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.

中文翻译：

---

宪政与反私有化罢工：引入折衷模式

在全球化时代，政治行动者的新自由主义议程的兴起和私有化浪潮往往伴随着反私有化的罢工。这些是工会罢工，反对私有化进程，反对外包和开放市场竞争。本文介绍了不同版本的宪政在反私有化罢工方面的区别。它讨论了宪政主义的两种方法——经济方法和集体方法——以及它们在以色列和英国判例法中的表现。集体方法表明承认集体权利的宪法地位是制衡监管者和政治行为者的新自由主义实践。遵循自由化对劳动力市场的影响——无论是在影响工会组织能力还是在削弱个体雇员的工作保障方面，集体方法旨在保护全球化私有化时代的雇员权利。在集体方法中，宪政主义被用作承认反私有化罢工的基础。相比之下，经济方法否认存在反对私有化的宪法权利。本文提出了一种融合两种方法的折衷模式，并提倡采用这种模式。折衷主义模式借鉴新制度经济学，为缓和宪政实践、发展局部约束宪政提供了理论依据。它建议通过一项反对私有化的宪法权利，