The Right to Strike reasonable alternative to entering the labor market- sonable alternative but to find a job.s They cannot pro- say,because finding a job is the only way to earn the duce necessary goods for themselves,nor can they rely money they need to meet their basic needs.?Coercion on the charity of others,nor can they count on adequate is a specific kind of forcing.It is the removal of reason- state benefits.The only way most people can gain reli- able alternatives to a course of action and making it able access to necessary goods is by buying them.The known to the coerced agent that she has no reasonable most reliable,often only,way most people have of ac- alternatives.So.the state coerces workers into not en- quiring enough money to buy those goods is through gaging in sit-ins and mass pickets when it pronounces employment.That is the sense in which they have no those tactics unlawful,makes it known that the tactics reasonable alternative but to find a job working for an are illegal,and commits to the use of police violence employer.Depending on how we measure income and to enforce that law.The threat of violent law enforce- wealth.about 60-80%of Americans are in this situa- ment is enough to say that workers are coerced into tion for most of their adult lives. following the law.Again,these are examples of what This forcing is not symmetrical.A significant mi- violence,forcing,and coercion mean,but to call them nority is not similarly forced to work for someone acts of violence/forcing/coercion is not,so far,a norma- else,though they might do so freely.That minority tive judgment about whether they are justified or not. has enough wealth,either inherited or accumulated or This terminological parsing might seem tedious but both,that they have a reasonable alternative to enter- is necessary both to grasp the stakes of the dilemma ing the labor market.So,this first dimension of oppres- above as well as the nature of the argument I will make sion comes not from the fact that some are forced to about resistance to oppression.The framing dilemma work,but from the fact that the forcing is unequal and has to do with the use of coercive,not violent.strike tac that asymmetry means some are forced to work for tics that give workers a reasonable chance of inducing others.10 That is to say,what makes it oppressive is the employers to renegotiate terms.A further dimension wrong of unequally forcing the majority to work,for to that dilemma is whether the state is justified in using whatever purpose,while others face no such forcing 4号 violence and coercion to prohibit the use of coercive at all.That way of organizing and distributing coer- strike tactics or whether workers are justified in break- cive work obligations,and of imposing certain kinds of 'asn ing the law. forcing on workers,is an unjustifiable way of limiting their freedom and therefore oppressive.To fix ideas,I THE FACTS OF OPPRESSION IN TYPICAL call this the structural element of oppression in class LIBERAL CAPITALIST SOCIETIES societies To explain why the right to strike is a right to resist oppression,I first must give an account of the relevant For a fuller analysis of workers being asymmetrically forced to oppression.Oppression is the unjustifiable deprivation work,or forced into particular occupations see Cohen(1988a,1988b), of freedom.Some deprivations or restrictions of free Ezorsky(2007),and Stanczyk(unpublished).These are primarily an- dom are justified and therefore do not count as op- alytic descriptions of forcing,not normative analyses of what is wrong with that forcing pression.The oppression that matters for this article is the class-based oppression of a typical liberal capitalist For the 60-80%statistic,see Henwood(2005,125).The statistics on wealth among the lower deciles is complex.A recent study shows society.By the class-based oppression,I mean the fact that the net wealth of the bottom 50%is roughly 0.So at least 50%of that the majority of able-bodied people find themselves US households are forced to use job-related income to meet annual expenses,though that has to be modified for those who receive (in- 8 forced to work for members of a relatively small group sufficient to live on)welfare benefits(Saez and Zucman 2014;Wolff who dominate control over productive assets and who, 2012) thereby,enjoy unjustifiable control over the activities 10 To be clear,the oppression here is not with any and all unequal and products of those workers.There are workers and and asymmetric forcing but with the inequality that arises from the then there are owners and their managers.The facts I class structure of society.For instance,it is not oppressive nor an refer to here are mostly drawn from the United States unjust constraint on individual freedom,to force the able-bodied to do some work to support the disabled,children,the sick.the elderly. to keep a consistent description of a specific society or the otherwise socially dependent who cannot perform a share of While there is meaningful variation across liberal cap- necessary labor.Though even there,there is some presumption that italist nations,the basic facts of class-based oppression that burden of working for those who cannot work should be shared do not change in a way that vitiates my argument's ap- equally,and that individuals should not be forced to work for any purpose and under any conditions whatsoever.What I am describing plicability to those countries too.Empirical analysis o as oppression is not the very fact that some work and others don't. 四 each country to which the argument applies,and how but the inequality and asymmetry that arises from the inequalities it would apply,is a separate project. in ownership and control.This forcing is unequal in that some able- The first element of oppression in a class society re- bodied-and even some who by all rights should not have to work at sides in the fact that (a)there are some who are forced all-are forced to work while other able-bodied individuals are not forced to work.And it is asymmetric in that those who have to work into the labor market while others are not and (b) are.on the whole,forced to work for those who hire them.under those who are forced to work-workers-have to work conditions controlled primarily by employers. for those who own productive resources.Workers are My account here of the oppressive distribution of coercive work forced into the labor market because they have no rea- obligations and exploitative relationships relies in part on argu- ments made in Stanczyk (2012;unpublished book manuscript;un- published).Stanczyk provides further arguments about the injustice of unequal,coercive work obligations,with which I agree but that are 7 On forcing see Cohen(1988a):Ezorsky(2007). unnecessary for the argument here. 907The Right to Strike reasonable alternative to entering the labor