This paper explores public sentiment towards strike action among healthcare workers, as a result of their perceived inadequate pay. By analysing survey data collected in England between 2022 and 2023, the study focuses on NHS nurses and junior doctors, due to their critical role in delivering essential public services. Results indicate higher public support for strikes by nurses and junior doctors compared to other professions such as postal workers, teachers, rail workers, airport workers, civil servants and university lecturers. However, variation (...) in support for strikes by healthcare workers is observed across societal segments. Significant disparities in support are linked to individual political affiliations, left–right ideological positions and trust in the NHS. In short, nonconservative voters, individuals leaning towards left‐wing politics and those with greater trust in the NHS demonstrate higher likelihoods of supporting strikes by health workers. These findings carry implications for future strike decisions and highlight specific target groups for enhanced communication efforts to garner increased public support. (shrink)

Workers who go on strike are sometimes accused of holding their employer “to ransom”, the implication being that strike action is a kind of extortion. The paper provides an analytical reconstruction of this objection, before presenting and interrogating different strategies for countering it. The first says that work-stoppages can only be extortionate if they infringe an employer’s rightful claim to productive labour, but that no employer has any such claim under capitalism. The second says that work-stoppages cannot be extortionate because, (...) by themselves, they cannot put an employer under duress. The third and most promising strategy says that an employer’s claim to the productive labour of workers is conditional upon his/her not exploiting them. This approach does not produce a blanket exoneration; it tells us that the aptness of describing a strike as extortionate depends on a prior appraisal of the conditions that the strikers work under, and the fairness with which they are treated. (shrink)

While American physicians have traditionally practised as non-unionised professionals, there has been increasing debate in recent years over whether physicians in training (known also as interns, residents or house staff) are justified in unionising and using collective action. This paper examines specific ethical criteria that would permit union action, including a desire to ameliorate patient care as well as the goal of improving the conditions of working physicians. We posit that traditional rebuttals to physician unionisation often lean on an infinite (...) conception of a doctor’s energies and obligations, one that promotes burnout and serves to advance the financial motives of hospital management and administration. Furthermore, this paper explores the empirical justifications for collective action, which include substantial reductions in medical error. Finally, we address the free-rider problem posed by non-union physicians who might benefit from working improvements garnered through union action. We conclude that in order to maintain a notion of justice as fairness, resident physicians who benefit from union deliberations are impelled to acquire union membership or make a commensurate donation and that the healthcare organisations for which they work ought to share in the responsibility to improve patient care. (shrink)