STRIKE - Everyone in?

[GaryRobbo]

in recent years we've had numerous postal strikes, civil service strikes, a fireservice strike, now prison guards striking.

Should public sector employee's have the right to strike?

Should it be like the private sector - if they dont like the terms and conditions of their occupation then quit and get another job?

have we gone from unions having to much power to virtually non?

can we ever strike a balance between power bosses and huge payrises and power unions providing sufficient pay rises for the minnions that work in the public sector?

your thoughts please.....

[spock]

[wellingtonboots]

I agree that workers in the public sector are entitled to strike. A lot of the time workers in the private sectors cannot "hold up the country" as public sector strikes can. For example many lives were lost with the fire fighter's strike where as if office workers were to strike in say a bank, it would cause some inconvience but it would not be life and death.

I think within the private sector the pay varies greatly for the same type of job depending on what company you happen to work for. Thus its much more feasible for a private sector worker to quit a job and find a better paid one. Whereas in the public sector the pay is regulated by the government, eveyone doing the same job gets the same rate. The only way you're going to get a pay rise is to get a promotion i.e. move into a different job. If you don't like the work environment/conditions in an office you can go and find another job in another company. If you're a fire fighter or a policeman it's pretty much the same every where. You really can't switch employers and there is no competition for good workers. Without strikes the government could technically pay a very low rate because its employees will not be able to turn else where. I mean there isn't exactly a privately run fire fighting force is there?

On the topic of strikes within the public sector, a lot of people are unaware that within some professions you aren't allowed to strike.

The police apparently aren't allowed to strike because of a law passed in 1919 but like all public sector workers they believe they should be entitled to that right and they wish to be able to pressurise the government in that way. I think the current pay talks that are going on are not very successful and in effect this means the police union end up wasting their time. If they were allow to strike the government would most likely cave very quickly because society could not function without a police force. Therefore if the police were allow to strike then we would have to trust them not to use their power to extort too much money out of the government which would mean the taxpayer forks out.
_________________
[img:78323b42a3]http://sscm.moved.in/CODES/100x35press.jpg[/img:78323b42a3]SSCM - Ugly Betty Fansite

Midnight Tempest - A Sailor Moon TCG

[SE13]

Prison Officers are not allowed to strike, but that did not stop them walking out for twenty four hours last week.

Fair play if it brings their plight to the attention of the authorities, but at the detrement of safety? I think not.

Thing is, they are not going to be paid for their unauthorised absence from work, and under current legislation, they can be disciplined for failing to turn up for work without reasonable grounds. Unnofficial or illegal strike action falls into that category, so anyone with the slightest hint of discilpinary problems could well face the boot from a very well paid job.

For another example, should I decide to strike from my employment for whatever reason, with or without the backing of the unions, it would mean that firstly my job has not been done, and that someone else would have to do it on my behalf, which given my location would mean a twenty four hour delay, which (without going into massive detail) means the entire company is affected, and I have made my point. However, someone had to do my work, someone, or several people would have been inconvienienced, and my customers would have little nor any sympathy for me.

There are ways and means of going about grievances, and the law is on your side as long as you follow the simple proceedures. Go against them at your peril.
_________________
It feels so empty without a signature, so here is some mindless gabble to occupy the space

[mellymoo]

[blightyred]

[mellymoo]

[Duck]

Everybody should have the right to strike unless the service they provide will have massive adverse effects on society - surgeons, for example, should not be able to strike, but absolutely should be able to withhold services. Otherwise, how are they going to improve their situation?
_________________
[img:d156d322f3]http://seriousbusiness.l2p.net/img/seriousbanner.gif[/img:d156d322f3]
I've kicked the clouds, and punched lightning!

[West_ham_hammer]

The tube strike we had here in the UK early part of last week totally pi**ed me off. Normally I couldn't care a less if somebody wants to strike. But I had sevral plans in place for early last week, all needed me to travel on the tube. Because of the tube strike, none of those plans got put into action!

Plus my dad works for the postal service, he's in the union there and has been going on strike with them. He doesn't want to go on strike, and has lost a lot of money from his wages in doing so. But you can't break a picket line if you're in the union (well you can, but not advisable) So all the time they are striking his wages are short each month

[ThreeCubes+Duck]

[SE13]

[x_ecutor]

[spock]

[Duck]

[coralvalley]

I think everyone should have the right to strike, but I have to be honest when I say that it's such a touchy subject in this day in age when so many places try to make it clear that they can replace you in an instant. At one point in time I really believe that unions protected people and their rights, but with the way the world is lately, I don't really think that striking has that big of an impact as it once did. Sure, I can see it making a difference and impacting a nation, but with people so ready to step in especially in the United States desperate for a job, the employers seem like they would just as soon fire a unionized worker who wanted to strike in the name of hiring someone who isn't in a union and paying them less. It just seems that is how the world or at least this area seems to work lately.