The history of the labor wing of the US-led multinational empire -- such as the International Trade Union Confederation (the result of the merger of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the World Confederation of Labour) of which the International Transport Workers' Federation is an affiliate -- claiming to promote free, independent trade unions, i.e., trade unions that are independent of Communist parties and governments, and to act in solidarity with workers of the global South, has not been a pretty one: see, for instance, Beth Sims, "Workers of the World Undermined: American Labor's Role in U.S. Foreign Policy," South End Press, 1992, <http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Labor/AFL_CIO_WOTWU.html>. The end of state socialism and the Cold War did not change its fundamental role. A more recent history of it has been documented by such labor writers as Harry Kelber and Kim Scipes among others. Here is an example from Haiti: Jeb Sprague, " Failed Solidarity: The ICFTU, AFL-CIO, ILO, and ORIT in Haiti," <http://labornotes.org/node/230>. Leftists inside and outside Iran ought to be aware of what the labor wing of the empire does.
The labor wing of the empire, like other vehicles of "democracy assistance," seizes upon a real problem of most post-revolutionary governments, whether they are Communist, nationalist, or Islamic: the fact that space for autonomy for organizations of workers and others is restricted to various degrees for reasons of national security (lack of autonomy is nearly complete under a one-party state-socialist state). The absence of autonomy eventually undermines the social gains of revolution either when the rulers abandon their commitment to the ideology that made revolution possible or the ruled become depoliticized and self-centered or both (the history of state socialism in China, Russia, and Eastern Europe is a cautionary tale for the Iranians, just as the history of the overthrows of Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende, and others is). However, workers who turn to the labor wing of the empire to solve this undeniable problem usually come to grief.
Workers of the North, especially in the USA, are normally unaware of the dilemma faced by workers under post-revolutionary government in the South, who must fight for their class interests without undermining their national interests (especially defending their nation from the empire). In many cases, trade union members in the USA aren't even aware of what their unions are doing at home, let alone abroad. Naturally, they do not realize that intensified global competition, workers of formerly socialist or nationalist countries now competing with them for jobs, has come about in part because of the exertion of top labor bureaucrats of the North who were supposed to protect their interests.
In the meantime, workers of the North are also finding out how good their free, independent unions are, some of which are going far beyond business as usual of concession bargaining and giving up the right to strike altogether. See, for instance, Sam Gindin, "The CAW and Magna: Disorganizing the Working Class."
It is possible that, in the near future in the North, only French workers will remember how to strike, if not to win new gains, at least to defend their way of life.
Even the still impressive national solidarity of French workers may eventually be undermined by the gap between the public and private sectors: "nearly 20 points separates the rate of sympathy [for the 18 October 2007 strike] in the public sector (69%) from that in the private sector (49%)" (Christelle Chabaud, "The Majority Strike in Public Opinion," <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/chabaud181007.html>). -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/>