mo: that about sums it up on the “what is” angle. my post was more about “what should be”

Ammar: “the thing is our unions is currently mostly by islamists and the islamists in jordan are mostly run by pro Hamas wing ” I think this is a misleading statement, or at the very least a hasty generalization.

mo: considering their mere size they have a major sway when it comes to representing worker issues. heck, if they have some sway with foreign policy where all their efforts seem to be concentrated, then they’re likely to have it with domestic public policy, or at the very least rights. as for organized strikes. unions have to get licenses in order to stage these sort of events, just like the IAF gets a license to stage a demonstration every few Fridays. however, since both you and i are smart enough to know that they likelihood of them being granted such a licence is slim, we would have to pay heed to some history, which suggests that the strongest unions, and the most powerful socialist forces, have never emerged with the licensing of the government. in most cases, they’ve developed despite it. that’s where their power lies.

Those unions have inherited the mentality of adding more constraints and punishment to workers rather than helping improving their conditions.

We are in desperate need for people to defend our rights. Can we do anything about that?

On our end, there is little history of activism on behalf of workers and rather a huge reliance on political, usually foreign, issues that have nothing to do with their members. ironically, that has to do with the history of banned political parties and the decision to move the debate/issues into the hands of unions and associations.