SCIOPERO. — It is the concerted cessation of work. The phenomenon is highly complex and may be studied from various points of view. Of particular interest here, and therefore to be considered, are the historical-phenomenological aspect, the juridical aspect, and above all the moral aspect.
I. HISTORICAL-PHENOMENOLOGICAL ASPECT
The strike is essentially connected with the economic and social order usually called capitalist, and as this developed and grew ever more powerful, it became an increasingly frequent and widespread social phenomenon.1. Considered statically: a) the strike appears in different forms. According to the way in which it is conducted, there are either pure strikes, that is, the pure and simple abstention from work, or abstention from work accompanied by concern that the activity not be performed by others (e.g., by removing the tools of work, damaging the plant, threatening those who might wish to work, occupying the factories, etc.). Simultaneous abstention by all workers, or successive abstention by small groups in such a way as to paralyze the entire production process (chain strike); abstention continued for a considerable period, or abstention for brief periods, chosen so as essentially to obtain the same result (intermittent strike). Among the activities suspended as a result of the strike, essential public services must be considered above all (e.g., the supply of gas and electricity in cities, transport, etc.). As for the persons who take part in it, it is enough to recall state employees. According to its extent, a distinction is made between the partial strike and the general strike. b) The strike pursues different ends: proper ends, when they directly concern the strikers, and ends of support for other strikers (solidarity strike); the proper ends, in turn, are above all economic or political; economic ends may consist either in respecting and observing clauses already recognized, or in obtaining new clauses. Historically, it is not accurate to say that the strike has exclusively economic aims. More than once it has had purely political purposes (attempts to influence the form of government, foreign policy, etc.). It is enough to recall certain Belgian strikes at the end of the last century aimed at obtaining the granting of universal suffrage, and those of July 1950 for the abdication of King Leopoldo. c) The strike has different results; that is, good or bad, economic or social, for the parties involved or for third parties, for private individuals or for the authorities. Economically harmful results are, for the parties involved, the loss of wages and profit; for third parties, the absence, at least temporarily, of goods and services, or the increase in their cost. Economically beneficial results may be, for example, for workers (if the strike is economic and achieves its objectives), the advantages thereby obtained. Socially harmful results are the hardening of relations that necessarily occurs between the parties involved, between them and third parties, and between many citizens and representatives of the public authorities. It is inevitable, in fact, that the opposing parties entrench themselves in their own positions and regard one another as enemies; it is likewise inevitable that third parties react to the harm they are forced to suffer and protest against the public authorities, by whom they consider themselves insufficiently protected. Good social consequences are not lacking: the forceful denunciation of hidden or manifest injustices, the strong proclamation of violated rights, etc. The strike is therefore a highly complex phenomenon, with positive and negative aspects.
2. Examined dynamically: a) the strike tends increasingly to broaden its objectives; if initially it was predominantly an instrument for the economic advancement of the working class, over time it has come to assume chiefly political tasks. There is no reason to exclude the possibility that in the future it may be used for the strangest purposes (e.g., sporting ones). b) The strike tends to appear in technically ever more advanced forms, that is, in forms capable of inflicting ever greater harm on the opponent while causing the least possible harm to those who resort to it: by choosing the most suitable moment (e.g., the period before Christmas for confectioners), by making the strike ever more universal, by reducing it to a succession of brief or partial strikes (intermittent strike; chain strike, etc.), by preventing the activity of strikebreakers, and finally through that new form known as non-cooperation.
