The Development of Contemporary Egyptian Labor-Goverment Relations

The Egyptian labor movement shared the experiences of many of its colonial dominated kin. The creation of a cohesive working class set the groundwork for the creation and politicolization of the ensuing labor movement. In Egypt however, the unique experience of the labor movement in a paternalistic nationalist leadership acted as a means for the co-option of labor power by the state apparatus in the post revolutionary period. This historical experience of labor during the first half of the 20th century will help to explain the current situation of labors complete disenfranchisement, and the macro-economic conditions currently acting in Egypt.
The instigation of organized labor has historically stemmed from the development of a singular, large employment industry, where a distinct “working” class can be economically and socially discerned from the owners of production. This development of the working class comes, as economic conditions make personally sustanitive farming unavailable to what was a majority rural population, thereafter causing an exodus to cities and other concentrated areas of industry for employment opportunities. At this point the peasant’s only means of employment comes through wage labor, and he is subsequently alienated from the material production of labor. This movement from the ownership of ones labor, to the selling of ones labor to another individual, gives rise to the distinct class division of proletariat and capitalist. The shift from a life where the authority of survival is ‘nature,’ to one where the control of ones material well being lies in the hands of a tangible and discernable person(s), is one of the principle factors that gives rise to a working class consciousness. This consciousness defines workers as sharing like livelihoods distinct from that of the capitalist. This in turn leads to the discovery of workers collective power as a means of effectively improving ones singular livelihood. This short, general description of the development of a working class and the beginnings of organized labor action, was mirrored by the development of class and collective action in Egypt at the start of the 20th century, and would continue to characterizes its existence through to the military nationalism of the Nasser regime.
In the nineteenth century the Egyptian peasant’s ability to viably continue their existence as such became increasingly unavailable. Through heavy taxation, foreclosure due to non-payment of debt, and the Muslim law of inheritance - coupled with rapid population growth - many Egyptian peasants were left with landholdings inadequate for their personal means. This had the effect of pushing many peasants to find agricultural oriented work in seasonal and unskilled labor jobs. Due to Egypt’s export oriented economy - based on its foreign dominance under British tutelage - much of this work was concentrated in the transportation and packaging industries, and subsequently these industries were the first to experience labor unrest.
This sort of unskilled labor was dependent upon seasonal needs, and often fluctuated daily. Employers would hire a labor contractor that would daily find the needed number of employees. The contractor would be in charge of finding laborers, supervising the work, and would be given the workers pay to distribute, taking his fee from that pay. He would often employ workers at a set rate, and many times would also act as a local moneylender, charging high interest and deducting what he was owed from the workers salary. This organization of daily employment and means of payment made income insecurity and constant unemployment a prolific problem for the masses of the transitional Egyptian peasantry. Because of this sort of flexible daily employment, and the numerous amounts of persons looking for work, a constant glut to the available working pool was generated and further depressed wages and promoted job insecurity. These conditions are what led to the first act of organized labor protest in modern Egypt.
In April 1882 the coal heavers of Port Said went on strike. This first strike was not a product of organized union work, in fact non-such existed at the time in Egypt, nor was it an internal guild conflict as Benin and Lockman argue (pg. 30). The exact origins remain unknown due to a lack of credible sources, it does, however, appear to be a worker and labor contractor created movement, as the strikers dismissed an offer by the government to lessen the percentage cut of the contractors in order to increase their pay. However it formed, the collective action, and subsequent threats of action induced the company owners to grant the wage increase, from one franc per piece to two. Future action by the coal heavers however focused greater attention on the presence of the contractors, and when they again went on strike in April 1907 a principle demand was for their abolition. This trend will lead one to postulate that the collective action taken by workers was principally organized by them.
Though the coal heavers would eventually disappear once oil took over as the principal fuel for shipping, this early example shows the beginnings of class struggle. As a yet to be formed working class - given the ties most wage laborers at the time still had with their rural villages - engaged in the struggle for more adequate compensation for their labor, the ‘us and them’ distinction between employees and employers had begun to form and with it the class consciousness that would define the development and trade unionism and workers movements through the first half of the 20th century.

