On Tuesday, April 16, unions led Italy's first general strike in 20 years. The number of workers who stayed away from their jobs was between seven million (reported by the government) to 20 million (estimated by union leaders) and generally reported as 10-13 million strikers. By any estimate, this was a staggering rate of participation, when one considers that Italy has a total workforce of around 22 million people and a population of about 58 million. Imagine a third or more of all workers in the United States walking out together. Rallies in several cities drew 200,000 to 300,000 people, just weeks after a rally in Rome brought out between 700,000 and two million supporters.

I was in Italy for 19 days preceding the strike, flying out on Monday, the day before action. I write here my own observations and reactions together with news gleaned from several issues of an Italian newspaper, European web sites and an American radio report. The magnitude of this action amazed me and, it seems to me, gives Americans a perspective from which to consider the contrasting place of labor in the U.S.

The primary stated reason for the strike was to protest a proposed labor law change by the center-right government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (who also happens to be reported as the most wealthy single person in Italy). The change, which many articles characterized as a reform, would have relaxed Article 18 of the country's labor law, which currently requires that workers can only be terminated for "just cause."

The proposed changes were relatively modest, affecting only new hires in certain circumstances. But union members feared it would be "the nose of the camel under the tent," the first step in dismantling what union members consider the cornerstone of worker protections. An underlying reason for the strike was also the unions' anger at being left out of the planning that led to the drafting of the government recommendation. Labor leaders called it a betrayal of the traditional approach in which all sectors were consulted in formulating public policy. Their concern was that the government was shifting to reflect primarily the interests of industrialists, represented by the Confindutria, the federation of employers.

Now consider this situation. When was the last time U.S. unions were consulted in formulating government policy, particularly by a Republican administration? What are the chances that a third or more of American workers would take to the streets to protest being shut out of decision-making? Also, imagine a situation in which employment at will is not the norm. A further source of wonderment for an American: the Italian employee rights law was enacted in 1970 - the Nixon years in the United States, when union membership and influence were in decline.

Historic scale
Despite the historic scale of the coming strike, I was struck by how Italians were taking it in stride. I neither saw nor heard of panic buying. Of course, smaller strikes in transportation and other sectors are much more common in Italy and many stores routinely close on Sundays and Mondays. Still, every airplane was grounded, at least half of the trains and buses stopped and many stores closed in solidarity.

American presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, have used their legal power to end strikes of a single railroad company or airline, for the sake of national security. Here was an entire country at the point of a virtual standstill. Yet a headline quoting the right-center coalition prime minister two days before the strike said, 'Starting on Wednesday the dialogue.' In other words, negotiations between the government and the unions would begin the day after the strike. Would that be the reaction of a Republican U.S. president?

To be sure, there were politicians that decried the strike. Umberto Bossi, the head of the Northern League, (which has advocated that the wealthier north of Italy secede from the country) blamed the unions for the murder of a labor ministry official who had helped draft the controversial reform and accused them of exploiting his death. But he was reined in by others in the ruling coalition. Less extreme politicians and business leaders insisted that this reform and others were essential to make Italy competitive within the European Monetary Union and the global economy.

Observers believe a compromise will be worked out, probably balancing some loosening of job protections in exchange for an expansion of the unemployment system to all or most workers (though how the deficit-troubled government would pay for it is uncertain). Presently, only workers from larger companies receive such benefits. However, the level of support demonstrated by the general strike, strengthens the unions' leverage and casts doubt on Berlusconi's ability to deliver on election promises to reform the economy by giving more flexibility to employers.

How it happened
The strike may have resulted from the government's miscalculation that two of Italy's smaller, more moderate unions, the CISL and UIL, could be split off from the larger more left-leaning CGIL and persuaded not to join the general strike. But the perceived potential threat to all Italian workers led to grassroots pressure on the unions' leadership, negotiations broke down and the coalition to stage the strike stayed together.

Some argue that the difficulty companies have in laying off workers leads to hesitancy to hire above-board full-time workers, resulting in high unemployment. Many workers are hired 'below-board' and thus do not have the legal rights of regular employees. (Workers for larger companies can go to court to challenge whether their terminations were for 'just cause.') Other economists argue that the proposed changes would be unlikely to affect unemployment or Italy's deficit. Wherever the truth lies, I was struck by the vigorous multi-sided public debate on these issues, in contrast with the general acceptance of conservative business-oriented policies reflected in the mainstream American media.

While the strike addressed a law specific to Italy, union organizers saw its implications reach far beyond the country to the weakening of workers' rights and unions in the name of globalization. The CGIL dedicated the general strike to the memory of Iqbal Masih, the young Pakistani rug worker who escaped virtual slavery to lead a crusade against child labor. He was murdered at the age of 12. "Little Iqbal Masih, who paid with his life for his commitment against child labor, will be symbolically close to all of us on April 16," said Umberto Colombo, member of the union's office of the general secretary.

When I returned from Italy, I was eager to hear about the outcome of the general strike, but I looked and listened in vain for news, turning to the Internet for most information. Had I not been in Italy, I might not have known to search for information on the strike. If this article is the first time you have heard about this historic action, don't you wonder what other news you are missing?

For more news and information on the April 16, 2002, Italian General Strike, go to labourstart.org and links from there to the Financial Times. This site also has an article on a strike on the same day in India involving close to 10 million workers over privatization and, like in Italy, a legal change that would make it easier to fire employees.

Information for this article also came from the April 14 and 15 issues of la Prealpina newspaper, published in Varese, Lombardy, Italy, and 'Marketplace' produced by Public Radio International and broadcast on April 16, 2002, by Minnesota Public Radio.

Randy Croce is a video producer for the Labor Education Service at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. He is working on a documentary about the emigration of stonecutters from northern Italy to Barre, Vermont.