Its a human right, they have the right to strike. They are not abusing their power for more money -- they are striking because they believe they are not getting paid enough for risking their own life for someone Else's and want better working conditions. They did read and agree to a contract and are not complaining but rather striking because the government is not keeping their OWN promise and is now paying them less. We need essential services and we should respect them more, so instead of complaining how chaotic it would be without them --- if their important they should be able to strike and be payed more.
I think that striking does impact are world in a glare of freedom as we need to put are voice out there and not let anyone take over are smooth lives under any circumstances. It's a problem sometimes but for reasonable reasons it makes sense that the employer has a responsibility to give us basic working conditions that don't disturb are normal lives.
Why should we allow essential services to strike? Because it’s a human RIGHT. Isn’t the point of a right to provide something to the people that can’t be taken away? So in denying the resolution from standing, are we not taking away the right of the people who work in essential services?
Everyone has the right to strike, taking away this right will only anger the workers in essentail services and put more pressure on them. Forcing someone to stay at work when there is something fundamentally wrong is not good for us. If we put more pressure on these workers and oppress them then they will not be able to concentrate on their jobs, and fatal mistakes will be made. Giving them the right to tell the government something is wrong with the way workers for essential services are treated in the only way the Government listens will only ever be benificial for us - we rely on them
Yes, when they strike we are at risk but would you rather someone making fatal flaws at work because they are angry about the way they are being treated or striking to improve the way they work to save our lives. Striking shows us a world without them and if we oppress them they will quit.
Euwfbub uebugvbf dh hefabgvub fgsivfb ngehb,j hgskfdhbgdjkcvb fvjhbgjh jfghjdvjh hhb hfbvh b h h h h h h h h h h h h 2*58*282*52*85*28525*25*8*528528**38n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n n nnn n n n n n
Because I said so. If they want to, t h e y c a n I t s t h e r e c h o i c e. Y o u n e end t I be n I ce Plz. Lol. U want boobs? I know you fo
The argument that "essential services" will be interrupted is week. Police and Firefighters are the only public employees who provide a service so essential to the public's safety and well-being that the rights of these workers to strike for better working conditions should be denied. Is it really any different for a DMV worker or airline employees to inconvenience the public? Yes, it's inconvenient to have the transportation authority strike - not only does it affect riders' ability to get to work, for example, it creates additional traffic for those who usually drive, as people who ride instead of driving are likely to drive until (or even after) the strike is over. But why is this an interruption of an essential service when it's the local transportation authority as opposed to a private bus company..?
Everyone says the police are so important that we can't possibly live without them and they can never be allowed to strike. If that is the case then they should be paid like that. Full benefits, full retirements, and good wages to put their kids through college.
It is not right to eliminate the labor rights of group unless you are willing to go over the top in compensating the labor group. Recently officials have been encouraging demonstrating against police, as a result cops are getting killed. Should not the police force be allowed to strike to make demands for their own safety?
The only rule should be that emergency services laborers should have to give 48 hour notice before a strike so the national guard can be called in to help out during the strike.
We have used military force to overthrow dictators in other countries and set free the people who have been oppressed and suppressed by these horrible regimes. We pride ourselves on the fact that the citizens of this wonderful country are afforded the right to free speech. We are supposed to be one of the most democratic countries on earth - don't let a bunch of jumped up politicians take away our liberties. When everything else has failed, we must maintain the right to withdraw our labour as a last ditch attempt to be heard. This decision is never taken lightly - when we do so it is in the full knowledge that we will not be paid during our time of protest. Surely, it is not too much to ask in a country like ours. Do we want to live in a true democratic society, or do we want a dictatorship? Yours in Unity.
We want you to stop and listen but you won't. We explain why we are upset with what you are doing to us as a collective workforce but you don't listen. You believe you have the authority to make decisions that we believe are just plain wrong, and we should just live with it? A lot of the time the decisions you make are more about the "so called" bigger picture and so not related to the real rights and wrongs of the actual decision you make that affect us, and so when I think you have over stepped the mark I WILL most reluctantly withdraw my labour.
I uphold strikes as a means for demanding better working conditions, but I don't like emergency services striking as it puts the general public in danger and feels as if we are being used as the bargaining chip to provide the workers better pay.
I think emergency services need to find alternate ways of getting what they're asking for without having the general public suffer during their debate.
Whether you are working for a private company or a public body, you have a contract with them that determines your conditions of service. You do not have a right to better pay and conditions unless it is stated in your contract. If your employer does not offer what you want, by all means negotiate, like a grown up, but striking is petty and childish and simply hurts everyone else. If you don't like it, go and get another job - if enough employees leave through poor pay and conditions, then as in any market place, the employer will pay more money and provide better conditions to hire new employees. There are simply too many unions willing to down tools rather than behave like civilised human beings.
Unions were designed to prevent abuses of power. I don't see this happening here (except maybe the union abusing their power for their own gain at the expense of many other working individuals). Take the offer on the table and be happy you have a job in this economy, not to mention a guaranteed yearly raise for the next four years.
The Military and police cannot strike. Firefighters, paramedics and essential 'blue light' services should not be allowed to strike.
You don't go into these professions for the money after all. If they can still run minimal services and protect life while on strike then I would contest that we have too many of them or that they are being underused (Firefighters with second jobs for example).
Iam a rate payer and pay rates and contribute to there pensions, and earn a lot less money and a lot smaller pension than fire fighters get. They should think them selfs lucky. And they will get a state basic pension on top. Plus a number have second jobs they want the cake and eat it . Get back to work and do the job you are payed for. After all they did not hav't to join the fire service.
If workers don't like their working conditions, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. If conditions are really bad, many employees will be leaving, employer will have trouble retaining employees, and will have to improve conditions.
This is a free country, and unions shouldn't be allowed to hold businesses and customers hostage to their demands.
They effect more than just themselves and need to be help accountable to this. I believe that they should be able to participate in collective bargaining for better work conditions but should not be able to strike at any time for any reason. When they took this job they knew the pay and the terms.
Look, the world is a complex place. There can be any number of stances for why unions should and shouldn't exist, why labor rights like striking should exist.
But essential services are non-negotiable. And denying them to the public as part of a labor negotiation process is akin to hostage acts.
If you are unhappy with your job, leave. Even essential devices are at-will employment. And someone will be happy to replace your butt.
Essential workers are really important, without them, stuff like water would be cut off or disrupted, our electricity too. Furthermore, strikes are violent, so in and of itself it's bad. Workers in essential services add to the badness of it all and have no justification in striking, because they hurt innocent public people. Even if they have good reasons to strike, it's not good, because they have no right to strike.
If workers in essential services were to be allowed to strike the lives, health, safety of persons and security of the country would be irreparably at stake. Imagine how criminal activity would be if police officials were to be on strike. By the time they came from the strike many lives be dead. The same applies to doctors, nurses. Did you think of prisoners if the warders were to be on strike the whole month. It would be chaos. To say they are not allowed to strike does not mean that their disputes of interests would not be addressed effectively, as they are allowed to refer their disputes to a compulsory interest arbitration.