Because of the mainly seasonal employment of wage laborers, their still strong ties to peasant land, and prevalence of foreign-born manufacture workers (there were 147,000 foreign workers in Egypt by 1907), class cohesion was slow to form in Egypt. As some large-scale employers began to develop however, labor activism became an ever more prevalent force. This early concentrated activism was centered mostly in the cigarette rolling industries and the Cairo Tramway Company’s (CTC) workers. Both these industries experienced labor unrest early in the 20th century, the cigarette workers led mostly by ethnically Greek laborers who had previous experience with labor activism, and indigenous Egyptian workers for the CTC. In both instances the demands of the striking workers became more mature and reflected a growing awareness of the circumstances that surrounded and affected the workers condition.
For example, in October of 1908 a constituency of Cairo tramwaymen had begun meeting and formulated a list of demands that were submitted to the Belgian-owned company, threatening to strike if their demands were not met. Beyond simply asking for an increase in their wage the tramwaymen demanded; the eight hour day, choice of months vacation of months pay per year, the prohibition of inspectors physically or verbally striking and humiliating workers, the reinstatement of workers unjustly fired, the establishment of a committee, composed equally of workers and company representatives to investigate alleged infractions of work rules, and decide on penalties, no dismissal without good cause (and a months severance pay when justified), adequate uniforms at company expense, and the firing of several disliked company employees. These demands showed a greater understanding of the conditions surrounding capitalist employment, and can be seen as the vanguard of workers demands in future labor movements of Egypt.
The tramwaymen not only looked for an increase in the proportional payment for the selling of their labor, but a higher quality of life through a shorter work day and respect from managers, as well as a reduction in the power of management through the establishment of the proposed committee and justified/compensated dismissal. Workers in these industries had begun to realize not only the importance of organized collective action, but were showing an expressed interest in the management of the company. By demanding shared power between management and workers, it is apparent that the consciousness of divided classes with distinct interests was beginning to be formed, and the understanding of the means through which one gained or lost power were becoming apparent.
In the case of the cigarette rollers (WN 49-57) and the Cairo tramwaymen the formalization of labor organization into unions followed the workers first collective action. On March 8, 1909 the workers of the CTC founded its first union and set the stage for widespread labor struggles throughout Egypt until Abd al-Nasir and the Free Officers came to power.

Nationalism and the Egyptian Labor movement

Labor unions were slow to flourish in Egypt. Outside of the cigarette rollers, Cairo tramwaymen, and the MTWU (Manual Trades Workers Union), which only had 1043 members from a diaspora of trades by 1921 (WN pg.69 Table 2), unions were almost non-existent. It wasn’t until the First World War and its aftermath that large-scale industry was sufficiently able to expand in Egypt, and subsequently allow for the greater development of Unionization through the expansion of the working class.
During the war Britain’s grip around Egypt tightened, and had the effect of suffocating, for the time, its nationalist and workers movements. However because of decreased competition from already industrialized European manufacturers, and the increased demand for industrial production that stemmed from the war, Egyptian industry greatly expanded in the years during and preceding the First World War. Most significantly Egyptian industrialists – usually foreign capital or muattamsier (foreign born, “Egyptionized” capitalists) owned - were able to grow by expanding into the now open domestic consumption market that, before the war, had been largely satisfied by imports from Europe. This expansion of large-scale industry was a prime factor in the development of labor activism. As was seen before, in a labor market dominated by demand for unskilled day laborers, worker organization and collective action is exceedingly difficult. Commonly laborers do not work together for extended periods of time, and the endemic job insecurity and resulting glut in the available-unemployed work force, gives the employer the ability to easily find replacement labor in case of worker unrest. Once Egyptian industry was able to mature and start hiring skilled work forces in concentrated industrial locals, organization, a consciousness of class identity, and collective action become a possibility for labor.
