Workers' Right to Strike: Labor Unions and Economic Justice

Introduction: Striking as a Constitutional Right

Striking is a fundamental right of workers. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to free speech as well as the right to free assembly, and labor striking can be perceived as a form of free expression and free assembly. Still, striking is relatively rare in the United States because it is considered disruptive to the economy. Workers are discouraged from forming labor unions, in large part because labor unions became corrupt political and power-hungry entities. In the current economic climate, however, labor unions offer workers one of the only means to assert their political power.

Workers have the right to strike any time they feel that their rights are being violated. Generally, if enough workers agree to the terms of the strike, it will be justified. No labor union has the funding to allow a strike to continue indefinitely, and no corporation could easily withstand the consequences of overriding a labor union.

Labor unions serve as a collective vehicle through which workers can assert power over otherwise dominant corporate entities. The reason workers strike is to leverage that collective strength in pursuit of social equity and economic justice. When workers unite around shared grievances — whether over wages, working conditions, or workplace safety — the strike becomes one of the most potent tools available to them.

Labor Unions and Economic Power

Some situations make striking either impossible or inappropriate. So-called "essential services" workers are generally exempt from striking because their areas of expertise are crucial in emergencies — medical personnel being the clearest example. Teachers and other government workers are occasionally mandated to continue working because a strike would do a great disservice to the community they serve. If striking causes significant harm to the broader community, then the practice should not be permitted in those contexts; striking is, above all, a vehicle for ensuring social equity and economic justice, not a tool for causing harm.

The justification for limiting the right to strike in these cases rests on the principle that the collective welfare of the community must be weighed against the rights of individual workers in particularly sensitive sectors. Even so, this exemption should be understood as narrow rather than expansive, so as not to erode the broader constitutional protections that underpin workers' rights to organize and assemble.

Limits on the Right to Strike

A New York Daily News article details a possible security guard strike in New York City. While security guards are crucial to maintaining the safety of the private buildings and offices their companies represent, those workers still deserve equitable pay and healthy working conditions. As some commentators have noted, "Security officers protecting city buildings should not be struggling to get by." Officers who are underpaid are unlikely to perform their jobs with full dedication and effectiveness.

This case illustrates a broader principle: fair wages are not merely a matter of individual benefit but a prerequisite for quality service. When workers in any sector — including security — are denied equitable compensation, the quality of the work they provide inevitably suffers. The threat of a strike in this instance represents a legitimate exercise of collective bargaining power in response to inadequate pay.

Conclusion

Moberg, D. (2007). Labor strikes back. The American Prospect. November 1, 2007. Retrieved April 2, 2009 from