Introduction
The introduction of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), into the modern workplace presents significant ethical challenges. These developments can create tension between an employer’s pursuit of efficiency and an employee’s right to job security. This essay will analyse how a “cultivated moral character,” as understood through virtue ethics, can help individuals navigate these challenges. It will focus on the virtues of courage, honesty, and integrity. Using this framework, this essay will assess the morality of a specific employee response: a “wildcat strike” initiated in response to the introduction of an AI system perceived as a threat to jobs.
This essay will argue that while the employees’ actions might appear virtuous by demonstrating courage and integrity, the illegal nature of a wildcat strike under UK law complicates a straightforward moral assessment. The analysis will begin by outlining the principles of virtue ethics and the relevant virtues. It will then explain the legal framework governing industrial action in the UK. Finally, it will apply these ethical and legal concepts to the scenario to assess the morality of the employees’ conduct.
Virtue Ethics and the Cultivated Moral Character
Virtue ethics is a normative ethical theory that emphasises the character of the moral agent rather than the rules or consequences of their actions. Originating with ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle, it suggests that the primary goal of human life is to achieve *eudaimonia*, often translated as ‘flourishing’ or ‘living well’ (Aristotle, 2004). This is achieved by developing and practising virtues, which are excellent traits of character. A person with a “cultivated moral character” is someone who has developed these virtues and acts from them as a matter of disposition. In a workplace context, this means an employee or employer would make decisions based on who they want to be, rather than just following a rulebook or calculating outcomes. This essay will focus on three key virtues: courage, honesty, and integrity.
Courage is the virtue of acting correctly in the face of fear or risk. Aristotle describes it as the ‘mean’ between the vices of cowardice (too much fear) and recklessness (too little fear) (Aristotle, 2004). A courageous employee is not one who is fearless, but one who stands up for what is right despite potential negative consequences, such as job loss or disciplinary action.
Honesty is the virtue of truthfulness and straightforwardness. In the workplace, this means communicating openly with colleagues and management, not concealing important information, and being transparent in one’s dealings. An honest character contributes to a climate of trust, which is essential for a functional working environment (Solomon, 1992).
Integrity is the virtue of being whole and consistent in one’s moral principles. It involves adhering to a strong moral code and acting in accordance with it, even when it is difficult to do so. For an employee, this could mean refusing to cut corners or acting in line with their personal and professional values, ensuring their actions and beliefs are aligned. It is the virtue that holds all other virtues together.
The Legal Framework of Industrial Action in the UK
To assess the morality of the wildcat strike, it is first necessary to understand its legal status in the United Kingdom. Industrial action, including strikes, is heavily regulated. For a strike to be lawful and for an employee to receive statutory protection against dismissal, it must comply with the strict procedural requirements set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA 1992).
Under TULRCA 1992, lawful industrial action must be “in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute” (s. 244) and must be organised by a recognised trade union. Furthermore, the union must hold a properly conducted secret postal ballot of the relevant members, achieving a minimum turnout of 50%, and give the employer lawful notice of both the ballot and the industrial action itself (Part V, TULRCA 1992).
A “wildcat strike” is, by definition, unofficial action taken by employees without the union’s authorisation and, therefore, without following the legally mandated procedures. Such action is unlawful. Employees who participate in a wildcat strike lose the immunity from legal action that TULRCA 1992 provides. Most significantly, an employer can dismiss any employee who takes part in such unofficial action without the risk of an unfair dismissal claim being brought against them (s. 237, TULRCA 1992). The legal framework, therefore, clearly discourages such spontaneous action, prioritising orderly and regulated processes for resolving disputes.
Assessing the Morality of the Wildcat Strike
Having established the frameworks of virtue ethics and UK law, we can now assess the morality of the employees’ wildcat strike. The employees are faced with a new AI system they believe will lead to mass redundancies. Their response is to walk out without official union backing.
From the perspective of virtue ethics, the employees’ actions are morally complex. In terms of **courage**, their decision to strike can be seen as a virtuous act. They are confronting a powerful employer and risking their livelihoods to protect their own jobs and those of their colleagues. This is not a reckless act born of a desire for conflict, but an action stemming from a genuine fear of losing their means of living. They are facing a significant risk for a cause they believe to be just, which is a classic manifestation of courage.
The virtues of **honesty** and **integrity** are also relevant. The strike is an honest expression of their fear and opposition to the employer’s decision. They are not hiding their feelings or motives. By taking collective action, they are acting with integrity, aligning their actions with their belief that the introduction of the AI is unjust and a threat to their community. They are acting as a moral collective, standing in solidarity with one another against what they perceive as a threat to their flourishing (Moore, 2017). Their integrity is shown in their commitment to their fellow workers, a commitment they are willing to suffer for.
However, this virtue-based perspective is complicated by the legal context. By engaging in an unlawful wildcat strike, the employees are breaking the terms of their employment contracts and defying the established legal process for industrial disputes. This raises questions about their integrity in a different sense. An individual of integrity respects commitments, and an employment contract is a form of commitment. By breaking this, it could be argued that they are failing to act with complete integrity.
Furthermore, while virtue ethics focuses on character over rules, it does not exist in a vacuum. A virtuous person is expected to have practical wisdom (*phronesis*), which involves understanding and navigating the social and legal realities of their situation (Aristotle, 2004). A person with practical wisdom might question whether a wildcat strike is the most effective or appropriate means to achieve their goal. It is an action likely to fail, leading to their dismissal and leaving them with no power to negotiate. It could be argued that a more virtuous—and wiser—course of action would have been to use the official channels, engage the union, and build a lawful campaign, even if it were slower.
Finally, the character of the employer is also relevant. If the employer introduced the AI without consultation, showing a lack of honesty and respect for its workforce, this makes the employees’ reaction more understandable, even if it is legally unsanctioned. The employer’s own lack of virtue can create an environment where employees feel that extra-legal action is their only recourse.
Conclusion
In conclusion, analysing the wildcat strike through the lens of virtue ethics reveals a complex moral picture. On one hand, the employees display the virtues of courage and integrity by standing up for their jobs and their colleagues in the face of significant personal risk. Their action is an honest and direct response to a perceived injustice. From this perspective, their moral character appears strong.
On the other hand, their chosen action is unlawful in the UK and breaches their contractual obligations, which complicates a purely positive assessment of their integrity. It also raises questions about their practical wisdom, as an illegal strike is unlikely to be successful and will likely result in their dismissal, thus failing to achieve its objective. The morality of the situation is therefore ambiguous. While the employees’ motivations may be virtuous, their method is legally and strategically flawed. This demonstrates that a cultivated moral character in the workplace requires not only virtues like courage and honesty but also the practical wisdom to apply them effectively and appropriately within the established legal and social frameworks.
References
- Aristotle. (2004) The Nicomachean Ethics. (J.A.K. Thomson, trans.). Penguin Classics.
- Moore, G. (2017) Virtue at Work: Ethics for Individuals, Managers, and Organizations. Oxford University Press.
- Solomon, R. C. (1992) Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in Business. Oxford University Press.
- Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. c. 52.
