|
|
Strikes,
Justice and Charity
Strikes, Justice and Charity -- A
Jewish Perspective
Dr. Meir Tamari, Director
Center of Business Ethics and Social Responsibility
Jerusalem College of Technology -- Machon Lev
The strike is usually and primarily the final tool in industrial disputes.
However that of the workers in Bezek and other companies in line for
privatization relates to ideological concepts, regarding rights of
ownership, preservation of historic privileges and the sanctity of
contracts. In this ideological rather than economic strike it is legitimate
to provide an alternative ideological perspective based on Jewish
legal and moral sources.
The right to withhold work or services is one granted to employees
by halakhah: this in contrast to all other contractual obligations.
Here the freedom of the individual is considered by our sources as
so important that it overrides the sanctity of contracts anchored
in Jewish laws. So the strike is an acceptable option. There is, however,
an unresolved halakhic question as to to whether employees may prevent
others from working. Rav A. I. Ha Cohen Kook ruled that this is permitted
only when the strike is intended to force the employer to implement
the terms of a contract.
Strikes in public services as distinct from manufacturing, mining
or the distributive trades, are the direct cause of hardship, financial
loss and even physical injury to people who are in fact not parties
to the conflict. The public who are deprived of the communications,
electricity, transport, etc. are neither the employers nor the shareholders
of the firms being struck. It is indeed therefore a serious moral
question as to the right of workers to inflict injury on innocent
bystanders, who are often forced to use services of monopolistic firms.
In England the prolonged coal miners’ strike that resulted in serious
deprivation and even death during winter, led to legislation that
severely curtailed trade union power and kept the labor party in opposition
for many years. It is interesting to see whether similar acts against
the innocent public will ever have similar results in Israel.
It is quite clear that in our sources workers to not acquire a property
right in the firm. They receive a payment for their work, but irrespective
of their tenure, there is no concept of ownership in the absence of
a formal contract. The owners, the shareholders, have a clear right
to enlarge, relocate or even completely cease operating the firm.
In many countries profit sharing and the allocation of shares to employees,
and worker participation in management are common practices. There
is nothing halakhically wrong with any of them if they are the agreed
terms of employment. The employee assumes the risk of an entrepeneur
in exchange for waiving part of the salary; this risk is one of the
reason why this practice is not widespread in Israel. The employees,
however, cannot acquire the rights of ownership, neither by force
of the strike nor by tenure, dictating when, how, or to whom the firm
may be sold or terminated. Just as they are free to leave and seek
alternative employment or early retirement etc. so too are the shareholders
to acti in their own best interests; to argue for a one sided employee
right is both immoral and unjust.
Of course, the major reason behind the wave of strikes is the justified
fear of redundancy through privatization. While there is no halakhic
obligation on the employer to provide employment, there is a halakhic
obligation both on the firm and on the public purse to protect redundant
workers against economic loss and poverty. There is even an obligation
to provide against the anguish and trauma involved in being made redundant.
In the language of our sages, “Provide those, whose standard of living
is reduced, even a horse to ride upon and a person to run before them
as a sign of honor.” Employees in privatized firms and industries
have the right to insist that suitable protection be provided
So those unable to find alternative employment because of their age
need to receive pensions that will accurately reflect the stream of
their reduced earning. Those whose work has provided skills of a narrow
character, need to be retrained in marketable skills. Perhaps others
will be alternatively employed in other departments. The cost of these
and similar provisions needs to be borne by the sellers of the privatized
stock and by the buyers of the corporation.
It is immoral to repeat the example of the downsizing of AT&T whereby
the CEO earned a 10 million dollar bonus for making thousands of workers
redundant and thereby increasing shareholder profits. Even in Israel
we have experienced the profits of redundancy being used to pay inflated
salaries to CEOs in various privatization sales. Nor can the profits
of privatization be used solely to fund the government budget.
First claim on the profits accruing to the sellers or future profits
to the buyers is the protection of displaced employees. This however
must be stressed is an obligation of charity, with all the attendant
negative overtones of charity. It is not a legal right flowing from
tenure or employment except where provided by contractual agreement
or by law. |
|
