Right to strike is not absolute

The latest strike, called by the Histadrut labor federation last week in response to the government's decision to adopt an Open Skies airline agreement with the European Union, and additional threats of various strikes made by the Histadrut recently, raise some basic questions over the right to strike.

No one will dispute the right of workers' unions to fight for proper working conditions. But the basic assumption that workers have every right to strike over anything they see fit, whenever they wish, wherever they wish, and for however long, is fundamentally misguided. The law stipulates certain procedures that an organization must fulfill before it launches a strike, but it fails to address the question of when, for what reasons, and under what conditions it is permissible to strike.

The more central an organization's role in the public's interest, the more restrictions there are on the organization's right to strike. The most obvious example of this is the overall ban on strikes within Israel's defense establishment, the Israel Defense Forces and the Israel Police, because these bodies deal directly with life-and-death matters.

There are several additional bodies that provide varying degrees of highly essential services to the general public. In the private business sector, a workers' strike at a specific company can cause some degree of damage to the consumer public, but it doesn't have the power to cripple the entire economy, and the overall harm to the public interest is less significant.

On the other hand, state authorities and government-owned companies like the companies that manage Israel's ports, the Israel Airports Authority, the Israel Electric Corporation and the water conglomerates have the power to paralyze the economy and critically cripple the entire business sector. These are essential services, established by the state to serve the entire public. These are state assets, and that means that workers have a greater responsibility toward the public. We must all keep in mind that even fundamental constitutional rights are, in many cases, contingent on the greater public good. There is no legal system in the world that has basic rights that are absolute.

The strike declared by the Histadrut in response to the Open Skies deal may have been justified if it had been about workers' rights. The objective of a workers' union is not to force the government to increase the funding it grants to private companies, even if the companies are government-owned. If we allow workers' unions to meddle in such affairs, it will disrupt the democratic mechanisms operating in this country.

The only job of the workers' unions is to protect the rights of the workers and ensure that their working conditions are suitable. The unions exist on the basis of the fundamental right of any group to unionize and advance common interests. The bulk of their work is, as aforementioned, to protect the workers' rights. What the Histadrut claims as a victory -- convincing the government to increase the security budget it allocates to the airline El Al as a result of the recent strike -- is in fact an overstepping of bounds. In the future, we must beware of similar interventions when it comes to government decisions on new economic policies.