The formation of the industrialized working class is what enabled labor organization in Egypt. Politically however, it is the economic circumstances resulting from capital allocation trends, during and after the First World War, which most dramatically affected the course of Egyptian history. The merger of the Egyptian working class and the Nationalist movement came about because of several factors. Food shortages and rising inflation, wrecked havoc upon the Egyptian economy, and most poignantly on the working poor, and when coupled with the injustice of British conscription of hundreds of thousands of Egyptians to serve as laborers for the Allied forces in the Middle East, the rising tide of resentment to British domination (i.e. Nationalism) became inextricably intertwined with the socio-economic factors so harshly effecting workers that were a result of Britain’s involvement in the war. Because of the way these forces played out, we will see that the success of the workers movement became to be understood as one in the same with Nationalist interest.

Workers and the Wafd

During the war and immediately after restrictions on the amount of land planted for cotton were lifted by the British. Though this had a positive effect on large landowners, who benefited from cottons increased market value, and in some cases offered greater employment for the laboring class, the loss of land dedicated to agricultural foodstuffs, combined with a fall of imports from Europe and the demand levied by Allied troops in the region, created a massive food shortage. This was further compounded by a steady rise in inflation (WN pg. 86-87 Table 3). These combined factors culminated in the social transformation of 1919.
In 1918, as the war came to an end, a group of large landowners with nationalist tendencies joined together to form the Wafd. It’s leader, Sa’d Zaghlul Pasha, put forward the demand for full Egyptian independence, and began forming a delegation that would travel to the Peace Conference being held in Europe to press this demand. The full independence of Egypt was the expressed end of the nationalist sentiment there, and though the Wafd was a principally bourgeois political party, and its aim was the transfer of power from a British dominated elite to an indigenous Egyptian elite, it was the only political party on the scene during this period that proposed a fulfillment of the nationalist sentiment. The Wafd in fact were quite conservative on labor issues, and had showed no support for any militant action, mass agitation, and much less, a social revolution.
For workers in this case the drive for nationalism, and subsequent support for the Wafd, was because of its historical experience under a British controlled economy. British controlled police had up to that point been the principal means through which strikes were broken; the labor contracting system had been established by British owned enterprises, and the lack any legislation for workers rights had existed under a British dominated government. For the workers of Egypt the fulfillment of the nationalist goal was a means to remove one major obstacle on the way to egalitarian rights. Though the ends of both social strata were different, the means they would be attained by coincided. So under the burgeoning bourgeois leadership of the Wafd, and with the popular support of workers the first nationalist upsurge in Egypt began.
In August 1919 the Cairo tramway workers went on strike, apparently because the CTC was planning on mass firings. This seemingly independent act had the effect of bursting the damn upon labor unrest that had existed since the war. Within days a mass of workers where on strike throughout the entirety of Egypt. All tramways systems in Egypt’s three major cities were on strike, railway men were on strike, bakers, journalist, tailors, carpenters, electricians, bank employees, waiters, kitchen workers, cigarette rollers, sugar mill workers, and more. This wave of labor activism was accompanied by a massive increase in the formation of unions in many of these industries, particularly among white-collar workers. The spread of unrest and unionization however was not independent. British intelligence from the time indicated a group of Italian radicals, who - with support from the Wafd - were actively attempting to generalize the strike and encourage the formation of unions. Though this doesn’t show complete supervision by the Wafd in labor militancy, it begins to exemplify the cohesion that was slowly developing between the two classes. Particularly on the side of the Wafd who were now beginning to support labor unrest as they saw the benefits to their own political agenda form. In the four years preceding the August strike wave labor unrest continued as inflation sustained its rise (WN pg. 86-87 Table 3), and soon one could not tell a difference between nationalist and labor activism. Some high members of the Wafd were connected to terrorist organizations that were in turn connected to unions; many of the top positions in unions became to be held by Wafd members – the two movements had forged into one.
In the aftermath of 1919 the Wafd was elected to power in January of 1924. Soon after its installment the Wafd moved to isolate and dismantle forces, particularly those within the urban working class, which could pose a threat to its power. It first moved to crush communist elements within the labor movement as well as the CGT, and also took control over the Cairo Tramway Worker’s Union. After this the Wafd looked to consolidate power over the unions already within its sphere of influence and created the General Federation of Labor Unions in the Nile Valley. This paternalism, however, was not meant to embolden workers, but rather to co-opt the organizational structures of the unions as a means to suppress and control militant labor activism. The members of the Wafd government were looking to attract investors and foreign capital, and the preoccupation of negotiating with the British, meant that little attention was paid to the continuing demands and unrest emanating from the disenfranchised workers. It is because of the Wafd’s conservative disposition and class basis that the promises vocalized to labor during its rise to power did not materialize.
