With the ongoing strike in New York, and the vigorous debate this has sparked, I thought I'd tell you a bit about mass transit strikes in France and how they are tolerated.
The short version is that they are well tolerated, and even supported, because railway and subway workers are seen as fighting on behalf of more vulnerable workers in other sectors of the industry who cannot strike themselves.
You'll probably be surprised to learn that French workers are even less unionised than the USA, and that there are fewer strikes in France than in the USA.
The fact is, French strikes are highly visible because they always involve the same people - the employees from public sector companies, which are heavily unionised, and in particular the employees or the national railway company, SNCF, and the Paris mass transit company, RATP (like in New York, both serve commuters in and around Paris). SNCF workers account for a full 25% of all days lost to strikes in France.
It works this way because these people cannot be ignored by the government or by employers when they strike (as they can paralyse the country and have an impact on economic activity), and it is popular because they don't go on strike only for their personal gain, but more often to air more general grievances. National strikes called by the unions are effective when the transport sector is paralysed and schools are closed. It's visible, it's fairly easy to tell if it is widely followed or not, and it is safe for all workers, as public sector workers cannot be fired, and private sector workers don't need tgo go on strike if they cannot afford to. And it is effective because the national trade unions use these strikes to push forward claims that benefit all workers: increasing the minimum wage, rules on overtime, safety, social security contributions and benefits...
These things benefit all private sector workers. Thus, even though they may be inconvenienced on the day of a transport strike, they know that most of the time, these strikes are a proxy for their own grievances, they fight on behalf of all workers, not just the "pampered" public sector ones, for what are very necessary and very valuable safeguards. Thus the support for these strikes.
Because make no mistake: the vast majority of workers, absent collective bargaining, absent minimum wage laws, in the face of persistent unemployment or underemployment, availability of immigrants willing to work at almost any price and lack of specialised skills, have ZERO NEGOTIATING POWER. The libertarian ideal of workers able to fend off for themselves is a lie when employers can use the excuse of cheaper labor in China or elsewhere to lower wages and benefits under the credible threat of moving factories elsewhere.
Maybe the Ney York subway workers are fighting for selfish ends, but please don't let that be used as an excuse to discredit trade unions. They may be irritating, sometimes too narrowly focused and selfish, but they play a vital role to defend ALL workers, and their weakening will only lead to further erosion of worker conditions, wages and benefits everywhere. Anything that discredits them will undermine your works not so long afterwards.
::
This was written two centuries ago in the bible of the free market apologists:
Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations