Heaven's gonna burn your eyes
16th April 2005
Just saw this on BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7409679.stm Frontline police officers in England and Wales are set to reveal whether they will demand the right to strike. Police are currently banned from taking industrial action, but members of the Police Federation have been balloted on whether they want the law changed.
Members are believed to have voted by more than 80% at their Bournemouth conference for full industrial rights.
... More than 20,000 officers marched on Westminster following Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's pay decision. ...
The police are currently banned from going on strike or taking other action, and any such action is a criminal offence.
And of course I laughed. Who's going to arrest 20,000 police?
But it raises a more important question about industrial relations. Should certain job(-types) be excluded from industrial action?
Serious business brigade
4th September 2004
I think everyone should be allowed to "strike" within reasonable bounds, such as the police refusing to appear at a soccer match, forcing it to be canceled. Such things where people do not get hurt.. everyone should be allowed to do it.
8th April 2005
Every employee should have a right to strike. However there should be restrictions on employees working at police, health care, border guard etc, meaning that they have to maintain certain service level even during a strike. Thus I guess the first option comes closest to my view.
Heaven's gonna burn your eyes
16th April 2005
Yes, but the doctors have the choice of how to respond.
Indeed, and a strike is never a first resort.
Most loved forum member.
9th February 2004
Quetron;4351459Hell ya nothing like strong arming your boss and exspect them to be nice, the unions go way too far and now we pay the price.It's not all corperate greed, a lot of people have the exact same greed, and money don't grow on trees.
Money may not grow on trees but the slave labor still being used is just as abundant then as it is now. Business screwed your Dad over (that and a lack of protectionism in the third world), not his union.
11th November 2006
I would laugh so hard, if all of Americas military forces went on strike, just as World War 3 initiates. That would be... pretty bad. Everyone but essential i think.
28th August 2006
WiseBobo;4352206Money may not grow on trees but the slave labor still being used is just as abundant then as it is now. Business screwed your Dad over (that and a lack of protectionism in the third world), not his union.
Well he started before the union was voted in, but another place he worked at he said you can take your union dues, but I will not be a part of the union. People think the union is for the worker, but people don't understand how exspensive and time consuming hiring an employee is.The way it is done is you get cash they get service, the more they sell the more each makes. but since unions strong arm a company what happens is special groups of people get paid more than what they should.Then everybody suffers from high prices all because some greedy people are getting more than they are worth. Then the company rather than just selling stuff and creating work, it becomes an ,us against them.Then the employer becomes gun shy and yes a union has to strong arm them to FORCE what they want. It's not the day of the sweatshops, which was a good reason to form unions, nowdays it just screws up everything for the employers, employees, and the customers.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
In the days America wrote the Capitalist Manifesto (great book by the way, go read it! ^_^ ) working conditions were better than they are today and the working week was much shorter. We've walked forwards with companies taking more and more and what reward have we been allowed for it? The dollar now is worth to the average middle class man in America around 4 cents of the worth of the old dollar when congress created the Federal Reserve. You speak of unions strong arming companies but unions have allowed companies an awful lot of slack in the things they have taken and the common man sees awful little in return for this other than the value of his savings ever degrading as government creates more money out of nowhere dilluting the power of his currency and grants this money into the pockets of big business displacing his profits into the hands of a few elite. It's time the unions grew some balls and stopped letting themselves be pushed around more than anything else.
Quetron's alt account
10th December 2005
masked_marsoe;4351349Indeed, and a strike is never a first resort.
But would it be moral to risk physical harm to innocent people because you have a pay problem?
Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
Every employee has the right to strike though it must never endanger other people. This means that certain sectors can have a more radical strike then others. There are various level of striking, workers can go on a full strike, offer the service they provide for free (for example: bus drivers allowing people to board without ticket) or by minimizing capicity (most townhall staff on strike except for the few desks that have to be open such as the desk to report the birth of a child, which has to be done in a day or so by law).
So yes, the police can strike by not handing out tickets, not providing officers for an event such as a football match and so on. Same with the militairy, if they aren't in a combat situation or something simular important they can just strike. Same with docters, they can refuse general support (though they should be available if immidiate healthcare is required, but emergency services generally take care of this).
Strikes are a last resort though, one sould first try to find a solution by having the unions talk, writing letters of complaints and such, then one can treaten to go on a strike and only after that one can strike. The severity of the strike should be justifable and depends on the exact circumstances.