II. LEGAL ASPECT
Public authority could not remain indifferent to the s. and adopted positions ranging from the most absolute prohibition, in law and in practice, to silence, and even to legal permission. Consider, for example, in France the situation created by arts. 414, 415, and 416 of the Napoleonic Penal Code, under which the s. — and the lockout — were regarded as crimes; then the situation created by the law of 25 May 1864, by which every provision prohibiting the s. as such was repealed, leaving only the criminal provisions concerning offenses committed on the occasion of labor conflicts, with the aim of restricting their freedom; and, finally, the provisions of the French Constitution of 1946, which place the s. among the fundamental rights of the citizen. A similar evolution took place in England: from the highly rigorous law of 1725 under George I, which imposed the death penalty, through the laws of 1800, 1824, and 1825, one arrives at the repeal of the “Master and Servant acts” in 1867, followed by the laws of 1871 and 1875, which no longer penalized combinations and s., subject to certain limitations, and finally at the legal recognition of the “Trade Unions” (1871–76). Something similar, with the Fascist interlude, occurred in Italy: from arts. 414, 415, and 416 of the Napoleonic Code extended to Italy, one passes to the Penal Code of 1889, which punished only violence and threats injurious to freedom of labor. The Fascist legal order prohibited the s. and the lockout (Law of 5 Apr. 1926, no. 503, and arts. 502–509 of the Penal Code of 1930). Finally, the new Constitution, in art. 40, establishes that “the right to s. is exercised within the framework of the laws regulating it.” These laws are still being prepared.III. MORAL ASPECT
It seems necessary to distinguish between a perfectly organized society and an imperfectly organized society, and to reason first by way of hypothesis and then by way of thesis. By a perfectly organized society is meant not so much one in which there are no grounds for disputes, but rather one in which institutions suited to obtaining justice exist and actually function; and by an imperfectly organized society, one in which such institutions do not exist or, if they do exist, do not in fact operate.1. In a perfectly organized society, where suitable institutions for obtaining justice exist and actually function, it is not lawful to resort to a means which, although it may bring advantages, also brings disadvantages. On the other hand, in an imperfectly organized society, when the matter concerns: a) something just; b) something that cannot otherwise be defended; c) when there is a well-founded hope of success; and d) when there is a certain proportion between the benefits one hopes to obtain and the evils one fears one will have to cause, there seems to be no reason why the strike should not be considered legitimate.
2. There is no doubt that our society is imperfectly organized. Not only are there causes of conflict; suitable institutions for obtaining justice do not always exist, and, if they do exist, they do not always operate in practice.
3. Can one imagine reaching a perfectly organized society one day? However this question may be answered, there is no doubt that today the strike, under certain conditions, is legitimate. The State therefore cannot prohibit II. At the same time, however, everything is not accomplished once the legitimacy of the strike has been acknowledged. Work must first of all continue to remove the just causes that make recourse to that weapon legitimate, and then to create those institutions which, even in the case of a just cause, make it possible to obtain justice without having to resort to such a dangerous instrument.
The moral aspect therefore also requires the intervention of the legislator; and an intervention which, while avoiding the unacceptable positions of complete prohibition and total freedom, realistically initiates, together with the improvement of social conditions, the creation of suitable legislation. Once such legislation exists, it binds the conscience and becomes a rule of conduct.
IV. PARTICULAR APPLICATIONS
The principles set out above require further specification when one turns to particular cases. Here one should speak of the political s., the solidarity s., the s. of essential public services, the general s., and non-cooperation. A few remarks will suffice. First of all, it should be noted that the s. would not be considered political when directed against the State in a case where the latter was an entrepreneur, for example in nationalized enterprises.As regards the solidarity s., solidarity with anyone who suffers injustice, whoever he may be, is fundamentally human and Christian, deriving above all from natural and supernatural brotherhood; and this solidarity is not restricted solely to fellow members of one’s class. Employers too are obliged to be in solidarity with workers who suffer injustice, and conversely workers are obliged to be in solidarity with employers when the latter are victims of injustice. One therefore cannot accept class solidarity in the sense that one must be in solidarity at all costs and in every case with those of one’s own class against those of the opposing class. Moreover, one must choose those forms that constitute effective rather than merely apparent solidarity. From this point of view, the s. often does not represent an act of solidarity at all. By extending the s., rather than strengthening the front, one runs the risk of weakening it and thus, instead of helping the victim of aggression, extending a hand to the aggressor; it will often be better, instead of striking, to continue working and to give part of one’s salary or wages to those on strike, thereby enabling them to continue resisting until victory. The truest solidarity may consist in establishing and supporting strike funds, enabling workers to cope with the hardships of the s. and to continue it for a very long time or even indefinitely.
As regards the s. of essential public services, it is evi-
dent how their suspension affects the poor in particular. The harm caused to third parties is therefore especially serious here. The s. of essential public services may consequently be permitted only in exceptionally rare cases, when the insensitivity of the mass of citizens to the evident and repeatedly proclaimed injustice suffered by those employed in essential public services has been solidly demonstrated.
As for the general s., it should be permitted only in extreme cases, when there is evident necessity and the insensitivity of the mass of citizens in the face of certain evident injustices has been demonstrated.
The gravity of the cases mentioned above shows that, particularly in these matters, the intervention of the legal order is necessary. It is above all on these points that the creation of those institutions must begin which make it possible to settle disputes by means less costly than the s.
Giovanni Battista Guzzetti