Alex Gourevitch used many replacement workers,as it was their legal on strike with some reasonable chance of success they right to do,but those replacements could not do the job have to use one of these coercive tactics.6 effectively.Installing,servicing,and repairing copper- But what is the actual dilemma?It is the following.A -00081v0000/L0LoL wire and FIOS systems turned out to require weeks of basic principle of political morality in any liberal capi- training and further on-the-job experience.After seven talist society is that all persons enjoy basic liberties on weeks,the company still was unable to service existing the condition that they extend the same basic liberties lines,let alone install new ones.Exercising a great deal to everyone else and that these liberties should be en- of discipline and commitment,but no coercion or vi- shrined in law.You are free to exercise your basic lib- olence against replacements or managers,the Verizon erties so long as you do not coercively interfere with workers slowed production enough to win concessions others in the enjoyment of their same liberties.But the op//s (Gourevitch 2016b). aforementioned coercive strike tactics violate a num- However,low-skill,high labor supply workers in sec- ber of these basic liberties as they are commonly un- tors like service,transportation,agriculture,and basic derstood,both in law and political culture.They vio- industry are in a different situation.These kinds of late the property rights of owners and their managers workers,in part because they are in such high supply, the freedom of contract and association of replacement tend to have less bargaining power and therefore usu- workers,and they threaten the everyday.background ally enjoy lower wages,longer hours,and worse work- sense of public order of a liberal capitalist societ-in- ing conditions.3 On top of which,they are more vul- sofar as law and order is commonly identified with obe- nerable to forms of illegal pressure.For instance,con- dience to the law and uninterrupted flow of commerce. 元 sider the problem of wage theft,where employers fail The dilemma is that the right to strike,when exercised to pay the full wages and benefits that workers are by the majority of worst-off workers,seems to con- legally due.Wage theft is almost exclusively a problem flict directly with the basic economic and civil liberties affecting low-wage workers,64%of whom experience of large numbers of other people and with the back- it weekly and who on average lose 15%of their income ground legal order that secures those liberties. each year to their employers (Judson and Francisco- To resolve this dilemma,we need to know what has McGuire 2012).These workers already earn incomes moral priority:the basic economic and civil liberties not far from the poverty line.They are therefore the as they are enforced in law,or the right to strike.If ones we intuitively think should have the strongest the former,then the right to strike must be limited by case for a right to strike.Yet,even if all of the cur- the requirement to respect the legally protected basic rent workers walk off and respect the picket,replace liberties of owners,managers,and replacements.That ments are much easier to find,train,and put to work. would mean that,in the typical case,the majority of So workers might refuse to work but,once replaced. easily replaced workers cannot exercise their right to they will have little chance of slowing or stopping pro- strike with a reasonable chance of success.However,if duction.For example,this is one of the challenges fac- the right to strike has priority,then workers are not ex 是 ing workers like Walmart or McDonald's workers who ante restrained by the basic economic and civil liberties have done single-day strikes for demonstration and of others and they might be permitted even to engage protest purposes,but have not struck long enough to be in mass civil disobedience when violating those liber- replaced.4 ties.To know which way to think,we need an account What this means is that the majority of workers,who of why workers have the right to strike in the first place are relatively easy to replace,often have to use some A definitional note before proceeding.Three terms coercive tactics if they want to go on strike with some get used in the context of strikes with a great deal of reasonable chance of success.These tactics either pre- ambiguity:violence,coercion,and force.I cannot,in vent managers from hiring replacements,prevent re- this essay,address all such sources of ambiguity but placements from taking struck jobs,or otherwise pre- two things must be said.One source of ambiguity is vent work from getting done.The classic coercive tac- whether these terms are moralized or not.Here I use tics are sit-downs and mass pickets.5 Sit-down strikes them in a non-moralized sense-the use of violence.co- involve occupying the workplace so that no work can ercion,and force might be justified or unjustified,but be done.Mass pickets are when strikers and their sup- to call something an act of violence/coercion/forcing porters surround a workplace with a wall of picketers does not,in itself,imply a judgment that the act was so that no people or supplies can get in or out.For wrong.The other source of ambiguity lies in how these the majority of relatively easy to replace workers to go terms are defined.Each are different but related ways of interfering with and limiting people's freedom.I will use violence to refer to acts intending to cause physical harm to individuals.So,when the police,as part of their 3 Regularly updated tables showing that earnings for groups like strikebreaking activities,beat up picketers during the service workers,food prep,and retail workers are below the na- Justice for Janitors strike in 1990,they committed acts tional median can be found at this website:https://www.bls.gov/emp/ of violence.Forcing is when someone has no reason- p table_104.htm. able alternative to a course of action.So,workers are See the Fight for 15 strikes,which are best summarized and sourced forced to enter the labor market when they have no at the (inaccurately named)Wikipedia entry,"Fast Food Worker Strikes":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_food_worker_strikes 5 I set aside sabotage,the other common tactic,because it raises fur- For accounts of these tactics and their restriction in US law,see ther issues that I cannot address here. White(2010,2014):Pope(2004). 