I guess removing, let's say, a couple of million workers, by taking away a group of people's rights is one way to create a labour shortage
A strike is the traditional way the left creates a labour shortage in the hope of raising working conditions.
The politics of a strike are explicit. The politics of removing rights is dubious.
I guess in the absence of an effective union movement this removal of rights is something, I just can't imagine it being effective beyond small areas of the economy, and it's done so on political grounds of nationalism. Even though the rights of everyone in the host nation have also been reduced.
Any improvements in pay and conditions seem short term and narrowly distributed to me, but worse what is the political legacy? What lessons get learned? A union victory now builds for the future...whereas a victory based on expelling those deemed foreign?
Don’t want to be picky but I’m a little confused about this post and your previous tbh.
Firstly strikes are not ‘the traditional way the left creates a labour shortage in the hope of raising labour conditions’ . Strikes are normally the withdrawal of labour by working class organisations. There are exceptions to this ie the have been strikes by middle class organisations . The tactic of the strike has been led by organisations not on the left , and indeed there are examples where strikes have had a completely reactionary nature. The whole difference between political parties and unions is that the former are composed of people who agree a political direction whereas trade unions are open to all. The working class is not a given for the left, it is a contested ground . Those who normally assume or want to take for granted that unions and the working class are naturally left are normally naive ie the Labour Party ‘they have nowhere else to go’, Tory anti union types or somewhat excitable folk who do a few years activism then write off the W/class because it doesn’t measure up to their theory and what they would like the working class to be.
Secondly far from strikes being ‘the traditional way the left creates a labour shortage in the hope of raising labour conditions’ , most strikes over the past decade and probably further back have been ( and the majority in this present period ) are defensive strikes ie sackings, deskilling, fire and hire , redundancies. This is to defend labour conditions rather than to improve them. Wage militancy / shorter working hours etc isn’t something generally that we hear about these days. Defensive strikes rarely have anything to do with labour shortages in fact many are to do with companies or the public sector shedding labour as to reduce cost, hence exactly the opposite of a labour shortage.
Strikes themselves are generally sectional and therefore improvements are ‘narrowly distributed ‘. However, I would imagine that what ever attempts are made to make improvements in pay or working conditions ‘short term ‘ will be resisted more fiercely by those who have taken industrial action to get them.
I think I can see the overall point you are attempting to make , that is that if we had fighting trade unions then lorry drivers , some hospitality workers, some agricultural and retail workers wouldn’t have had to rely on a blend of Brexit , covid , after enduring decades of a the race to the bottom in deskilling and working conditions , to get a wage rise .
However I think you need to go back to why we haven’t got widespread fighting unions, rank and file activism in workplaces and haven’t had since the defeat of the miners, steel workers, press workers and engineering workers etc under Thatcher.
For me the emergence of the non traditional unions and Sheila Grahame’s election might mean that we see a little more of ‘the awkward squad’ rather than the dross we got following the capitulation of the TUC , after the miners strike , into being part of Delors ‘social contract’