Should workers in essential services be allowed to go on strike? |
I believe that all workers, in the essential services or not, should be allowed to strike if they do not get what they need
They should strike because if they pronounce what they need (without forcing, in terms of strike) they will never get the replication from who they asked.
Posted by: mballyI believe that all workers, in essential services or not, should be allowed to strike in order to seek redress from their employer.
Workplace grievances including the right to strike are a vital part of the labor movement of the last 125 years. Workers in "essential" services such as police departments, sanitation, etc. should have the same right to seek redress for grievances - i.e. striking - as any other worker in this country would have. In fact, it could be argued that workers in essential services have even more cause to strike, given their position.
Posted by: BrownDustin82It is a human right.
It was strikes and industrial action that helped to end slavery on the plantations in the West Indies back in the early 1800s. The principle must surely be the same today. Workers have human rights as well as employers and this is a good way to demonstrate to those who seem to forget that many work\place privileges we enjoy today had to be fought for. The problem of low wages for workers and bigger profits for employers is an age-old problem and needs workers to help greedy employers to see the truth of their perversion.
Posted by: AnonymousEssential Services Strike.
I believe strongly that Workers in the Essential Services have the legitimate right to enjoy the same Fundamental International Rights of workers as stipulated by the International Labour Organization through ILO Conventions of which the Right to Strike in also enshrined. Workers go on strike whenever their grievances and concerns as regard to conditions of services in their respective workplaces are not being addressed by their employers following a mutual dialogue between the two parties (Union & Management). Likewise Essential Services Workers have the Right to Strike when their Employers completely ignore or fail to address their Grievances or Concerns. This is done as a measure to make their Employers implement what they have requested as Concerns in the workplace. Employers have the Responsibility of stopping Essential Services from Striking by providing better remunerations & work benefits when need arise like inflation problems facing the labour market.
Posted by: AnonymousI believe workers should be allowed to go on strike if their issues are not being taken care of in a just manner.
Workers in essential services already give up so much of their personal well-being for their jobs (e.g., firefighters who work overnight shifts, or garbage men who work on holidays). If they have legitimate complaints about their working conditions, they should be permitted to go on strike if they have tried every other reasonable method of resolving the dispute. Sometimes it takes desperate measures to achieve results.
Posted by: DelicateLewis91
I oppose the idea that workers in essential services should be allowed to go on strike, because it is at the sacrifice of everyone else.
Honestly, I do not believe that going on strike should be an allowed process for any occupation. Furthermore, I think that essential services, especially, cannot be sacrificed in order to allow workers to go on strike, for whatever the cause. Any situation should be handled in negotiations while on the job and, if employees or employers don't like what is going on, then either side can terminate the employment at any time.
Posted by: ToyMattWorkers in essential service should not be allowed to strike and put others welfare in danger.
Emergency services personnel should not be allowed to go on strike, possibly putting the lives and welfare of others in danger. Any issues that would result in a strike-like situation should be resolved in court, without an interruption of those services. Money is in no way more important than the lives and safety of citizens.
Posted by: 5h4tAnkII disagree that workers in essential services should be allowed to go on strike because their job is to serve the community.
If you don't like your job, quit. There are plenty of people ready, willing and able to work for twenty three dollars an hour and enjoy paid vacations, sick leave, maternity leave and insurance. Getting paid twelve bucks a day to go on strike makes no sense and striking when you are a police officer, nurse or fireman is just plain irresponsible. When a person signs on to serve the public in such an important way, he should be willing to go the distance. Find other means to gripe about your "unfair" wages etc.
Posted by: N3vinFaceIt would be demons-crazy not democracy.
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.
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely not
Workers in essential public services should not be allowed to strike (or unionize for that matter) because by striking people in police, fire or medical services endanger the public welfare by going on strike. As they services are vital to the functioning and protection of the citizens they cannot be allowed to disrupt what the public needs to ensure safety.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, I oppose workers in essential services going on strike, because the services they provide are too crucial.
Workers in essential services provide crucial services. Striking is a process that is disruptive and upsets this balance. I believe workers should find other methods of resolving issues with pay or benefits, and avoid striking. It affects many people who rely on the services that they provide. When workers are striking, it is these very people who need the services that are affected and hurt by the striking process.
Posted by: tairisthefeyWorkers in essential services should not be permitted to strike, because those positions are too vital to society.
When a worker is hired by a company to perform essential services, it should be part and parcel of the worker's contract that the worker is prevented from going on strike. There are many such positions such as public works, road crews, and teaching, to name only a few. When a worker is hired to perform work that is essential to the running of a city, state, county, or federal government, that worker must understand that he/she is not ever allowed to strike, as too many other people are depending on the services provided.
Posted by: ep0xihuskyWorkers in essential services should not be able to strike, as their doing so could have potentially deadly consequences for innocents.
Workers in essential services are essential. This is why they should not be able to strike. Cutting off essential services, such as fire, police, and medical services, can have potentially deadly consequences for innocents. Therefore, such workers must find other ways to lodge complaints or lobby for benefits through government negotiation or arbitrage, for example.
Posted by: EminentBennett93