906Alex Gourevitch used many replacement workers, as it was their legal right to do, but those replacements could not do the job effectively. Installing, servicing, and repairing copper￾wire and FIOS systems turned out to require weeks of training and further on-the-job experience.After seven weeks, the company still was unable to service existing lines, let alone install new ones. Exercising a great deal of discipline and commitment, but no coercion or vi￾olence against replacements or managers, the Verizon workers slowed production enough to win concessions (Gourevitch 2016b). However, low-skill, high labor supply workers in sec￾tors like service, transportation, agriculture, and basic industry are in a different situation. These kinds of workers, in part because they are in such high supply, tend to have less bargaining power and therefore usu￾ally enjoy lower wages, longer hours, and worse work￾ing conditions.3 On top of which, they are more vul￾nerable to forms of illegal pressure. For instance, con￾sider the problem of wage theft, where employers fail to pay the full wages and benefits that workers are legally due. Wage theft is almost exclusively a problem affecting low-wage workers, 64% of whom experience it weekly and who on average lose 15% of their income each year to their employers (Judson and Francisco￾McGuire 2012). These workers already earn incomes not far from the poverty line. They are therefore the ones we intuitively think should have the strongest case for a right to strike. Yet, even if all of the cur￾rent workers walk off and respect the picket, replace￾ments are much easier to find, train, and put to work. So workers might refuse to work but, once replaced, they will have little chance of slowing or stopping pro￾duction. For example, this is one of the challenges fac￾ing workers like Walmart or McDonald’s workers who have done single-day strikes for demonstration and protest purposes, but have not struck long enough to be replaced.4 What this means is that the majority of workers, who are relatively easy to replace, often have to use some coercive tactics if they want to go on strike with some reasonable chance of success. These tactics either pre￾vent managers from hiring replacements, prevent re￾placements from taking struck jobs, or otherwise pre￾vent work from getting done. The classic coercive tac￾tics are sit-downs and mass pickets.5 Sit-down strikes involve occupying the workplace so that no work can be done. Mass pickets are when strikers and their sup￾porters surround a workplace with a wall of picketers so that no people or supplies can get in or out. For the majority of relatively easy to replace workers to go 3 Regularly updated tables showing that earnings for groups like service workers, food prep, and retail workers are below the na￾tional median can be found at this website: https://www.bls.gov/emp/ ep_table_104.htm. 4 See the Fight for 15 strikes, which are best summarized and sourced at the (inaccurately named) Wikipedia entry, “Fast Food Worker Strikes”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_food_worker_strikes. 5 I set aside sabotage, the other common tactic, because it raises fur￾ther issues that I cannot address here. on strike with some reasonable chance of success they have to use one of these coercive tactics.6 But what is the actual dilemma? It is the following.A basic principle of political morality in any liberal capi￾talist society is that all persons enjoy basic liberties on the condition that they extend the same basic liberties to everyone else and that these liberties should be en￾shrined in law. You are free to exercise your basic lib￾erties so long as you do not coercively interfere with others in the enjoyment of their same liberties. But the aforementioned coercive strike tactics violate a num￾ber of these basic liberties as they are commonly un￾derstood, both in law and political culture. They vio￾late the property rights of owners and their managers, the freedom of contract and association of replacement workers, and they threaten the everyday, background sense of public order of a liberal capitalist societ— in￾sofar as law and order is commonly identified with obe￾dience to the law and uninterrupted flow of commerce. The dilemma is that the right to strike, when exercised by the majority of worst-off workers, seems to con￾flict directly with the basic economic and civil liberties of large numbers of other people and with the back￾ground legal order that secures those liberties. To resolve this dilemma, we need to know what has moral priority: the basic economic and civil liberties, as they are enforced in law, or the right to strike. If the former, then the right to strike must be limited by the requirement to respect the legally protected basic liberties of owners, managers, and replacements. That would mean that, in the typical case, the majority of easily replaced workers cannot exercise their right to strike with a reasonable chance of success. However, if the right to strike has priority, then workers are not ex ante restrained by the basic economic and civil liberties of others and they might be permitted even to engage in mass civil disobedience when violating those liber￾ties. To know which way to think, we need an account of why workers have the right to strike in the first place. A definitional note before proceeding. Three terms get used in the context of strikes with a great deal of ambiguity: violence, coercion, and force. I cannot, in this essay, address all such sources of ambiguity but two things must be said. One source of ambiguity is whether these terms are moralized or not. Here I use them in a non-moralized sense—the use of violence, co￾ercion, and force might be justified or unjustified, but to call something an act of violence/coercion/forcing does not, in itself, imply a judgment that the act was wrong. The other source of ambiguity lies in how these terms are defined. Each are different but related ways of interfering with and limiting people’s freedom. I will use violence to refer to acts intending to cause physical harm to individuals. So, when the police, as part of their strikebreaking activities, beat up picketers during the Justice for Janitors strike in 1990, they committed acts of violence. Forcing is when someone has no reason￾able alternative to a course of action. So, workers are forced to enter the labor market when they have no 6 For accounts of these tactics and their restriction in US law, see White (2010, 2014); Pope (2004). 906 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