With Canadian hockey fans facing lots of free time on Saturday nights what might Jewish law have to say about hiring replacement hockey players? Jewish labor law maintains that employees, unlike contractors, may quit their jobs on a moment’s notice so as to avoid the feelings of servitude. Similarly, employers may hire whomever they feel will bring them the most profit. While in the modern day economy these rights may be somewhat curtailed the principle of labor mobility is paramount. One who is unhappy with their working conditions can always go on “strike” by quitting with the understanding that ones ex-employer is free to hire replacement workers. Torah law, in theory, forbids the tactics of modern day strike which set up pickets to prevent “scabs” from going to work.
A Torah based society would, with some exceptions, look askance at strikes, and direct labor disputes to an arbitration panel (beit din). However what is true in theory is not necessarily so in practice. In matters of civil law, local (secular) law and custom often supersede Torah law. By entering into an agreement in Canada we implicitly accept its business mores. Thus while Torah law stipulates that a worker is to be paid on a daily basis, common practice and thus Jewish law is that one is paid less frequently. As our work environment has many established unions with the legal right to strike, Jewish labor law would recognize and even sanction strikes for higher wages, improved working conditions and the like. Rav Moshe Feinstein goes so far as to rule that a majority vote of the union binds the dissenting minority who are thus enjoined from crossing the picket lines. This is based on the assumption that crossing picket lines will cause the striker to lose one’s livelihood. While the use of physical intimidation is proscribed, the union is free to set other punishments as they see fit.
However, it appears to this writer that the locked out hockey players are not protected. With an average salary approaching two million dollars it is difficult to argue that anybody’s livelihood is at risk. Thus it should follow that if and when the situation arises Jewish law would see no grounds for grievance against those players who decide to defy their union and play hockey.
Comments rabbi@byad.org
