At the opening ceremony of the construction of the International Labour Organization building in June 1926, three golden keys were unveiled to unlock three locks. These three golden keys were symbolic representations of an important principle in labor rights that remains a golden rule: tripartism.

Years of effort to achieve fair working conditions had shown that it was impossible to reach the satisfaction of all three parties without a tripartite agreement. During those years, labor unions had gained enough power to sit at the table with the government and employers and defend their rights. Undoubtedly, for employers, maximizing profit was of the utmost importance and (probably) for the government, social order. If the worker was not satisfied, work would be suspended and would have negative social consequences for the government. Therefore, the government and employers were willing to accept the worker as an equal for negotiations, and tripartism in labor relations was formed from this point on.

This product was a powerful syndicate that, in addition to organizing work affairs, also engaged in political activities since the mid-nineteenth century. As Marx and Engels had predicted in 1848, the “specter of communism” was haunting everywhere and at the time of the opening of the World Labor Organization building, several years had passed since the communist revolution in Russia and Stalin had recently taken the throne. Marxist and anarchist movements, alongside social democratic parties, were striving to improve working conditions and the dream of “class consciousness” was no longer a dream; the socialist revolution was waiting behind the doors in all European countries. Improving working conditions was the demand of the workers and a political and economic necessity for governments.

After that, they never lost their political aspect of labor rights. Union strikes over wages, working hours, or retirement age sometimes take the work to the streets and depending on the position of each of these three sides, determines the outcome. However, this is not true in Iran.

The right to form unions and go on strike is not recognized in the legal system of Iran. What the labor law has provided for is the Islamic Labor Council with limited powers. The influence of workers in the workplace is limited to this council, and in the political scene, representatives of workers – usually only one or two permanent members – enter the Islamic Consultative Assembly. The fate of union organizations formed by workers themselves can be understood through experiences such as the Workers’ Syndicate of a single company or the trade unions of Haft Tapeh workers. The labor law deliberately closed the hands of workers and restricted them to official channels. This law had many opponents, and things like mandatory weekly holidays and minimum wages were considered against Sharia law by some groups. After many back and forths, it was finally approved by the Expediency Discernment Council twelve years after the revolution. However, subsequent tricks, such as replacing permanent contracts with temporary ones and other events, also weakened the impact of this half

With these details, it is not surprising that the discussion about setting a minimum wage in the Supreme Council of Labor is also a formality. Worker representatives, whether they are authentic or appointed, do not have any influence in this council. The system of supporting workers is recognized as part of human rights support systems. The assumption in these systems is that certain groups in society do not have the power to stand up to their counterparts; women against men, children against adults, minorities against majorities, and workers against employers. The worker struggles for bread and the employer for profit. What gives power to the worker is not the presence of a representative in the Supreme Council of Labor, but the ability to have an impact in the workplace and society. The determination of the minimum wage for workers in the Supreme Council of Labor, which is based on the inflation announced by the Central Bank (Article 1 of Article 41 of the Labor Law), is also a matter of “favors” from the government and

Self.

He instructed to decrease it in order to match his expenses with his income.