> On 2006/03/30, at 21:37, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> > JC Helary wrote:
> >> So, whatever the actual number of strikes or lockouts is (and
> I'd say
> >> mostly strikes in Japan), they seem to be much more efficient (read
> >> involve more workers for more workdays off) in the US than in
> Japan.
> >
> > What sort of strike is more efficient for workers? The short one
> > that results in a win (which may mean actual gains or just fighting
> > off losses) for workers: generally speaking, the longer the strike,
> > the harder it is for workers to win (you might compare the TWU
> > Local 100's strike in NYC on one hand and USW vs. Ormet [lasting
> > for 251 days in 2005], AMFA vs. Northwest [lasting for 91 days in
> > 2005], etc. mentioned at <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/
> > wkstp.nr0.htm>). Few strikes that result in many work days lost
> > are often indications that the strikes that do happen are very
> > long. That's the case in the US: compare the numbers of workers
> > affected in Japan and the US and the numbers of workdays lost in
> > Japan and the US. The gap is wider in the latter than the former.
>
> Indeed, you have a point here. Maybe I am too much used to the
> confrontational ways we have in France and fail to see the actual
> gains Japanese workers have by striking shorter with less people.
> I've been here long enough now to understand that there are a number
> of ways to defuse confrontation and that a very small number of
> people can sometimes accomplish quite a lot.
I think that the French have got a winning formula for strikes (granted that the winning formula can't be easily transplanted into Japan or the US). Take a look at this, comparing Canada, France, Spain, and Denmark: <http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/ labor30b.htm>. The French seem to strike relatively less often than the others in the table (though the stats may be wrong in absolute numbers), but when they _do_ strike, they do it on an industry-wide or society-wide scale (general or near-general strike). French strikes don't seem to last long either. You ever hear of French workers on strike for 251 days? So, the winning formula, in my view, is the strike that is big, short, and militant -- the sort that the French do. To pull off that sort of strike effectively, you need strong left-wing political culture, which the French apparently has.
Since we can't immediately do the same in the US (whose revolutionary experience did not leave impacts on workers except Black workers) or Japan (whose workers have had no revolutionary experience), we need different winning formulas for US and Japanese workers in the meantime. What they might be in each country is a question.
> But the general labor situation in Japan does not seem to me like it
> is getting better especially on the low end of things. I remember
> last week, 20 something kids interviewed about the CPE demonstrations
> in France said something like "instead of complaining they should
> work seriously (ganbaru) to make themselves necessary in the company
> and not be fired". Here, young people have no choice but to accept
> the freeta/baito way if they don't find a "real" job after uni. And
> no union is going to fight for them in that case.
>
> So in the end, I doubt the Japanese labor movement is any way more
> efficient to protect workers right than in the US. But maybe I need
> to see a bigger picture of the situation.
I don't uphold the Japanese labor movement as a model for anyone, not even for the Japanese. All I say is that it seems slightly better than the US labor movement.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>