Arbitration to avoid strikes

The very idea of doctors and nurses going on strike is anathema to common sense and international norms. Physicians and nurses deal with matters of life and death and they could have adopted a different approach in airing their grievances than to go on strike.

That is why when the nurses at the University of Jordan (UJ) Hospital continued their strike, eyebrows were raised among patients and the public alike.

True, nurses can have legitimate grievances on matters related to working conditions and fair wages, and probably nurses at the UJ Hospital did have legitimate complaints, but there must be another way to air them than to deny patients of their services.

Although the nurses have suspended their strike after receiving assurances during their meeting with the UJ’s president, there is a pressing need for a fair mechanism to avert such a strike in the first place. What other avenues can be explored for this purpose remain to be seen, but surely there is another way when there is a will to find one.

What comes to mind in this instance is the tool of arbitration, which has proved to be a useful and productive way to avert strikes in essential services. When all fails, arbitration is a last resort that can satisfy and address legitimate complaints without disrupting essential services to the public, especially on matters of life and death.

The two sides can agree on the features and mandate of any such arbitration scheme and apply it whenever. This way both sides can have access to a reasonable way to avert strikes.