For several days, Quebec has been experiencing one of the largest strike movements in its history. Two types of claims are put forward. On the one hand, the question of wages, in a context of high costs of living. On the other hand, the working conditions. We would be wrong to see these as simple corporate demands or the grievances of already privileged people. Through their resistance, the strikers give us a great lesson in political philosophy, which we greatly needed.
Two approaches to society clash: a logic individualizing interests, advocated by the government, against a collective logic of the common good, defended by the strikers. This opposition is verified on at least three interdependent aspects.
The first part is that of the strike. The strikers are resisting the will of the government by using their collective power to reduce, and even overcome, this oppression. Certainly, no one wants to believe in the principle of accountability of managers anymore which in fact gives them even more protections to avoid any denunciation of their errors. But contrary to what the Prime Minister says, the strikers are not asking for power over the State.
No one is thinking of replacing the autocracy of managers with that of the unions. The strikers want to take control of their own existence. It is about defending their intellectual and physical integrity, in short their autonomy as moral persons. However, if we listen carefully to the strikers, their desire for freedom can be understood in a double sense.
First of all, resistance leads to demands for freedoms that were previously non-existent or structurally threatened. A higher salary expands people’s freedom of choice. The expansion of rights increases collective freedom to influence employment conditions against the arbitrariness of employers. Whatever the issues, the strikers’ demands are always also a demand for control over significant parts of their lives.
Furthermore, strikes are not just about gaining more freedom: they are expressions of freedom in themselves. Indeed, going on strike is not only a tool of self-determination, but proof of it. Saying no to the dominant is saying yes to oneself, it is recognizing oneself without expecting those who believe themselves to be masters of power to deign to see ours.
The second part is that of work. In the government’s conception, and defended by the Employers’ Council, working conditions should vary depending on individuals under the pretext of freedom of choice. This apparent freedom, however, is the best way to isolate people and place them in a vulnerable situation vis-à-vis employers. Indeed, whether in the public or private sector, employers assert their “right of management” and the “duty of loyalty”, which is another way of reaffirming the asymmetry between employers and employees, by sacrificing passing on the dignity of people as we write off a debt.
In all capitalist countries of liberal societies, employees are defined first and foremost as “subordinate” people. This is subordination in the strict sense: workers must submit to the will of the employer. But how can we accept such subordination if it requires the renunciation of one’s family and personal life, if it harms one’s physical and psychological health and if it prevents professional development?
However, a workplace is like any social group: it can stifle people just as it can, if given the means, promote intelligence of actions and benevolence in social relationships.
Finally, a third aspect is that of democratic equality and the conditions of public debate. The government claims that its aims go beyond ideologies: according to it, it is about promoting efficiency. Given the disasters in many areas such as the environment, public transport or the health system, we can ask ourselves – a rhetorical question – who benefits from such efficiency. The current strike is part of a debate that the government would not have wanted, about the very meaning of a democratic and egalitarian society. However, saying things is not the privilege of elected officials, even if they are imbued with their majority.
The current strikes are not outside of public debate. They participate fully. When they end, it will be crucial to extend them in other ways to do justice to the strikers, both their struggles and their ideals. This is why we must support them now and for the future. This will be their true victory.