Constitutionalism and Anti-Privatisation Strikes: Introducing an Eclectic Model

Abstract

The rise of neoliberal agendas of political actors and a wave of privatisation in the globalisation era have often been followed by anti-privatisation strikes. These are union strikes against the privatisation process and against contracting out and opening markets to competition. The article presents the distinction between different versions of constitutionalism regarding anti-privatisation strikes. It discusses two approaches to constitutionalism – the economic approach and the collective approach – and their manifestation in the case law of Israel and the United Kingdom.The collective approach suggests the recognition of a constitutional status of collective rights as a basis for counter-balancing the neoliberal practices of regulators and political actors. Following the effects of liberalisation on the labour market – both in influencing union organisational capacity and in weakening job security of individual employees, the collective approach is aimed at protecting employees’ rights in a globalised-privatised era. Within the collective approach, constitutionalism is used as a basis for recognising anti-privatisation strikes. In contrast, the economic approach denies the existence of a constitutional right to strike against privatisation.The article presents an eclectic model which merges the two approaches, and advocates its adoption. Drawing on New Institutional Economics, the eclectic model offers a theory for moderating the constitutionalism practice and developing partial and restrained constitutionalism. It proposes the adoption of a constitutional right to strike against privatisation, when its application reduces transaction costs and advances efficiency and economic goals for the benefit of the public.

The Rise of the Regulatory Constitutional Welfare State, Publicization, and Constitutional Social Rights: The Case of Israel and Britain

“…As we mentioned, British courts operate in a context that has traditionally represented a liberal social policy regime, with a minimal welfare state regime that moved toward the neoliberal pole in the Thatcher era. Israel, however, was considered a social democratic state up to the 1980s (Doron 1985; Litor 2019b), until a deep and far-reaching process of liberalization emerged in the mid-1980s, led by the executive branch (Maman and Rozenhek 2012; Litor 2019a). Israeli courts have thus operated in a context marked by a government-led retreat of the welfare state.…”

Corporate Social Responsibility policies and practices on unvaccinated employees during the COVID-19 pandemic: case studies of Israel and United States

“…In Israel, following the introduction of two basic human rights laws in 1992: The Basic Law – Dignity and Liberty, and The Basic Law – Freedom of Occupation, the Supreme Court declared a constitutional revolution which determined constitutional status of human rights (Litor, 2019). The Basic Laws included several rights such as a right to privacy, a right to dignity, and to occupation.…”

Regulating corporate social responsibility practices of adopting codes of conduct through criminal law

“…As professional bodies detached from political agendas and pressures, the courts are advantageous in dealing with ethical issues, unlike elite groups and corporations, which often have close connections to the political arena (Litor, 2019a; Litor, 2019b; Litor et al , 2020).…”