Strikes

Strikes have been with us for a long time. In the eighteenth century they were called turnouts. The word strike was first used in connection with a work stoppage involving British sailors who struck (that is, lowered) their sails to bring their ship to a halt. The term was eventually used in contexts other than nautical ones to describe a cessation of work by any group of employees.

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the strike on the basis of a Judeo-Christian understanding of justice and conflict resolution. To do so, we will first note the historical reasons that have made the strike dear to the hearts of labor unionists. A brief look at the prevalence of strikes will allow us to put them into perspective as a part of overall economic activity. Finally, ethical perspectives on strikes will be considered.

Strikes and the Rise of Unionism

Early Canadian and American unions incorporated some biblical principles into their methods and objectives (see Unions), but they did not oppose the use of the strike to further their aims. Gradually the union movement became more secular in its orientation. Whether unions leaned more in a Judeo-Christian or secular direction, employer response to their efforts was universally the same—fierce, even ferocious, resistance. Unions learned to respond in kind. In 1910, for example, trade unionists bombed the Los Angeles Times plant. In 1914 National Guardsmen opened fire on striking miners in Colorado, killing many.

It was a series of highly successful strikes against four major U.S. employers in the 1930s that brought labor unions into the mainstream of economic life in North America. In 1936 Congress passed the Wagner Act, which not only recognized the right of workers to organize but compelled employers to engage in collective bargaining with their unions. It also forbade any employer interference or domination in the formation or administration of unions. Similar Canadian legislation followed in 1944.

The lesson that union leaders learned, more than any other, from their history was this: strikes work—whether legal or illegal, quiet or violent, however costly in terms of dollars, reputations, even lives. No other method works better. To this day unions are convinced that this highly successful weapon must be retained to accomplish their objectives of furthering the economic and social interests of workers and the general betterment of society as they see it.

Strikes and the Economy

Advocates of the strike weapon will point out that as a percentage of working time, person-days lost to work stoppages are minuscule and pale in comparison to the impact of illness, absenteeism, involuntary unemployment and even weather. In 1989, for example, time lost to strikes in Canada was 0.18 percent of working time, whereas person-days lost to illness were more than five times that figure. Strike opponents, on the other hand, note that Canada and the United States are conflict-ridden compared to most of their international competitors and trading partners. In the period from 1960 to 1984, for instance, time lost from strikes in Canada was forty times that in Japan and five hundred times that in Germany and Sweden. These sharp contrasts have not altered greatly in recent years.

Industrial relations scholars admit that very little is known about the costs to society of strikes and lockouts, largely because of the lack of research on the issue. Strictly in terms of direct dollar costs, it could perhaps be argued that the economic impact of strikes is not as great as is often believed. But whatever the costs are, strike supporters argue that they are inevitable given the adversarial foundation of our industrial relations system. Any substitute for the adversary system, in their opinion, would be far more costly than strikes. How else can workers get management to take them seriously and to bargain in good faith?

Opponents counter that such reasoning ignores the experience of other highly successful industrial nations that run much more collaborative industrial relations systems than our own. They also point out that the prevalence of strikes has built up a backlash of bad feeling against the union movement. As one commentator said, “Strikes help some unions. That is not the same as saying that they help all workers; but the costs are borne by society as a whole” (Stewart, pp. 41-42).

Ethical Perspectives

Business ethicists recognize the dilemma that strikes pose. On the one hand, they can cause financial injuries to employers and employees, inconvenience and worse to consumers and at times significant economic problems in society. On the other hand, many feel that workers can often obtain justice only through this means. Given these assumptions, business ethicists William Shaw and Vincent Barry have argued that a strike is justified when three conditions are met: (1) just cause, which refers to job-related matters such as inadequate pay and dangerous conditions; (2) proper authorization, meaning that workers must make the decision to strike without coercion or intimidation; and (3) last resort, which means that all other measures have been tried.

A basic moral principle is that one should always use the least injurious means available to accomplish one’s objectives. There are many alternatives to the strike, such as mediation and arbitration, that can achieve workers’ objectives. These avenues should be exhausted before a strike is called (Shaw and Barry, pp. 280-81).

The Christian is faced with a quandary. One can deplore the abuse of the strike while at the same time accept that there could be arguments for its legitimacy if it was employed to achieve biblically just objectives, assuming that other methods had proven to be fruitless. As Christian businessperson Fred Catherwood points out,

The Christian faith teaches us respect for the individual, and if society respects the individual, he must be protected from the possibility of exploitation by those who employ him. . . . The right to withhold labor is usually the only sanction available to the working man. . . . It is natural and right for a Christian to deplore the use of force to settle a dispute. (Catherwood, pp. 74, 76, 80)

John Redekop notes the incompatibility between the strike ethic and the love ethic: “How can a Christian justify doing something as part of a group which he cannot accept as correct individual action for himself?” (p. 14). Christian union leader Ed Vanderkloet maintains, “Most of us agree that industrial conflict is an ugly thing and that we should try to eliminate strikes. But that is not as easy as it sounds. In fact, it is next to impossible” (p. 31).

A strike is never wholly private in its effects. Other people beyond the direct participants are bound to suffer some harm. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to determine the nature and extent of the harm. If one could be convinced that for many strikes the harm suffered truly amounted to mere inconveniences or that only the deserving suffered (such as an evil employer), the moral judgment would be a relatively easy one. But in many cases that assessment would be very difficult to make. Thus, I feel that the considerations leading up to the decision to strike should go beyond what the ethicists suggested to include the following:

1. Is the dispute a grave matter addressing a genuinely unjust situation? (I appreciate the difficulty in assessing this and the temptation to make the assessment in a highly subjective manner.)
2. Have all other avenues for resolving the dispute been thoroughly explored? (Many dispute-resolution strategies have proven to be more effective than is commonly held.)
3. Will innocent bystanders be hurt?
4. Will the legitimate moral rights of others be violated?

Conclusions

Vanderkloet has noted that in medieval Europe trial by battle was the most common means of determining guilt and innocence and of settling disputes. The victor of the duel was assumed to be both morally and legally right. Gradually that system was discarded as people became more aware of the need for doing public justice. Now for virtually every kind of dispute other than industrial ones, our society has developed methods employing impartial judges, juries or umpires to settle them. Only in labor disputes do we still “slug it out on the picket line where ultimately the strongest wins” (Vanderkloet, p. 31).

The strike is to a large extent the major symptom of our adversarial industrial relations system here in North America. It is indeed a powerful instrument and has been used to good effect by organized labor in achieving its aims. But other international trading partners, including those lacking our Judeo-Christian heritage, have developed more just, collaborative industrial relations systems in which the use of the strike is a fraction of ours. Labor and management alike have tended to wave aside too easily the potential for alternative dispute-resolution strategies. The time has come for North Americans to decide whether the status quo represents either economic or ethical sense.

» See also: Justice

» See also: Trades

» See also: Unions

» See also: Work

» See also: Workplace

References and Resources

F. Catherwood, On the Job: The Christian 9 to 5 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983); J. H. Redekop, “Should Christian Teachers or Nurses Ever Strike?” (unpublished); W. H. Shaw and V. Barry, Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing, 1992); W. Stewart, Strike (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977); E. Vanderkloet, In and Around the Workplace: Christian Directions in the World of Work (Toronto: Christian Labour Association of Canada, 1992).

—John R. Sutherland