The Wafd did not stay in power long. By the end of 1924 failure to negotiate full independence with the British left the Wafd with no clear intentions. Working with the British, King Fu’ad was able, under threat of the British armed forces, to cause the resignation of Zaghloul and the dismantling of the Wafd government. With its fall also came the fall of the GFLU. Because of the top down structure of union organization sought by the Wafd the unions could not survive. Stripped of a sympathetic government, the organizational leaders of their movements and now faced with a hostile and oppressive regime, labor activism again quickly faded.
There thus began a cycle in Egyptian socio-politics that would act to form labor consciousness, and affect the way and means it would organize. Because of workers continued popular support for the Wafd, the reactionary regime that King Fu’ad and the British implemented came down equally as hard, if not more so, on labor. The Wafd however would survive, sustain the links to its popular base, and through organizing boycotts, protests and other collective action would eventually force the British and Fu’ad to recognize that any bargain made to secure Egypt’s independence (even if it were merely nominal), would only be popularly recognized if done so by the Wafd. Inevitably free elections would be held in accordance with the 1923 constitution, and the Wafd would return to power and the whole cycle would start again.
It is through this recurrent sequence of events that labor began to see its interest interlocked with nationalist interests. This reality of labor politics in Egypt was one of the greatest supports and reasons for the success of the Free Officers, RCC and subsequently Nasser’s reign of power.
Throughout the time period between the Wafd’s first tenure of power and the military coup of July 23, 1952, the labor movement was in constant flux. Over this expanse, though the labor movement consistently identified with nationalist goals for reasons described above, the continued failure of the Wafd to substantiate any gains for the labor movements while in power slowly led to a weakening of its popular base among workers. The inability of the Wafd to substantiate its claims of supporting workers came to be seen more because of its background as a landowner-bourgeoise dominated movement. So by the time that the RCC released its six-point plan, which included; the abolition of the remnants of feudalism, the promotion of social justice, and full Egyptian independence, the labor movement came with nearly unanimous support. The decades of parliamentary democracy had failed to produce any substantive gains for labor, had not got Egypt full independence, and had not rid the country of the popularly disliked monarchy. The success of the military coup in accomplishing at least this last goal gave it immediate substantive credibility.
After the RCC’s initial rise to power, unions (such as the transport workers) called off planned and/or threatened strikes and vocally expressed hope in the new regime. However, groups such as the Founding Committee for a General Federation of Trade Unions (FCGFTU), though expressing hope in new regime, also called for the restoration of democracy, lifting of martial law, and the restoration of democratic liberties. This exemplifies the trend for labor’s independence that had begun to develop during the fluctuating period of Wafd control. The RCC however, soon demonstrated its feelings on independent labor activism.
A strike at Bayda Dyers Company took place on August 12th, as workers began a sit in at the mill, and some fires were set to auxiliary buildings. On the 13th Army troops arrived and were greeted by multiple protests. Shots were allegedly fired and the resulting aftermath left two soldiers on policemen, and four workers killed, with many others wounded. The military authorities quickly arrested 545 workers charging twenty-nine with various offenses. Two prominent labor organizers in the region were sentenced to death and many of the others charged served substantial jail time. This response to labor activism set the precedent for how the military regime of the RCC would deal with labor unrest that spilled over to means outside of government sanctioned control.
Even with the blunt repression used by the RCC, labor organizations were quick not to condemn its actions. The DMNL and FCGFETU issued statements condemning the violence and linked it to pro-imperialist interest. When the sentences were announced both mentioned organizations loaded speakers (provided by the military) onto trucks and drove through working class areas urging people for calm. The support from these labor organizations came with the hope that in the future labor could work through the established government to press its concerns. This however would prove unrealistic.
