
Workers' Day: have trade unions lost their way?
For more financial news, go to the News24 Business front page.
For most trade unions and worker movements around the world, May Day 2025 will be celebrated more with a whimper than a bang. The widespread jubilation, pride and determined optimism of the fairly recent past will be missing as a largely weakened and fragmented labour movement struggles to grapple with 21st Century reality.
Times have changed — and are certainly changing ever more rapidly as the proclaimed Fourth Industrial Revolution gathers pace. The future of work and, therefore, the future of trade unions is now uncertain. The gains of recent years — even, in some regions, the gains of many decades — are threatened or are being clawed back.
There are also echoes now from over the past century of the rise of authoritarianism fuelled by racist, religious and even linguistic nationalisms, which have morphed in some regions into ethnic cleansing and mass slaughter. The prime sufferers, once again, are the working people, employed and unemployed.
And it is the resilience and fortitude of often brutalised and exploited workers who organised to become a bulwark against greater deprivations visited upon the poor and dispossessed that May Day traditionally celebrates. Theirs was a long, hard, and often bloody road that, especially given the present economic and social context, needs to be studied and understood by anyone hoping for a better and more democratic world.
In Chicago, in May 1886, a peaceful mass rally of workers who dared to dream of a truly democratic future was attacked by police. That gave us May Day as a celebration of courage and fortitude. And like the "Durban Moment" strikes of February and March 1973, which gave rise to the modern South African union movement, that single event had a history that echoes across the years.
In Chicago, four activists, two of them journalists, one a printer and the other a carpenter, became the victims of what is widely described as a legal lynching. They were among the organisers of a rally calling for an eight-hour working day to be introduced. They were arrested and sentenced to be hanged.
Seconds before they died together on the gallows, journalist August Spies shouted: "The time will come when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you strangle today." That statement reverberated around the world and, in 1890, the "Haymarket martyrs" were honoured by naming 1 May as the day of labour solidarity.
There are many echoes from quite recent local history of that travesty in the United States and the events leading up to it. In our part of the world village, it was a largely democratic, worker-led and militant trade union movement that fought against incredible odds to help bring about the transition that we celebrated this week as Freedom Day.
Yet the union movement is weaker today and more fragmented, at a time when the reality of a greedy and exploitative minority dominating and profiting from the labour of the majority is, if anything, clearer than a century ago: the overall social and economic circumstances that gave rise to unity among sellers of labour the world are still present.
But what has happened over the past century has been the gradual absorption of much of the labour movement into the profit-driven system. With few exceptions, trade unions have, to varying degrees, lost their way; they have become bureaucratic replicants of the very system they were founded to oppose.
At the same time, there is the constant call to "go back to basics".
Yet the most basic principle — unity of all workers — is still not widely acted on. This principle was summed up in a poem written in 1820 by Percy Bysshe Shelley after troops killed peaceful worker protesters in England in 1819. The pertinent stanza reads: "Rise, like lions after slumber/ In unvanquishable number!/ Shake your chains to earth like dew/ Which in sleep had fallen on you: Ye are many—they are few!"
This idea of the democratic unity of the majority of exploited humanity was even more clearly spelled out 28 years later by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels when they provided the slogan: "Workers of all countries unite!" They added: "You have nothing to lose but your chains."
Those chains are still very much still in place and May Day is a time to review this reality. For trade unions, it is not a matter of adapt or die, but rather how organised labour can, may or will adapt as finite resources are plundered, mass murders are sanctioned and the planet becomes increasingly polluted in the cause of private profit.
