‘Kaleidoscopic’ Worker Protests Grow in Iran

There are only a few formal, public unions in Iran, most notably the teachers’ union, a sugar workers union, and the Tehran bus driver’s union, whose leader, Mansour Osanloo, has been in jail for more than two years. Iran’s first unions emerged a century ago and exercised some influence until the CIA-assisted overthrow in 1953 of the democratically elected, nationalist government, Pourzad says. 

But unions were almost completely suppressed after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and only began re-organizing about seven years ago, after the Iranian government signed an agreement with the International Labor Organization to permit workers to organize.

Yet even if unions are weak, Pourzad says, ​“there are workers’ struggles that go on all over the country constantly, every minute.” Conditions for workers — roughly three-fourths of whom work on short-term contracts — are quite bad, buffered only by the government loans to keep factories and other workplaces operating, often at half capacity. But recently the government decided to reduce the loans, which will likely eliminate jobs and depress wages more.

“Because of this economic crisis, there’s going to be an upsurge of labor activity in general,” Pourzad predicts. ​“We’re going to see spontaneous manifestations and bursts of energy from the labor movement this year.”

“I had always believed in the labor movement,” says Pourzad, who now works with a nascent organization of printers. ​“I had friends and relatives who were sympathetic to the labor movement, in particular one older individual, a mentor for myself, who was involved in pre-1953 labor activities. I just instinctively and intellectually believe that was the way to go for myself and the best possible solution for the country’s problems.”

Only a few labor union activists are public; the rest are more anonymous in their work. ​“There are many, many individual campaigns going on – people doing educational and organizational work,” he says. ​“They’re not admitting what they’re doing.” Government monitoring of worker activity is ​“unbelievable.”

The futures of reform politics and unions are intimately linked, but green leaders ​“don’t want to be seen as fomenting labor unrest,” Pourzad says, even if many support union rights and social democratic policies. The Iranian working class does not support Ahmadinejad, even though the president makes populist appeals to ​“marginal classes, the lower middle-class, shopkeepers, low-paid government workers and people in small towns.” 

Increasingly, Pourzad says, ​“We have two Irans,” and a clash between tradition and modernization. But secular progressives have to reach out to the religious, traditionalist Iranians.

First, most workers are deeply religious, he says. Second, the traditionalist forces – from the army to the Revolutionary Guard (“a scary crowd”) and other ​“proto-fascists” in the street – are well-armed.

“We can’t have these guys as permanent enemies,” Pourzad says. ​“We have to come up with ways of accommodation, like a Truth Commission.” The labor movement, he argues, can play a vital role in diminishing the appeal of extremes of right or left.

On the ground events and relationships in Iran seem ​“kaleidoscopic,” he says, but it’s the beginning of a major change. ​“I don’t think anyone in the world thinks the opposition is coming to power soon,” he says. ​“It’s just the beginning of the arc. But every day things are going on all around you. It looks like a revolution.”