One of the effective tactics frequently used by Russian labor unions in recent years in their fight for higher wages is “working to rule,” or the “Italian strike.” What is the purpose of this action, and how does it differ from a conventional strike?

An Italian strike is a form of protest—alongside a strike and sabotage (though not to be confused with them)—that involves employees of a company strictly adhering to their job duties and company rules, without deviating from them in the slightest or going beyond their scope. Sometimes an “Italian strike” is referred to as “work-to-rule.”

This method of strike action is highly effective. There is no better way to force an unscrupulous employer to meet the workers halfway than to hit them where it hurts—financially—while preventing them from stopping payroll or punishing workers for failing to perform their job duties. Since it is practically impossible to work strictly according to instructions—and given the bureaucratic nature of job descriptions and the impossibility of accounting for all the nuances of production activities within them—this form of protest leads to a significant drop in productivity and, consequently, to major losses for the company. At the same time, it is difficult to combat an Italian-style strike using anti-strike laws, and it is practically impossible to hold the organizers accountable, since, formally, they are acting in strict accordance with the Labor Code.

Strikers are not required to follow all rules during a strike, but only certain ones. Some experts refer to this type of strike as a civilized method of expressing dissatisfaction.

This form of struggle for one’s rights was first used in Italy (hence the name) in the early 20th century. According to some accounts, it was Italian pilots who, in fighting for their rights, agreed to follow instructions to the letter. As a result, the number of flights decreased significantly. According to other sources, Italian police officers were the first to use the Italian strike. One website reports that the first such strike actually took place in Italy in 1904, involving railroad workers.

In Russia, the term “Italian strike” has been known since at least the early 20th century. For example, the newspaper *Russkoe Slovo* reported in its issue of July 22 (09), 1907:

“An ‘Italian’ strike is taking place on the St. Petersburg–Warsaw railway, consisting of strict adherence to instructions during train maneuvers, causing trains to be delayed and many to be canceled.”

In Russia, an “Italian strike” is also known to have taken place at the Ford assembly plant near St. Petersburg.

The term “Italian strike” is sometimes also (incorrectly) used to refer to a refusal to leave work despite an employer’s order.

In Russian literature, the “Italian strike” is described in D.D. Nagishkin’s novel *The Heart of Bonivur*: during the Japanese intervention in the Far East, workers decide to stage an “Italian strike”:

“…The foreman recoiled from the riveter.

‘Going Italian?’

“Better to go Italian than Japanese!

The foreman rushed about his section. He saw that the morning’s work had barely progressed, despite the outward appearance of intense activity. The senior foreman ran to the office….”

The meaning of the term “strike” in its traditional sense is defined in labor legislation. In accordance with Article 398 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a strike is defined as a temporary, voluntary refusal by employees to perform their job duties (in whole or in part) for the purpose of resolving a collective labor dispute. The procedure for declaring and conducting a strike is also clearly regulated by labor law.

In contrast, the concept of an “Italian strike” is unknown to Russian labor law, and its conduct is not regulated by any legal provisions. In practice, however, the term “Italian strike” refers to working while strictly adhering to all production standards, occupational safety and health regulations, industrial and fire safety rules, working hours and rest periods, and refusing to work overtime or on weekends, etc.

Since the concept of an “Italian strike” does not exist in the law, the procedure for conducting it, the requirement to give the employer advance notice, its duration, other conditions, and any liability for carrying out such an action are not established. Therefore, the Italian strike, as a tool for protecting workers’ interests, has a clear advantage over a conventional strike, since the latter can only be held after a series of mandatory procedures (holding a workers’ conference, the existence of a legally initiated collective labor dispute, going through conciliation procedures, etc.), the preparation and implementation of which require, at best, at least two months. Furthermore, the employer has the means to further delay these procedures by obstructing the workers’ conference, challenging the actions of the workers and the union in court, and so on.

This raises the question: if an Italian strike involves working in strict accordance with established rules, job descriptions, etc., then why is it called a strike, since the employee continues to perform their job duties? The point is that even within the rules, there are different ways to work. You can stay at work during your lunch break or after the end of the workday; you can agree to work on weekends and overtime; you can perform work not specified in your employment contract, and so on. Alternatively, as stipulated by the internal work regulations, you can start and end work in strict accordance with shift schedules; refuse to work overtime or on weekends; refuse to operate malfunctioning equipment until the malfunctions are fixed; perform no work other than that specified in the employment contract and job description; strictly comply with occupational health and safety, industrial safety, and fire safety regulations, and cease work if there is a threat to the life and health of employees, etc.? Moreover, all of this is entirely legal and cannot serve as grounds for imposing any disciplinary measures on the employee.

Recently, “Italian strikes” have been held periodically at major Russian enterprises and almost always yield positive results for workers. In recent years, dockworkers at the St. Petersburg Sea Port and the Novorossiysk Commercial Sea Port, employees of OJSC “Kachkanarsky GOK ‘Vanadium,’” the Leningrad Metal Works, the Ford plant in Vsevolozhsk, and many other enterprises.

Thus, an “Italian strike” is a widespread, effective, civilized, and lawful means for workers to defend their interests.

What is an “Italian strike” according to its organizers? Here are some statements recorded by A. Ilyin from members of the trade union committee at the Ford Motor Company plant in Vsevolozhsk, who have extensive practical experience in organizing such actions.

“It’s,” explained one of the trade union committee members, “working by the rules.” It’s well known that work instructions are only partially followed here. To put it mildly. As a rule, take more, throw it farther. As soon as we start working by the book, our productivity drops so sharply...

- This isn’t a strike. It’s just the name. This is how we’re supposed to work. Right now, we’re working in violation of all the requirements. And we should be punished for not following them. Go see the safety engineer and demand the instructions.

