Are terrorists and trade unions equal? The more we endure the cruelty of some state-sector trade unions whose objectives, it appears, have little to do with worker rights and more to do with political goals, the more we are convinced that it is a form of terrorism. The tactic they both use is the same: victimising civilians. The difference is that trade unions do not use guns, bombs, RDX, TNT, or other explosives.

In terrorism studies, under the subtopic ‘victim-target differentiation,’ this tactic is explained by the classic ABC triangle’s three vertices: A (the terrorist) attacks B (often civilians) to convince or coerce C (the government) to change its position regarding some action or policy desired by A (the terrorist).

Sri Lanka’s public sector trade unionism, like terrorism, has little or no regard for the people, especially the poor. If this country only had robust patient rights activism with a well-resourced body to monitor the deadly effects of health sector trade unionism on patients, tomes could be produced highlighting the deaths and suffering the patients went through as a result of wildcat strikes by doctors and health sector employees. Given the critical role of time in saving patients’ lives, a strike by healthcare employees certainly has fatal consequences.

Similarly, behind train commuters’ outbursts against the striking railway station masters are life-shattering stories. One man fell to his death from an overcrowded train. Another said he could not get back to his house to give his sick mother medicine on time. The rich travel by private vehicles and go to private hospitals for treatment, but the poor depend on public transport and public health services. Yet, instead of being sympathetic towards the poor, who comprise the bulk of the working class, railway trade unionists throw them under the train.

Affected by the education sector strike are largely working-class people’s children. The rich send their children to international schools and foreign universities.

Terrorism-type trade unionism betrays the long journey of the worker’s struggle along the rugged path, starting in the 18th and 19th centuries during the industrial revolution in Europe, with the workers realising that of all the factors of production, labour was the most exploited and least taken care of. To the European capitalists, the health of the machine was more important than the welfare of the workers, who died in hordes due to horrible working and living conditions. Coal miners died of lung diseases, and copper miners died of tuberculosis. Cholera, Typhus and Typhoid were common in overcrowded towns with poor sanitation.

But today, many democracies recognise workers’ rights, while the International Labour Organisation acts as a global watchdog to ensure state compliance with international best labour rights practices. Yet, seeing the elderly people sweeping Colombo streets for Rs. 1300 a day is heartbreaking. Similarly exploited, in the absence of pragmatic minimum wage guidelines, are estate workers.

The indisputable fact is that workers are the backbone of the economy and, therefore, they should be taken care of. However, political parties misusing workers to bring about disability in the country, or Marxist anarchism, is as appalling as the exploitation of workers by greedy capitalists.

With the presidential election only three full moons away, the series of strikes appears politically motivated. Why can’t these trade unions bear the salary inadequacies until a new government comes to power in October? They should also ask all the main candidates to explain how they will find funds to increase public sector salaries without raising taxes.

Given the crisis the country is facing, trade unions are expected to act responsibly in a spirit of sacrifice. They need to learn from Japanese work ethics. In Japan, strikes are extremely rare, as there is more transparency in the employer-employee relationship, with both recognising each other’s rights and responsibilities. It is the sacrificial spirit of the Japanese people that enabled the country to rise as an economic giant from the ashes of World War II.
In Sri Lanka, paralysing the services the public sector employees are duty-bound to offer the people, university non-academic staff, executives, teachers, principals, health-sector employees, railway station masters, and hordes of other categories are placing before the government demands that even a student of basic school-level economics knows the government cannot meet without raising taxes. The moment the cash-strapped government makes some adjustments and agrees to raise the salaries of employees in one sector, the domino effect sets in, with every other union demanding similar hikes.

Whether one likes this government or not, it cannot be denied that the country is today in an economically much better position than it was two years ago, when the then-incumbent president fled the country, unable to manage the unfolding economic crisis. No doubt, the government’s efforts to bring in fiscal discipline are praiseworthy. But discipline is also required in the country’s political culture and administrative mechanisms, especially in the public sector.

When the government makes headway in winning the economic war and strives for stability, politically motivated strikers undermining its efforts are a cheap, if not destructive, tactic. It is akin to stopping the security forces when they are about to defeat the terrorists. It reminds us of the stereotyped joke about Sri Lankans. It goes like this: In hell, every country’s pit is well guarded, except that of Sri Lanka. When a visitor to hell asked the hellkeeper why it was so, the answer was: We don’t have to guard the Sri Lankan pit, because if one tries to get out, the others will pull him down.

The dark humour apart, the unprecedented economic crisis Sri Lanka found itself in two years ago required the concerted efforts of all political parties represented in parliament, regardless of their political affiliations. Instead, this country saw the bad old political habits surfacing to make the task of salvaging the country from the economic wreck difficult.

While it is of utmost importance to uphold workers’ rights to a decent salary, a safe work environment, and social protection measures, it is also equally important that the government strike a balance between workers’ rights and the impact of strikes on essential services.

Many countries have laws governing strikes. Although citing an example from the United States, the citadel of capitalism, may appear ironic, activists point to the Taylor Law in New York as an example of striking a balance between workers’ rights and the state’s responsibility. This law ensures that essential services are maintained and that strikes do not cause undue hardship to the people. The Taylor Law, equipped with a dispute resolution mechanism, prohibits strikes by public sector employees and requires unions to actively discourage strikes among their members. Violations of the law entail legal consequences. But the law recognises the employee’s right to trade unionism and the right to negotiate and enter into collective agreements with the state organisation they are attached to.

In Sri Lanka, any attempt to introduce Taylor Law-like legislation will be dead on arrival. But for a government with foresight, there are many legitimate ways to deal with trade unions that hold people to ransom and ensure public sector services are not disrupted, other than resorting to the usual essential service declarations and the empty talk on privatising public sector institutions and depoliticising trade unions.