Sometimes people become irrational and take advantage from others...So to make thing balance..Workers need the collective voice to balance the power of the government or employer if they turned to do something unethical or wrong in perspective of humanisation.
But..With this...Workers need to know the limits and action accoridngly to make sure not been exploited from others.
Many people in Blue Light services must undergo months, even years (especially in the case of doctors) to acquire the skills they have. It's not a simple matter of just quitting your job once things start to not go your way, especially when there are few other employment opportunities out there. (ex. Fire fighters)
A lot of people also seem to be of the opinion that Blue Light workers or employees in general have some kind of obligation to endure all kinds of crap in the name of the public good, which is utter bollocks unless they can justify it beyond "I said so" or "It's for the greater good" because those same arguments could be used to justify any number of outrageous demands.
Lastly, striking tends to be used as a last resort by those kinds of workers.
Striking is never a great thing, but sometimes, it's needed to ensure workers get their due, and also, subsequently, to ensure that there will be enough people wanting to go into those professions. It's a commonly observed problem with education where teachers are treated like crap, and so, talented people, even those with a knack for teaching, don't take up that profession and the quality really suffers as a result.
Nurses, like anyone else, have the right to be heard. Obviously they would never place their patients at risk and therefore would not strike if that became the case. If nurses did not have the right to strike, then the government could completely take advantage and do as they please and nurses would be expected to bow down and obey. Surely in today's society we can see the importance of this
I 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,
It is important to understand that they are humans even if they provide essential services. They also have their needs and if they present their grievances to the authorities concerned and are ignored, they should proceed since they may also be demanding essential requirements. We are all humans no matter our positions.
I believe that striking at the failure to reach a negotiation is generally understood as a potential element of unionization. Doing away with this option for some and not others, is wrong and further discourages equality deeming the purpose of a union useless and fruitless. A hospital is obligated to hire a team of professionals, who they pay dearly for the service, but it is an option if they choose to allow a strike. The patient care is covered. It simply cost a fortune. If a strike ensues. Most require a 10-day notice prior to striking. Not fun, every one needs to be reasonable. Don't gouge the employee and don't gouge the employer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
These people should not be allowed to go on a strike because they could be needed by someone somewhere else that really needs their help. For example: Fireman need to be in places that have an emergency of some sort such as a fire. They can't be protesting against people when there are people that are dying and need their help. Other people might say that I am wrong. They might say that these people still need their respect because these are working their body off to help people and in return, they get nothing except disrespect.
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).
Employee rights are well protected in Labour Law. We all have a vote and can elect Governments to change the law if further protection is needed.
Unions are a historic anomaly, from a time when very few people had a vote and people had to resort to direct action, and have virtually no place in a democratic society.
Militant Unions should not be allowed to sabotage public services by going on strike.
Striking is blackmail, pure and simple.
To be fair to taxpayers - Public sector employees should be paid the minimum that is needed to attract the right people to do the job. If we are struggling to recruit a role - pay more. But for the vast majority of public sector workers they are paid more than their private sector equivalents who work a longer working week, have fewer holidays and fewer days off sick. It isn't fair in the taxpayer to overpay the public sector.
Strike action is admitting that we can attract enough of the right people to do the jobs & they are already overpaid.
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.