Sometimes we are morally or legally bound to do something, it is our duty or a commitment we made.  Are we obligated to work based on the explicit or implicit contract we made both with our employer and those we serve?

A case in point is the recent wild cat strike by health workers in the Province of Alberta.   Classified as a wild cat strike because it was not officially sanctioned as a union activity by the leadership but rather just an uprising by the rank and file.

In this time of a worldwide pandemic when medical support is critical do, the workers have a duty or commitment to the general public?

Freedom of Expression

In countries with democratic based political structures, we are fortunate in the ability of an individual or group of individuals to express their beliefs, thoughts, ideas, and emotions about different issues relatively free from government censorship.

However, there are boundaries, some structures, and rules, and it is the administration of these that is not always either exacting or easy.  We do have structures to make the assessments of fairness (e.g., our legal system) but sometimes the results are contentious.

Is it a right to express our dissatisfaction with our employer (in the case of health workers the employer being the government)?  Generally yes but what about when it affects the public good?

A Fine Balance

Freedom does not equate to anarchy and sometimes the separation of the two states can be a fine balance.  Groups (union members) have rights but does that mean they can be righteous?

The answer to this question is sometimes a real moral dilemma.  I support the right to express disagreement with the government policies but also the need to maintain public health services (particularly in times of crisis) is critical.

There probably is no clear answer to this situation, fortunately, we do appear to be muddling through with some civility.  Yeah for democracy.