It is a grim outlook. But workers are still organised and there are small, but quite strong signs that new, highly democratic, unions are emerging, often from previously unorganised workers. A return to the basic principles of the labour movement is possible, and it is essential for the sake of the future.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Labour Can't Decide What It's Doing With The Internet
Labour seems to be in two minds over how to handle the internet. While Keir Starmer's comms team is now briefing influencers on government policies, his ministers are cracking down on harmful online content – and facing accusations of mass censorship at the same time. On Thursday afternoon, the prime minister will be hosting a reception for up to 90 influencers in Downing Street, who reportedly have a combined following of a quarter of a billion followers and have already been chatting to No.10 over the last year. Invitees allegedly include cookbook author Chetna Makan and former Love Island contestant now anti-revenge porn campaigner Georgia Harrison, along with other TikTok stars and YouTubers. This move has been criticised and praised in equal measure. While a handful of online users claim no serious influencer would want to be associated with this government, some political pundits claim it is a sign that Downing Street is finally getting with the 21st Century. And that may be true: Ofcom recently found 82% of 16 to 24-year-olds use social media for news, along with 28% of people aged over 55. This online-first attitude also seems to be rewarding their largest electoral threat, Nigel Farage, who has 1.3 million followers on TikTok and is currently leading in the opinion polls by a healthy margin. But, at the same time, the government has just rolled out its Online Safety Act, rather undermining their new approach to the web, as critics have pointed out. Meant to protect children by putting age restrictions on various sites, the legislation has created an uproar in some quarters over fears it would create mass censorship and political debate – while also making it harder to monitor online risks for kids. That's because there's been a huge uptick in the use of virtual private networks (VPNs), which allow people to circumvent the age restrictions by masking a user's identity. Data from the Age Verification Providers Association also found an additional five million online age checks a day are being carried out because of the new legislation. Fears that the Act is too broad and vague in its definitions of 'harmful content' have fuelled further concerns that it will force adults to share personal data with global porn sites – paving the way for mass data breaches in a dangerous overreach. Then there's the ramifications that come with putting up barriers online. Starmer even had to laugh off warnings from Donald Trump earlier this week over fears the new law would limit access to his website, Truth Social. Reform UK have leapt on the opportunity to attack Labour, claiming it would completely tear up the legislation – although the party has confirmed it has no new ideas to protect children from the worst corners of the internet. Still, their debate spiralled out of control when the technology secretary Peter Kyle claimed Farage's criticism indicated he would have been on the same side as the late prolific sexual predator Jimmy Savile. The Reform UK leader has since asked for an apology. Of course, plenty of people are in favour of the legislation, which has been quietly worked on by successive governments. The suicide prevention group, the Molly Rose Foundation, noted: 'The Online Safety Act will help save young lives.' The organisation's CEO Andy Burrows pointed out there has been strong cross-party consensus to protect children online in the past. Scrapping it altogether would actually 'go against what Reform voters think,' he told LBC, noting that more than seven in 10 people who voted Reform at the last election want to keep and even strengthen the Act. Meanwhile, Chris Sherwood from the charity NPSCC wrote in PoliticsHome that 'it's deeply concerning to see the rhetoric around the Online Safety Act shift toward loss of free expression.' The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology told HuffPost UK: 'The Online Safety Act is the biggest step change in children's online safety since the internet began. 'It protects young people from harmful content and holds platforms and tech companies to account. 'This is about creating a safer internet – not censoring it – where children can explore, learn and connect without fear of what's behind the next swipe.' But can Labour really expect a positive reception by using influencers to spread its message while fending off accusations of censorship? Only time will tell if the government can have its cake and eat it too. Related... If You Think Adolescence Is Just About Online Incel Groups, You Missed The Point This 1 Hidden iPhone Feature Could Instantly Make Your Online Data Safer – And It's So Easy To Activate Sorry, The Emoji-Over-Face Parents Might Be Right About Online Privacy


News24
3 days ago
- News24
Lesotho at risk of economic collapse after aid cuts, Trump's tariffs
The African Development Bank is urging swift economic diversification, regional trade expansion, and other measures to save Lesotho from economic collapse. In its latest report, the bank says Lesotho's economic growth could shrink to just 0.5% next year. Lesotho is still reeling from a massive loss of funds caused by the Trump administration's sudden termination of aid programmes. US tariffs of up to 50% on textile exports could lead to factory closures and a loss of R1 billion in exports for the small, landlocked country. For more financial news, go to the News24 Business front page. Lesotho is facing economic and public health crises triggered by cuts in foreign aid and harsh US trade tariffs. The small, landlocked kingdom is struggling with high unemployment and fresh job losses. According to an African Development Bank (AfDB) Country Focus Report on Lesotho released last week, the country's economic growth of 2.4% in 2024 is expected to fall to just 1.1% this year and 0.5% in 2026. The report says the slowdown is driven by declining Southern African Customs Union revenues, a decrease in foreign aid, and rising trade-related risks (notably the new, prohibitively high US trade tariffs), and the cancellation of the $300-million Millennium Challenge Corporation second five-year compact. Aid cuts have hit Lesotho's health sector hard. The sudden termination of US aid programs has resulted in the loss of about 1 500 healthcare jobs, according to the report, and has severely undermined efforts in prevention, treatment, and outreach for HIV. Lesotho has one of the highest HIV prevalence rates globally, with over 20% of the adult population living with the virus. What makes these cuts even more damaging is Lesotho's already underfunded health system. The report says Lesotho now has only 21 health workers per 10 000 people, far below the World Health Organisation's recommended minimum of 44. At the same time, Lesotho's key export sector — textiles and apparel — is under threat. The US has imposed a 50% tariff on Lesotho, temporarily reduced to 10% until 1 August. While this reduction offers some relief, AfDB warns that the long-term consequences could be severe. Lesotho's textile industry has long depended on duty-free access to US markets, which make up 47% of its shipments, valued at over $200 million annually, and account for nearly 13% of GDP. The AfDB warns that the tariffs could lead to a 20 to 30% decline in orders, a loss of over R1 billion in exports. 'This could push GDP growth below 1%, especially if factory closures or layoffs increase,' the report says. 'Lesotho may face further declines in investment, factory relocations, and job losses in its already fragile manufacturing sector, which could reduce tax revenue.' The AfDB warns of increased rates of poverty, which, together with inequality, are major issues in Lesotho. Action needed The report warns that without quick and coordinated policy actions, Lesotho could face a surge in social unrest and poverty. The AfDB urges Lesotho to act swiftly. Economic diversification, investing in skills and infrastructure, and expanding regional trade, especially through the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), are essential. Tax reform and debt management programmes, supported by AfDB, are already under way. But more action is urgently needed. To keep the textile sector viable, the report recommends improving quality standards, logistics, and worker skills to meet changing global market demands. It also calls for accelerating regional trade efforts under AfCFTA and encouraging entrepreneurship in non-textile industries. 'Lesotho could reorient its production towards regional markets and gradually reduce its exposure to US policy shocks,' the report suggests.


