of that oppressive class structure.At any given point in time,a majority of workers do not earn There is more than one way to justify the right to strike enough to both meet their needs and to save such that and,in so doing,to explain the shape that right ought they can employ themselves or start their own busi- to have.As we shall see,there is the liberal,the social- nesses.They must therefore remain workers or,to the democratic,and the radical account.Any justification degree they rise,they do so either by displacing others of a right must give an account not just of the interest or by taking the structurally limited number of oppor- it protects but of how that right is shaped to protect that tunities available.18 interest.In the case of the radical argument for the right Each of these different faces of oppression to strike,which I will defend against the other two con- structural,interpersonal,and distributive-is a distinct ceptions,the relevant human interest is liberty.Work- injustice.Together they form an interrelated and mutu- ers have an interest in resisting the oppression of class ally reinforcing set of oppressive relationships.The var- society by using their collective power to reduce that eys ious ways in which workers are forced to work.made oppression.Their interest is a liberty interest in a dou- ble sense.First,it is an interest in not being oppressed, 16 For a more extensive catalogue of the legal and de facto powers or in not facing certain kinds of forcing,coercion,and that employers have to command their workers in a wide range of subjection to authority that they shouldn't have to.Any matters see Maltby(2009),Greenhouse(2009),and Bertram,Goure- resistance to those kinds of unjustified limitations of vitch.and Robin (201). freedom carries with it,at least implicitly,a demand The most famous work is,of course,Thomas Piketty's,although the for liberties not yet enjoyed.19 That is a demand for a social determinants of the inequality he discovers are hotly debated control over portions of one's life that one does not yet (Piketty 2014,237-76).See also Saez and Zucman 2014:Mohun 2014 orthe ee wrkerniduly tee but collee- 19 David Borman makes a similar and important argument for tively unfree to leave his or her class position,see Cohen(1988b). the right to strike as a version of the "right of justification"or 909The Right to Strike bathroom or to get a drink of water. As one striker said in an interview, “Do I have to tell my boss every single minute of what I am doing? This is basic human dig￾nity” (Gourevitch 2016b). If they did not ask or wait to get clear approval from their manager, then they were guilty of a time code violation and were suspended for up to six weeks. The strike made workplace control a direct issue and one measure of its success was a change in disciplinary proceedings (ibid.). To take another ex￾ample, the Fight for $15 strikes have made control over scheduling a central demand, even managing in certain states and municipalities to pass laws mandating min￾imal regularity and predictability in weekly schedules (Andrias 2016, 47–70). So, if the first face of oppression is that workers are forced to work for some employer or another who does not face a similar kind of forcing; the second face is that workers are forced to become de jure and de facto subordinates to a specific employer.16 The third face of oppression is the systematic distributive ef￾fects of structural and interpersonal oppression. While some instances of class-based oppression are idiosyn￾cratic, in general it has consistent distributive effects. The structural and interpersonal oppression of work￾ers produces wage-bargains and limits on wealth ac￾cumulation that reproduce workers’ economic depen￾dence on employers, their over or underemployment, and thereby allows a relatively small group of owners and highly paid managers to accumulate most of the wealth and income. I cannot discuss the extensive lit￾erature on inequality. I can only cite some generally well-known facts and papers pointing to the role of in￾equalities in power as determining factors in these out￾comes.17 To the degree that inequalities are a product of structural and workplace oppression, distributive out￾comes are their own dimension of oppression and serve to reproduce those basic class relationships. Above all, there is one unjustifiable distributive effect of this op￾pression: that the majority of wage-bargains ensure the reproduction of that oppressive class structure. At any given point in time, a majority of workers do not earn enough to both meet their needs and to save such that they can employ themselves or start their own busi￾nesses. They must therefore remain workers or, to the degree they rise, they do so either by displacing others or by taking the structurally limited number of oppor￾tunities available.18 Each of these different faces of oppression— structural, interpersonal, and distributive—is a distinct injustice. Together they form an interrelated and mutu￾ally reinforcing set of oppressive relationships. The var￾ious ways in which workers are forced to work, made 16 For a more extensive catalogue of the legal and de facto powers that employers have to command their workers in a wide range of matters see Maltby (2009),Greenhouse (2009), and Bertram,Goure￾vitch, and Robin (2012). 17 The most famous work is, of course,Thomas Piketty’s, although the social determinants of the inequality he discovers are hotly debated (Piketty 2014, 237–76). See also Saez and Zucman 2014;Mohun 2014; Song et al. 2015; Barth et al. 2014; Mishel and Davis 2015. 18 For the sense in which each worker is individually free but collec￾tively unfree to leave his or her class position, see Cohen (1988b). subject to dominating authority, and made asymmet￾rically dependent in the economy does not produce a fair way of distributing the obligation to work and the rewards of social production. Rather, it constrains their freedom in a way that secures the exploitation of one class by another. The weight of these different op￾pressions is unevenly experienced across different seg￾ments of workers.Various factors modify the basic facts about class and oppression. We have seen, for instance, the difference between being in a high labor supply ver￾sus a low labor supply sector. High labor supply sec￾tors involve more intense labor competition, resulting in weaker bargaining power for workers and intensified oppression. The opposite holds for lower labor sup￾ply sectors—like software programmers or fiber-optics technicians—whose greater bargaining power means they face class-based oppression less intensively. This has downstream consequences for our analysis of par￾ticular strikes, but it does not affect the argument for the right to strike itself. My description of the economy is controversial. Some will either reject aspects of the empirical descrip￾tion, find it too underspecified to agree, or they will disagree with the normative interpretation of it as in￾volving systematic, unjustified restrictions on workers’ freedom. Any attempt to give a more detailed account of this political economy of exploitation would leave no room for the rest of the argument. In what follows, the reader does not have to agree with every aspect of my description of liberal capitalist arrangements. One need only agree that the typical liberal capitalist econ￾omy is characterized by considerable, class-based op￾pression of workers, for reasons similar to the ones I have just provided, to then think that the right to strike can be seen as a right to resist oppression. THREE VERSIONS OF THE RIGHT TO STRIKE: RADICAL, SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC, AND LIBERAL There is more than one way to justify the right to strike and, in so doing, to explain the shape that right ought to have. As we shall see, there is the liberal, the social￾democratic, and the radical account. Any justification of a right must give an account not just of the interest it protects but of how that right is shaped to protect that interest. In the case of the radical argument for the right to strike, which I will defend against the other two con￾ceptions, the relevant human interest is liberty. Work￾ers have an interest in resisting the oppression of class society by using their collective power to reduce that oppression. Their interest is a liberty interest in a dou￾ble sense. First, it is an interest in not being oppressed, or in not facing certain kinds of forcing, coercion, and subjection to authority that they shouldn’t have to.Any resistance to those kinds of unjustified limitations of freedom carries with it, at least implicitly, a demand for liberties not yet enjoyed.19 That is a demand for a control over portions of one’s life that one does not yet 19 David Borman makes a similar and important argument for the right to strike as a version of the "right of justification" or 909 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