To assert its control over the labor movement, the RCC had to effectively purge the movement of its independent elements. Politically this meant shoring up support among the popular majority of workers, so that other elements could be eradicated. This came on December 8th, 1952, with the inaction of three separate pieces of labor legislation.
The first of which was the Law of Individual Contracts. The LIC allowed for free medical, transportation to factories, increased severance, longer annual vacations, and the right to appeal dismissal. Arbitration and conciliation in Labor Disputes required mandatory mediation on all labor disputes, and the Law of Trade Unions allowed agricultural workers to join trade unions, which had to this point not been allowed. Though the legislation seemed a concrete victory for labor, and it did in fact win the RCC broad support, it also implemented severe restrictions on mass organization. The laws dissolved the development of independent labor federations, established separate blue and white collar unions for employees within the same industry – further fractioning labor organization- outlawed federations of labor, and made union membership compulsory for any workplace where there was a two thirds majority already joined – allowing owners to set up their own unions and then require all workers to join once they were able to induce two thirds to do so.
The new labor laws, along with earlier land reform did win the RCC broad popular support from workers and peasants. Soon there after all political parties were dissolved, newspapers closed and 101 political figures arrested. The only party not affected by this broad crackdown however was the Muslim Brotherhood, who up until that point supported the military regime and was rewarded by not being considered a political entity. Soon however, political crises ensued.
Growing popular support for the re-institution of parliamentary democracy boiled over. During a memorial held by the Muslim Brothers on January 12th 1954, many of the speakers denounced Abd al-Nasir as a pro-American dictator. Soon after the RCC declared the Muslim Brothers a political organization, which meant their dissolution according to earlier laws enacted. Nasir then attempted to seize power by assuming the position of premiership and the presidency, relieving Muhammad Najib from the latter. Mass protest broke out and Nasir was forced to reinstate Najib, who subsequently relinquished press censorship. Then on March 25th the RCC declared it would formally allow the creation of political parties, and promised to disband itself by July 24th. Immediately the Army protested, demanding the RCC retain power. The Muslim Brothers also withdrew support for the opposition because of the resurgent popularity of the Wafd – which came about once press censorship was lifted – and meant that in the instance of a free election the Wafd would be returned to power.
During the crisis however the concrete measures taken by the RCC to establish support among the working classes proved vital. Though the far left and proponents of an independent trade unionism supported the opposition, a key constituency of workers – most notably the Cairo Transport Workers- supported the RCC because of the gains provided by its labor legislation. The CTW held strikes and rallies in support of the RCC, which effectively had the result of curbing popular demand for its dissolution. To say the least the RCC and Abd al-Nasir weathered the storm and came out with far greater power, and a consolidation of government that was enough to secure its form, and domination of Egyptian politics. Because of the laws enacted by the RCC, and subsequent legislation by Abd al-Nasser an independent workers movement is to this point of no consequence in Egyptian politics.
The co-option of the labor movement into a paternalist relationship, with the state as its head, early on by the Wafd proved to be the foundation for a habitual pattern of nationalist parties and the leaders of labor movements. Because of the earlier experiences of the rise and fall of labor’s power, with that of the Nationalist Wafd party, labor was inclined to initially support the nationalist RCC in its campaign to consolidate power, even when that meant initially hurting itself. This coupled with the concrete concessions made to workers early in December 8th 1952, proved enough to galvanize worker support for the military dictatorship, allowing it to weather its greatest initial challenge. In its aftermath Abd al-Nasir’s control of Egyptian politics became solidified enough that subsequent labor legislation – if there was any – was met with no resistance.
This pattern of State Paternalism persisted past Nasir’s reign and to the current day, and is what has aided in the current situation of the Egyptian working class. Sadat’s declaration of the Infitah, and the subsequent liberal policies pursued by his predecessors have found no mass opposition from those whom it adversely effects most, as the forms of organization which give rise to labor independence and collective bargaining power were stripped forever stripped in March 1954.
This understanding of the historical experience of Egyptian labor aids one, in an attempt to understand the State’s relationship to economy, and the current organization of socio-economic classes in Egypt. This is integral in understanding the effects and relationships between macro-economic Egyptian policy and the pressures currently exerted on it by international institutions such as the WTO and World Bank.