UPI
6 days ago
- UPI
Judge throws out federal suit on Illinois, Chicago sanctuary policies
Chicago police officers watch as activists take to the streets for a May Day protest on May 1 to voice concerns on Trump administration's policies, including immigration. May 1 is also known as International Workers Day. File photo by Tannen Maury/UPI | License Photo July 26 (UPI) -- A federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration against Illinois, Cook County and Chicago sanctuary policies that ban assisting in immigration-related matters. On Friday, District Judge Lindsay Jenkins in Chicago dismissed the entire lawsuit, writing the U.S. Department of Justice lacked standing, though she allowed lawyers to amend their lawsuit by Aug. 22. Jenkins, who serves the Northern District of Illinois, was appointed by President Joe Biden. Illinois is a blue state with a Democratic governor, Chicago mayor and Cook County state's attorney. Chicago is located in Cook County. In the lawsuit filed in February, the DOJ accused the governments of blocking federal immigration law based on the 10th Amendment, which deals with state and federal powers. DOJ hasn't yet publicly said whether there would be an appeal. The Department of Homeland Security has increased deportation raids, particularly in big cities with sanctuary laws. "The Sanctuary Policies reflect Defendants' decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law - a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by [the federal Immigration and Nationality Act]," Jenkins wrote in the 64-page ruling. "Finding that these same Policy provisions constitute discrimination or impermissible regulation would provide an end-run around the Tenth Amendment. It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity - the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment." In their lawsuit, DOJ lawyers said sanctuary cities violate the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause. In 2017, then Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed the 2017 Trust Act, which prohibits state and local law enforcement from involvement in separation efforts with U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement, as well as other federal agencies. The law allows coordination among agencies. A state law in 2021 prohibits local and state officialsgiving a person's custody status, release date or contact information with federal immigration officials. Raunere was succeeded by J.B. Pritzker, who testified last month to a U.S. House committee about sanctuary policies. He was also named in the suit. "Illinois ensures law enforcement time and energy is spent fighting crime - not carrying out the Trump administration's unlawful policies or troubling tactics," Pritzker spokesman Matt Hill said in a statement. "As the grandchild of Ukrainian refugees, the Governor's personal story shows how immigration is central to America's story, economy and culture. He told it to Congress when he laid out how Illinois follows the law and would like the feds to follow suit." Pritzker posted on X that "Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court. Their case challenging the bipartisan TRUST Act was dismissed -- unlike the President, we follow the law and listen to the courts." Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul noted in 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal officials may not "impress into its service - and at no cost to itself -- the police officers of the 50 States." In 1985, then-Chicago Mayor Harold Washington signed an executive order declaring it a sanctuary city. In 2006, Chicago enacted the Welcoming City ordinance, which allows all residents to obtain city services, including police protection and medical care. "We will continue to fight for the dignity of our immigrant, migrant, and refugee communities and stand up for the rights of all Chicagoans against any federal overreach," Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, who was named in the suit, said in a statement to WLS-TV. The federal lawsuit also targeted Cook County, which bans ICE agents from the county jail or other places unless they have a criminal warrant not relayed to immigration. "The Trump administration's continued attempts to bully local communities into adopting their preferred policies are not only unlawful, but counter to our values and ability to fight crime effectively," Cook County State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke said in a statement. "We need victims and witnesses of crime to feel comfortable coming forward, just as we are compelled to hold those who commit crimes accountable." The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois said in the statement that the court "was correct to reject the Trump Administration's lawsuit and to allow public officials in Illinois and Chicago to follow our policies that prioritize local public safety and welfare over federal civil immigration enforcement." Trump in an executive order on Jan. 25 stripped sanctuary cities of all federal funding. In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced her agency was filing a civil lawsuit against state of New York over immigration enforcement. "This is a new DOJ. We are taking steps to protect American citizens," she said with federal agents behind her. "As you know, we sued Illinois, and New York didn't listen ... you're next." Lawsuits also have been filed against California and New Jersey. There are 13 sanctuary states, including New York and Illinois. In addition, there are sanctuary cities outside them, including Atlanta; Louisville, Ky.; Baltimore; and New Orleans as well as several designated counties. None are in Texas or Arizona, which border Mexico. The other two border states, New Mexico and California, have sanctuary laws.