Editorial by Managing Director Alexander De Beir
Preventive strike, counterproductive fight?
“Disproportionate, irresponsible and unacceptable.” This is how NMBS, Infrabel and HR Rail described the planned strike by railway unions, which will disrupt train services for no less than nine (!) days. Their main concern lies in the nature of this action as a response to a political program that has yet to be discussed with the federal government.
While the right to strike is safeguarded by Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and recognized by the European Social Charter, its controversial use may have a counterproductive effect on the respect and tolerance it is meant to uphold.
In the current context, this form of “preventive striking” makes the phrase “preventive strike” sound deeply ironic. Perhaps this attitude is also a reflection of the paranoid world we are increasingly finding ourselves in—one dominated by misinformation and alarming narratives. Yet, this approach sets a dangerous precedent: it suggests that a segment of the population is willing to be guided by rumors rather than facts. As a society, we cannot afford to give in to this mentality in a world already heavily damaged by fake news.
Fight to… Freeze
Debating the content of these rumors is premature. However, we can already dispel a few illusions: maintaining the status quo is not an option. No one can afford a “freeze” approach. I could cite a long list of socio-economic and demographic data to support this, but you are likely already aware of them. Those who “principally oppose” potential changes today are, in effect, shutting themselves off from an ever-evolving society.
Moreover, this stance shows little respect for those who, throughout history, have gone on strike not merely to resist change but to secure conditions that would enable them to work more efficiently and contribute meaningfully to society.
A brief history of striking
To better understand the evolution of the strike concept, let us take a step back in history.
The first recorded strike in human history dates back to ancient Egypt, around 2100 BCE. At the time, a group of temple workers in Thebes reportedly decided to stop working to pressure local authorities. Their demand? More food. Hunger drove them into the streets, empty bowls in hand, fists raised.
The use of the English word “strike” to describe a work protest first appeared in 1768, when sailors in London, supporting local demonstrations, “struck” the topgallant sails of merchant ships, effectively paralyzing them. This was a reaction to the St. George’s Fields Massacre on May 10, 1768, when government troops opened fire on protesters rallying against the imprisonment of a member of Parliament for writing a highly critical article about King George III. Solidarity with those who were killed for expressing their opinions was the driving force behind the action.
In both cases, strikes and protests were grounded in fundamental rights that are no longer contested today. Throughout history, countless demonstrations and work stoppages have led to crucial societal advancements. However, today, the risk lies in the unwarranted (or even abusive) use of this right, which threatens to undermine its very legitimacy.
On this note, it is interesting to explore the etymology of the French word for strike—grève.
Its origins trace back to the banks of the Seine in Paris. Before being paved, this area was an actual grève—a beach of sand and gravel—where goods arriving via the river were unloaded. A public market naturally developed there, attracting not only buyers but also unemployed workers looking for job opportunities.
Thus, the expression faire la grève originally meant simply standing on the Place de Grève in search of work. The meaning was positive. Over time, however, the term evolved to take on its modern definition.
Growing old before turning 30
No one knows exactly how this shift in meaning occurred. However, what is certain is that France has historically been home to many justified protest movements aimed at improving human conditions. Yet today, we see fierce resistance against even a modest increase in the retirement age—to just 64!
Let me be clear: there are certainly individuals and professions that, due to the physical or mental toll of their work, deserve to enjoy a well-earned rest at the right time. However, when I see young workers under 30 taking to the streets—as in the case of our neighbors to the south—to protest the idea of working a few years longer forty years from now, I struggle to find sympathy.
Fighting for individual freedom, respect, fair wages and humane working conditions? Absolutely. These are legitimate demands—ones that millions of self-employed professionals also strive for daily.
Young or old, in their twenties or even seventies, many choose to contribute to society in their own way, free from rigid conventions. You will rarely see them marching in the streets or paralyzing the economy. Yet, with the growing economic burden of an aging population, we will need them more than ever.
Let us, together, backed by a strong backbone of self-employed entrepreneurs and interim managers, build the future of a fair and sustainable labor market.
