Healthcare strikes and the ethics of voting in ballots

Bibliographic Data

ID21514510
AuthorsBen Saunder (0000-0002-5147-6397, University of Southampton, corresponding author)
Year2024
Volume50
Issue12
Pages802-805
Publication date2024-12-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Medical Ethics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0306-6800 • E-ISSN: 1473-4257
PublisherBMJ (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1136/jme-2023-109502
PMID38050162
OpenAlexW4389030398
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited20

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

Data science · Health care · Internet privacy · Political science · Politics · Voting · Computer Science · Health Services Management and Policy · Healthcare cost, quality, practices · Healthcare Systems and Challenges · Law

Tools

Open DOI