Healthcare strikes and the ethics of voting in ballots
Healthcare strikes and the ethics of voting in ballots
There has been much discussion of the justifiability of strikes by healthcare workers, but comparatively little discussion of the political processes through which strikes occur. This article focuses on the Trade Union Act 2016, which currently governs strike ballots in the UK. This legislation has important implications for healthcare workers being balloted on strikes (or other forms of industrial action).
The article first explains the legal requirements for a strike mandate and illustrates how votes in strike ballots can be counterproductive, bringing about outcomes opposite of what the voter wanted. Second, it argues that the turnout threshold responsible for these surprising results is undemocratic, since it means that outcomes need not reflect the wishes of those balloted. Third, it suggests that this has consequences for how balloted workers ought to vote, if they want the process to be more democratic. In particular, I propose that those who are neutral or indifferent have reason to cast spoiled ballots, in order to negate the turnout threshold. Further, those who oppose a strike also have reasons – if they value democratic decision-making – to vote, even though this may be less effective than abstaining.
Ethics, Health Workforce, Legislation, Politics
Saunders, Ben
aed7ba9f-f519-4bbf-a554-db25b684037d
Saunders, Ben
aed7ba9f-f519-4bbf-a554-db25b684037d
Saunders, Ben
(2023)
Healthcare strikes and the ethics of voting in ballots.
Journal of Medical Ethics, [109502].
(doi:10.1136/jme-2023-109502).
Abstract
There has been much discussion of the justifiability of strikes by healthcare workers, but comparatively little discussion of the political processes through which strikes occur. This article focuses on the Trade Union Act 2016, which currently governs strike ballots in the UK. This legislation has important implications for healthcare workers being balloted on strikes (or other forms of industrial action).
The article first explains the legal requirements for a strike mandate and illustrates how votes in strike ballots can be counterproductive, bringing about outcomes opposite of what the voter wanted. Second, it argues that the turnout threshold responsible for these surprising results is undemocratic, since it means that outcomes need not reflect the wishes of those balloted. Third, it suggests that this has consequences for how balloted workers ought to vote, if they want the process to be more democratic. In particular, I propose that those who are neutral or indifferent have reason to cast spoiled ballots, in order to negate the turnout threshold. Further, those who oppose a strike also have reasons – if they value democratic decision-making – to vote, even though this may be less effective than abstaining.
Text
JME strikes - editor copy
- Accepted Manuscript
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 24 October 2023
e-pub ahead of print date: 26 November 2023
Additional Information:
Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Keywords:
Ethics, Health Workforce, Legislation, Politics
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 485444
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/485444
ISSN: 1473-4257
PURE UUID: 2abc18a1-4e8a-42f6-bf06-b06b669ec0b6
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 06 Dec 2023 17:46
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 03:30
Export record
Altmetrics
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