market— say, because finding a job is the only way to earn the money they need to meet their basic needs.7 Coercion is a specific kind of forcing. It is the removal of reason￾able alternatives to a course of action and making it known to the coerced agent that she has no reasonable alternatives. So, the state coerces workers into not en￾gaging in sit-ins and mass pickets when it pronounces those tactics unlawful, makes it known that the tactics are illegal, and commits to the use of police violence to enforce that law. The threat of violent law enforce￾ment is enough to say that workers are coerced into following the law. Again, these are examples of what violence, forcing, and coercion mean, but to call them acts of violence/forcing/coercion is not, so far, a norma￾tive judgment about whether they are justified or not. This terminological parsing might seem tedious but is necessary both to grasp the stakes of the dilemma above as well as the nature of the argument I will make about resistance to oppression. The framing dilemma has to do with the use of coercive, not violent, strike tac￾tics that give workers a reasonable chance of inducing employers to renegotiate terms. A further dimension to that dilemma is whether the state is justified in using violence and coercion to prohibit the use of coercive strike tactics or whether workers are justified in break￾ing the law. THE FACTS OF OPPRESSION IN TYPICAL LIBERAL CAPITALIST SOCIETIES To explain why the right to strike is a right to resist oppression, I first must give an account of the relevant oppression. Oppression is the unjustifiable deprivation of freedom. Some deprivations or restrictions of free￾dom are justified and therefore do not count as op￾pression. The oppression that matters for this article is the class-based oppression of a typical liberal capitalist society. By the class-based oppression, I mean the fact that the majority of able-bodied people find themselves forced to work for members of a relatively small group who dominate control over productive assets and who, thereby, enjoy unjustifiable control over the activities and products of those workers. There are workers and then there are owners and their managers. The facts I refer to here are mostly drawn from the United States to keep a consistent description of a specific society. While there is meaningful variation across liberal cap￾italist nations, the basic facts of class-based oppression do not change in a way that vitiates my argument’s ap￾plicability to those countries too. Empirical analysis of each country to which the argument applies, and how it would apply, is a separate project. The first element of oppression in a class society re￾sides in the fact that (a) there are some who are forced into the labor market while others are not and (b) those who are forced to work—workers—have to work for those who own productive resources. Workers are forced into the labor market because they have no rea- 7 On forcing see Cohen (1988a); Ezorsky (2007). sonable alternative but to find a job.8 They cannot pro￾duce necessary goods for themselves, nor can they rely on the charity of others, nor can they count on adequate state benefits. The only way most people can gain reli￾able access to necessary goods is by buying them. The most reliable, often only, way most people have of ac￾quiring enough money to buy those goods is through employment. That is the sense in which they have no reasonable alternative but to find a job working for an employer. Depending on how we measure income and wealth, about 60–80% of Americans are in this situa￾tion for most of their adult lives.9 This forcing is not symmetrical. A significant mi￾nority is not similarly forced to work for someone else, though they might do so freely. That minority has enough wealth, either inherited or accumulated or both, that they have a reasonable alternative to enter￾ing the labor market. So, this first dimension of oppres￾sion comes not from the fact that some are forced to work, but from the fact that the forcing is unequal and that asymmetry means some are forced to work for others.10 That is to say, what makes it oppressive is the wrong of unequally forcing the majority to work, for whatever purpose, while others face no such forcing at all.11 That way of organizing and distributing coer￾cive work obligations, and of imposing certain kinds of forcing on workers, is an unjustifiable way of limiting their freedom and therefore oppressive. To fix ideas, I call this the structural element of oppression in class societies. 8 For a fuller analysis of workers being asymmetrically forced to work, or forced into particular occupations see Cohen (1988a,1988b), Ezorsky (2007), and Stanczyk (unpublished). These are primarily an￾alytic descriptions of forcing, not normative analyses of what is wrong with that forcing. 9 For the 60–80% statistic, see Henwood (2005, 125). The statistics on wealth among the lower deciles is complex. A recent study shows that the net wealth of the bottom 50% is roughly 0. So at least 50% of US households are forced to use job-related income to meet annual expenses, though that has to be modified for those who receive (in￾sufficient to live on) welfare benefits (Saez and Zucman 2014; Wolff 2012). 10 To be clear, the oppression here is not with any and all unequal and asymmetric forcing but with the inequality that arises from the class structure of society. For instance, it is not oppressive nor an unjust constraint on individual freedom, to force the able-bodied to do some work to support the disabled, children, the sick, the elderly, or the otherwise socially dependent who cannot perform a share of necessary labor. Though even there, there is some presumption that that burden of working for those who cannot work should be shared equally, and that individuals should not be forced to work for any purpose and under any conditions whatsoever.What I am describing as oppression is not the very fact that some work and others don’t, but the inequality and asymmetry that arises from the inequalities in ownership and control. This forcing is unequal in that some able￾bodied—and even some who by all rights should not have to work at all—are forced to work while other able-bodied individuals are not forced to work. And it is asymmetric in that those who have to work are, on the whole, forced to work for those who hire them, under conditions controlled primarily by employers. 11 My account here of the oppressive distribution of coercive work obligations and exploitative relationships relies in part on argu￾ments made in Stanczyk (2012; unpublished book manuscript; un￾published). Stanczyk provides further arguments about the injustice of unequal, coercive work obligations, with which I agree but that are unnecessary for the argument here. 907 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