To Strike or Not to Strike? Ethical Views on Industrial Disputes

By Robert Golbert - JABE

The headline "PCS Union Secretary Predicts Crippling Strikes on November 30" draws heavily on the nation's nerves. Around three million public sector workers throughout the UK are expected to down tools next week in the most widespread industrial protest to hit the country in a generation.

Both the Coalition and the Unions claim to have the moral high ground. This does not help Britain as it is set to grind to a halt, with the biggest mass walkout since the 1926 General Strike.

Strikes can cause major disruption to society, families and businesses. Mass strike action will mean thousands of schools will be closed and parents forced to take time off from work to look after their children. Medical operations will be delayed and 12 hour queues are expected at immigration at Heathrow. It is estimated that the strikes will cost £500 million to the British economy. Government ministers have described the strikes "irresponsible" and as a "self-inflicted wound" at a time when the British economy is already suffering.

Unless there is an indication that the Government and the Unions are prepared to compromise there will be more strikes after November. London Underground drivers are already threatening to strike on Boxing Day.

So what are the ethical perspectives of industrial action, and how does one balance between the rights and obligations of both sides?

Jewish tradition recognises the rights of workers engaged in the same trade to join together in a union. In fact, such a union is granted the status of a kind of community, with limited authority to regulate wage rates and working conditions.

Likewise, Jewish law permits workers to withdraw their labour even during "the middle of the day". This is because people are supposed to be servants of God, ‘not the servants of other servants'. The dignity of a worker requires that if he or she is not allowed to down tools, their condition is closer to that of a slave. And, according to Judaism, just as an individual is free to decide that he is not willing to work for a particular wage, so may a union make such a decision.

However, it is not all good news for trade unionists: in certain circumstances Jewish law requires the worker to compensate an employer for losses incurred because of a stoppage.

Furthermore, Judaism places a balance between the interests of the union and the interests of the larger community. According to Judaism certain groups of essential workers may not have the right to strike. Torah teachers, for example, have historically not been permitted to strike because their calling is a religious commandment undertaken to provide a vital service to the community. Therefore, the right of Torah teachers to strike may be limited to cases where salaries are below subsistence level or where pay or conditions prevent the teachers from carrying out their teaching duties properly. Whether this would extend to other groups of essential workers, such as nurses and firefighters, is debatable.

Most Jewish scholars today agree that strikes by essential workers should not be the first course of action. Indeed, the consensus is that the dispute must first be referred to arbitration. Only in a case where the employer refuses arbitration may essential workers strike, and even then only in order to compel the employer to go to arbitration.

This teaches us an important message on conflict resolution.

Centuries before ACAS (the UK's Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) was established, Jewish law held that labour disputes should be referred to a community leader or a Beth Din for arbitration.

Jewish courts are urged to seek a compromise solution rather than apply strict law. The Torah tells us to do "what is right and good in the sight of the Lord" to obtain judgements of peace and judgements of righteousness (mishpat shalom and mishpat tzedek).

Unfortunately, all too often industrial disputes and strike action are seen as 'winner takes all' affairs. One side must win and the other must lose. Managers need to be seen to justify their reputations for no-nonsense management. Trade union leaders must prove to their members that the strike action was worthwhile and that the bosses have been taught a lesson.

The Jewish ideal of conflict resolution, however, lies more with restoring social harmony rather than sending one side away triumphant and the other side licking their wounds and plotting their next move.

Robert Golbert is the Director of Projects and Marketing at JABE (The Jewish Association for Business Ethics)