Facebook Feed

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
US-sponsored anti-Israel UN Security Council statement - acumen: bit.ly/3lVqpCM ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
bit.ly/3xHPCDc הסכמי אברהם – אינטרס ערבי, אמריקאי וישראלי: ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

How to Deal with the General Strike Phenomenon?

The conclusion of the most recent Histadrut led general strike reflects a severe Israeli disease: Short-term solutions at the expense of long-term national interests. These short-term solutions have not solved labor disputes, which threaten Israel on a daily basis; they have papered-over the disputes, thus fueling numerous strikes, looming ahead. 

The menace of a general strike has become an Israeli brand, threatening Israel’s trade credibility, eroding its governance capabilities and taxing the Jewish State, economically, diplomatically and security-wise.  The systematic threat of general strike is a by-product of weak and visionless executive and legislature. 

A primary challenge facing Israel’s Cabinet and Knesset is not the resolution of a specific labor problem, but the formulation of a long-term, systemic, legislative solution, which would impose steep penalties upon violators of agreements, would minimize reckless abuse of the right to strike and would entice genuine labor-management negotiation. 

Why would labor unions conduct genuine negotiations if general strikes prove to be a most effective tool to achieve their aims?! The frequent use of general strikes, as a key tool in settling labor disputes in a particular sector of Israel’s economy, has transformed General Strikes into a form of Economic Terrorism.  Just like terrorism, it has been directed deliberately and systematically at the populace, in order to advance the interest of a particular sector.  Just like terrorism, General Strikes aim to undermine the confidence of citizens in the capabilities of their government, while injuring people’s security, income, freedom of movement, vital government services, tourism, and export and import, which constitute a key source of employment and income.   

In 1946, the US faced a similar challenge, as a result of a series of general strikes, which highlighted excessive power by labor unions, while severely taxing the US economy and the well-being of the people.  Consequently, Congress enacted the “Taft-Hartley Act” (Labor-Management Relations Act), overriding President Truman’s veto.  The act allows the president to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate labor disputes, whenever the president assesses that a strike would endanger national health or safety.  The president can ask the Attorney General to seek a federal court injunction to block or prevent a strike, and the court can order an end to a strike (by issuing a restraining order), or order the parties to the dispute to refrain from a strike, and attempt to settle their differences within an 80-day cooling-off period.  “Taft-Hartley” also prohibits secondary strikes, sympathy strikes or boycotts, limiting any strike to a particular employer.  It provides the president with the power to maintain order in certain emergency situations, such as a strike which threatens to paralyze an entire industry at the expense of national safety and well being. “Taft-Hartley” created a disincentive to general strikes and an incentive to a genuine negotiation.

 

US presidents have invoked the act 35 times, averting the wrath of 33 general strike work stoppages.  For example, in October 2002, President Bush requested that the Federal District Court in San Francisco issue a court order halting the lockout of US sea ports, lest they undermine national security and economic recovery. Twenty-nine ports reverted to normal activity following an 11 day strike.

   

Strong executive and legislature are not driven by short-term solutions to strikes; they initiate legislation, which deter violators of labor-management agreements, encourage genuine negotiation, minimize the need to strike and avert economy-paralyzing general strikes, which terrorize the public at large. They should introduce legislation, which protect the right to strike against a particular employer, but prevent damage to the overall market and the population at large. 

A prerequisite to the passage of such legislation in Israel would be a dramatic overhaul of Israel’s political system, which would highlight the power of the constituents (primarily) and their representatives in the Legislature, constrain the clout of interest groups, demand full accountability (to constituents) by the legislature and by the executive, introduce a US style separation of powers, checks and balances and full independence of the Legislature and would require district-winner-takes-all bicameral elections.   

Only a revolutionary transformation of the current Israeli political system will facilitate long-term policy formulation, improve governance capabilities, enhance Israel’s trade credibility, snatch labor-management relations from its current low ebb, remove the general strike machete from Israel’s neck and upgrade substantially the economy, security and global standing of the Jewish State.

 

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

President Obama – No, He Can’t!

President Obama pressures Israel to adopt his initiative, which is based on the 1949 cease fire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem and land swaps. He implies that Israeli rejection of his initiative would undermine US-Israel relations, while advancing Palestinian maneuvers at the UN.

However, Obama lacks the domestic backing to effectively pressure Israel, which has recently gained in bi-partisan support on Capitol Hill and among constituents, while Obama lost the “Bin Laden Bounce” and is struggling with a less-than-50% approval rating.

Obama’s power constraints are derivatives of the Federalist system, which is based on limited government with a complete separation of powers and checks and balances between Congress and the White House, Congressional “Power of the Purse” and the centrality of the constituent in a political system of bi-annual elections. Therefore, legislators are more loyal to – and fearful of – their constituents than to their party or to the president. Moreover, the loyalty to constituents constitutes a prerequisite for re-election.

Obama’s constraints in pressuring the Jewish State emanate from the unique attitude of Americans – as early as the 1620 landing of the Mayflower, as well as the Founding Fathers – to the idea of reconstructing the Jewish Commonwealth in the Land of Israel. The solid and sustained support enjoyed by Israel in the USA derives its vitality from the American people and from their representatives on Capitol Hill and in the legislatures of the 50 states more than from the president. While the president plays a major role in shaping US-Israel relations, constituents and legislators laid the foundations for this relationship and they continuously codetermine its direction, tone and substance. They can also initiate, suspend, terminate and amend policies, direct presidents and overhaul presidential policies.

The results of the November 2010 Congressional elections revealed that Obama’s policies had lost the support of most constituents.

According to a May 26, 2011 poll by CNN – which is usually critical of Israel – most Americans do not share Obama’s attitude towards Israel. 82% consider Israel an ally and a friend, compared with 72% in 2001. 67% support Israel, while only 16% support the Palestinians, compared with 60%:17% in 2009. In fact, the Palestinians (16%) are as unpopular as are Iran (15%) and North Korea (17%).

These CNN findings exceed the February, 2011 Gallup poll (68% considered Israel an ally), the April 2011 Rasmussen Report (most Americans opposed foreign aid to Arab countries but supported foreign aid to Israel) and the April 2010 Quinnipiac Polling Institute (66% expected Obama to improve treatment of Israel).

But, the “Poll of Polls” is conducted daily in Congress – a coequal branch of government – where hard-core support of the Jewish State has been bi-partisan, robust and steady. Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid and Minority Whip Congressman Steny Hoyer publicly criticized (fellow-Democrat) President Obama’s focus on the 1967 ceasefire lines. Other key Democrats – whose cooperation is critical to Obama’s reelection campaign – have clarified that they expect him to veto any anti-Israel UN resolution. Just like their constituents – most Democrats value Israel as a unique ally, whose alliance with the US is based on shared values, mutual threats and joint interests.

Will Prime Minister Netanyahu leverage this unique American support, defying pressure and solidifying Israel’s posture of deterrence in the face of an unpredictably violent Middle East, where concessions breed radicalism, terrorism and war? Or, will he succumb to the psychological warfare launched by the White House?




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb