Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers

Introduction

The National Association of Social Work, in its code of ethics, note that the Social Worker’s prima facie duty is to not cause harm, display a commitment to the client’s well-being, the employer as well as to improve the general welfare of society. With this in mind, this paper proposes and investigate the ethicality and moral action of Social Workers who engage in labor strike action to advance and improve their working conditions. Furthermore, this paper investigates whether such an action is a gross violation of the client’s rights. To answer the proposed research question, this paper will define a labor strike demonstration, the causes of such an action, and the moral dilemma it brings with for social work staff. Moreover, this paper will apply a Kantian, Utilitarian and Aristotle perspective regarding duty, consequences, the concept of happiness versus suffering, the principle of utility as well as the concept of virtue. Lastly, it will conclude that participating in a labor strike demonstration is unethical, morally impermissible, and a gross violation of the purpose, values of Social Work as well as the rights of the client.

A labor strike demonstration is defined as a “legal, collective, organized, cessation or slowdown of work by employees, to force an acceptance of their demands by the employer” (Business Dictionary, 2017). Evidently, it is a legitimate mechanism applied when labor dispute negotiations have reached a deadlock during the bargaining process. According to Lundy (2011) reasons Social Workers engage in labour strike demonstrations are due to unjust working conditions that include unsafe working environments, extremely high caseloads to manage, unfair wages, contractual disagreements, and the belief that each of these hampers their ability to execute their prima facie. In reference to the aforementioned, social workers are, therefore, faced with a moral dilemma as they grapple with their role as ordinary employees who are legally entitled to fair working conditions to perform their prima facie duties versus their moral duties to clients, society and the purpose as well as values of Social Work.

Kantian Ethics

Kantian ethics suggest that actions are morally permissible based on whether it fulfils a person’s duty (Banks, 2006). To further the concept of duty, Kantian ethics held the notion of Categorical Imperatives which is believed to determine the morality of duties as it enforces and commands adherence, complicity and application. The Categorical Imperatives consist of three formulas. Once such a formula is to “act only on the maximum whereby at the same time you can will that it become a universal law” (Parrott, 2006, p. 51). Through this perspective, Kant held that persons are to engage in actions that they are willing to allow others to engage in as well without conditions and exceptions. Applying this formula to the ethicality of social workers participating in labor strike demonstrations, it becomes evident that such an action is not morally permissible or executing its duty. Arguably, as much as social workers are trained professionals and rendering services that are crucial to the functioning and well-being of society, they remain ordinary citizens who also at some point will require crucial services. Examples of these crucial services that may cause significant harm because of its absence due to labor strike action are medical personnel, suicide watch centers, mental health care professionals, law enforcement, court systems, municipal service delivery, etc. With these services not available, social workers will experience suffering, frustration, unhappiness, harm as the clients will do with their absence from the office. To this regard, participating and demonstrating labor strike action is not adhering to duty or morally permissible.

A further formula of the Categorical Imperative is “so, act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other context, never solely as a means to an end but always as an end within itself” (Parrott, 2006, p. 51).  By this Kant meant people should be valued and respected as an individual and not used for the benefit of others. Participating in a labor-strike demonstration/action is a direct violation of this categorical perspective as it would not be ethically permissible because the severe dependence and well-being of clients, the effective functioning of the employer organization, and society is used to duly and unduly influence the bargaining process for better working conditions. In participating in the labor strike demonstration, the humanity, and well-being of clients and society is not seen as crucial and as an ‘end’, but rather used to demonstrate the undeniable need for the skills and expertise of social workers.  Furthermore, through withholding services, social worker professionals demonstrate that the well-being and welfare of society have lost its inherent importance/value. Though the value of overall well-being is taught throughout the social work training process and is enshrined in the professional ethical codes.

In addition to the above, engaging in a labor strike demonstration is a gross violation of the prima facie duty of the social worker, nonmaleficence: to not cause harm, and display a commitment to the well-being of the client, organization as well as society. As Social Workers withdraw their labor, services are ceased, and automatic disruption occurs which can inflict serious harm on clients, organizational functioning as well as society. According to Mehta and Swell (2014), examples of the harm caused to clients and organizational functioning include severe and fatal delays in executing or developing timeous interventions for at-risk clients, miscommunication, and no service delivery. Moreover, by withdrawing their labor in a strike demonstration, ethical principles such as beneficence and social justice are also not adhered to as no acts of kindness, empathy is shown, and the most vulnerable members of society will be impacted the most.

Utilitarian Ethics  

In contrast to the Kantian ethics, the utilitarian perspective on ethics consider the consequences of actions for the vast majority as the determining factor of whether an action is morally permissible. According to Parrott (2010, p.54) “utilitarianism looks at the consequences of actions balancing the relative advantages and disadvantages of a particular course of action.” The referenced actions should be measured by the happiness it produces, the pleasure it preserves, and the pain that it avoids for the greatest number.  To this regard, utilitarianism argues that actions are morally permissible if and only if they produce as much as net happiness. In addition, applying the utilitarian perspective to the labor strike action of social workers, the consequences of such an action and its influence on the vast majority takes centre stage. Moreover, it becomes evident that engaging in such demonstration causes harm and suffering as crucial, protection, and counselling services for vulnerable individuals such children, the elderly, families, etc. are not available.  To this regard, such an action is morally wrong as it inflicts and maintain suffering as well as pain instead of happiness.