The Italian strike at Ford took place from November 21 to 25, 2005. According to most sources, during the Italian strike, the plant reduced production by 15–20 cars per day (315 fewer cars per week), which experts estimate could have caused significant disruptions in delivering the required number of cars to dealers, and from them—to customers. According to the union committee’s estimates, the decline reached up to 30%.

- The “Italian-style” strike was organized in a single day. On Sunday, they sat down and decided on it, then postponed it for a week. At first, they doubted it would work, but when the pressure mounted… And when they realized that people wouldn’t go on a regular strike before New Year’s because everyone wants to earn money, they decided to go with the “Italian-style” strike.

Working by the rules disrupts normal production to varying degrees, since that production relies on the assumption of systematic rule violations. The main focus became enforcing the rules during transportation.

- Delivery played a major role. The guys driving the tractor-trailers started driving at 5 km per hour as required—it was just great—and the line immediately started to grind to a halt.

- In our crew, we followed the “5 km per hour” rule. The goal of the strike isn’t to shut down production, but to achieve something. In our case, for example, they added more staff. Before, it wasn’t noticeable—we were running around nonstop, working our butts off. Also, you’re not allowed to drive closer than a certain number of meters to the equipment. They say, “But we have trucks!” The plant isn’t designed to comply with all these rules.

- It’s true, though—following these rules is even harder than breaking them. Try driving at 5 km/h for a week. People drive around with looks like this on their faces. “Damn it!” they say.

- They’d put bottles under their pedals so they wouldn’t drive any faster.

The second area is safety inspections.

- Work was immediately halted at many work sites due to technical violations; downtime lasted 4 or 5 hours. By then, we already had an occupational safety inspection—we’d organized it ourselves. At the slightest sign of trouble, they’d get a call right away, and they’d rush over: “There’s a threat to life here!”

The workers generally supported the union committee’s decision to stage an Italian-style strike.

- “And how did people react to this strike?” I ask the union committee chair.

- “With enthusiasm! You work less, you stand around more.”

True, not all workers agreed to participate in the strike for various reasons.

“There were strikebreakers,” the chairman admits. “But how does it work here? If the assembly line is at a standstill, what’s the difference—everyone’s standing around anyway. But we cut off those who broke the strike; one guy was driving like a madman—we talked to him, and he stopped. You can’t go against the collective.” People are beginning to realize that everything depends on collective action.

As a result of the Italian-style strike, management began to take the rules more seriously.

- The foremen are trying to beat us at our own game by demanding compliance with all the rules. But they don’t understand that we can get back at them 100 times worse.

- That’s for the best. You’ll learn to follow the rules yourselves because of workplace injuries.

Union experts recommend observing the following when conducting an “Italian strike.”

First and foremost, the primary union organization must involve as many workers as possible in this action, because the action will only be effective if it is a mass movement. Pass a resolution at a staff meeting or a union committee meeting to begin working according to the rules and notify the employer of this decision.

In connection with the action, it is necessary to explain the following rules to the participating employees (compliance with these rules prevents employees from facing disciplinary action and increases the effectiveness of the action):

1. Strictly comply with the internal labor regulations (hereinafter “ILR,” para. 2, part 2, Art. 21 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

2. Insist on the actual conduct of safety training where it is required (for example, when performing hot work), rather than simply signing the logbook to acknowledge receipt. In accordance with Part 2 of Article 21 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employee is obligated to comply with occupational health and safety requirements; however, under Part 1 of Article 21 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employee has the right to receive complete and accurate information regarding working conditions and occupational health and safety requirements at the workplace.

3. Strictly comply with established labor standards (output quotas) (Part 1 of Article 21 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), and under no circumstances exceed them.

4. In the event of a lack of equipment, tools, technical documentation, or other resources necessary for the employee to perform their job duties, immediately report this to the employer (immediate supervisor or other representative of the employer). If, due to the lack of such equipment, tools, technical documentation, etc., the employee is unable to perform their job duties, they must also notify the employer of the commencement of downtime attributable to the employer (Part 4 of Article 157 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

5. If the employer fails to provide the employee with personal and collective protective equipment in accordance with established standards, the employee must notify the employer of the commencement of downtime attributable to the employer. Pursuant to Part 5 of Article 220 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, in this case, the employer has no right to require the employee to perform their job duties or to impose any disciplinary sanctions on the employee in connection with their refusal to perform their job duties.

6. If the Internal Labor Regulations specify that an employee is required to clean up their workstation (or keep the workstation clean) at the end of the workday, the employee must do so not after the end of the workday, but 5 minutes before the end of the workday, since this is a duty imposed on the employee that they are required to perform within the specified time frame.

7. To perform only the work and fulfill only the job duties specified in their job description, with which the employee has been familiarized.

8. Refuse to work on weekends and holidays (Art. 113 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) and to work overtime (Art. 99 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). In this regard, it is important to remember that requiring an employee to work on weekends, holidays, or overtime without their consent is permitted only in cases specified by law, namely:

1) to prevent a disaster, industrial accident, or to mitigate the consequences of a disaster, industrial accident, or natural disaster;

2) to prevent accidents, or the destruction or damage of the employer’s property, or state or municipal property;

3) to perform work necessitated by the declaration of a state of emergency or martial law, as well as urgent work under extraordinary circumstances—that is, in the event of a disaster or threat of a disaster (fires, floods, famine, earthquakes, epidemics, or epizootics) and in other cases that threaten the lives or normal living conditions of the entire population or a portion thereof.

Provided these recommendations are followed, it is practically impossible to hold an employee disciplinarily liable for participating in a protest, as the employee will be acting in accordance with the law.