Hello,
The issue of essential services striking is very complex. For, on the one hand, these services deal with genuine life-saving or other essential topics, therefore their responsibility is to do everything they can do at any price in order to fulfill their role and function.
On the other hand, it doesn’t make sense that those who engage in essential serves should be left to the whims of the tyranny of employers, who take advantage of them because they are unable to strike. Granted, in the times of the Mishnah and Talmud the right to strike was not recognized, however from the moment that mankind recognized this right, considered “community edicts” that we follow, the possibility of this must also be granted to medical teams in order to fight for their working conditions.
There are a few possibilities to solve the issue, with each one having advantages and disadvantages. Primarily when discussing two methods: first is mandatory arbitration, in other words: it will be agreed upon by everyone that these arbitrators are not involved in the matter they are ruling on. As stated, this has many advantages and very many disadvantages. Second is by determining very precise moral guidelines, such as: the responsibility to utilize every other option for professional conflict before strikes, and to leave striking the vital services as a last resort; the obligation to maintain an emergency team; the obligation that the strike be proportionate, etc.
I would like to emphasize that we are dealing with moral and ethical principles which are very difficult to translate into mandatory regulations, but this website deals with ethical aspects of topics and not the issue of how one should tailor it using legalese. In this manner we can act on the following two factors – both preventing the great risk of medical strikes and the exploitation of these workers.
All the best and Yashar koach,
Rabbi Yuval Cherlow
Head of the Tzohar Ethics Center
