• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Jj Roberts
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Himai Minh
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis

public workers strike

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 95
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Usually in some countries laws prohibit government workers to go on strike, beacause of the inconvenience caused by such strikes to the public.

Imagine a metropolitan city having a train network as its lifeline, and if the train drivers go on strike the whole city becomes paralysed, causing losses of the tune of millions of dollars, and not to mention the inconvenience caused to tons of people.

The drivers cause may appear valid if the authorities does not respond to their continued request for increase in benefits, since they do not have the option to quit their job as in private corporations and start driving another train. It would be more of a career change if they plan to quit.

should public workers be allowed to go on a strike?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 97
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Roger Nelson:
Usually in some countries laws prohibit government workers to go on strike, beacause of the inconvenience caused by such strikes to the public.

Imagine a metropolitan city having a train network as its lifeline, and if the train drivers go on strike the whole city becomes paralysed, causing losses of the tune of millions of dollars, and not to mention the inconvenience caused to tons of people.

The drivers cause may appear valid if the authorities does not respond to their continued request for increase in benefits, since they do not have the option to quit their job as in private corporations and start driving another train. It would be more of a career change if they plan to quit.

should public workers be allowed to go on a strike?




Nope. It effects EVERYONE in the frigging city. I live in the City. If MTA workers go on strike not only do the commuters get effected but everyday drivers too. I usually drive through holland tunnel, manhattan to avoid paying tolls on other parts (I save 10$ a day by doing this). Now I can't do this unless I find 3 other people as passengers just to enter manhattan (It will be a law if MTA workers go on strike. 5-11 am). The traffic will be a nightmare. Now instead of Leaving the house early morning 6 AM to work I have to get up at 3:45 am and leave the house by 4:15 AM to beat the traffic, obey the law, save 10$. I will make it to work. But people who solely depend on public transportation, may god save them.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
In the most pure sense, the workers of all companies (public, private, government) should have the right to go on strike, and the owners of these companies should have the right to fire the strikers on spot without notice or fear of litigation.
 
A. Levi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 97
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Smith:
In the most pure sense, the workers of all companies (public, private, government) should have the right to go on strike, and the owners of these companies should have the right to fire the strikers on spot without notice or fear of litigation.



Will never work for a large company, for eg: MTA has 33,000 employees, if every one of them go on a strike there will be nothing the NY state can do but give into their demands. if they dont, they have to face the public wrath. With in days City will be almost crippled without the public transportation.

I still dont understand. They get billions of dollars in the Tolls, MTA, Higher taxes (one of the worst in the country) yet these politicians always cry no money, but jump in to give subsidies to Jets stadium, Nets stadium and other private sector companies.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 624
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

should public workers be allowed to go on a strike?



Personally I dont see why public workers should have any more or less rights than any other employees. However, the concept of "public workers" may be something we dont see so much of in the future:

Transport workers - (as suggested by the original post) are increasingly employed by private companies as government owned transport networs are sold off...

Waste Management - All privatised, contracted out to private companies

Education (Teachers) - Increasing growth in private sector, increasing criticism of public schools (and increasing COSTS?! involved in attending public schools) How long before schools are all sold off and education services contracted out to the lowest bidder?

Health - Again increasing use of private health insurance and a decline in public health services together with contracting out of all cleaning and catering in public hospitals, nursing shortages mean that most public hospital wards are propped up by private sector agency nurses - How long before publicly paid health workers no longer exist?

..are you seeing the trend?

If you accept that public workers are becoming less common, then somehow legislating against public worker strikes is completely sidestepped by the drive for privatisation - effectively meaning that as we no longer work for government but work for private companies working on government contracts, we RETAIN the right to strike!!!

Case in point: - I work for a small private company.. we supply, maintain and run a number of large crucial application upon which Queensland Health (government department) rely. 15 years ago no doubt the person performing my job would have been a government employee. As it is vital IT services within government (around here at least) are almost all provided by private companies.
 
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Some of the current unions got their starts by groups of workers who had been treated like dog do-do for many years. (Example of the Nash equilibrium) Now why should they give that up? Do the Rockerfeller or Vandebuilt families give up their hard-earned power/money because we now see it has un-fair?? I live in NYC. I say, "Go on strike boys."
 
author & internet detective
Posts: 40282
819
Eclipse IDE VI Editor Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Interestingly, public workers are not allowed to strike in NYC and we are still facing that problem.
 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
So we walk... 20degrees, (but it feels like 10).

I'd say the strikers get their wishes, and become Winners of the Week.
 
Roger Nelson
Ranch Hand
Posts: 95
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think workers dealing with critical services should never be allowed to go on strike, where critical services could be a major transportation system, emergency services like militiary, cops, fire departments, hospitals.
Especially the ones where if the services get disrupted, no other viable alternative is available.

Though privatising essential services could be a solution, when there are many companies involved. But if such services are held by a single company, any strikes can easily jeopardize these critical services.

But definitely workers providing public services should have some unbiased forum or court of law where they can address their grievances
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1241
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Roger Nelson:
I think workers dealing with critical services should never be allowed to go on strike, where critical services could be a major transportation system, emergency services like militiary, cops, fire departments, hospitals.


Mostly I agree, we shouldn't be able to be in a situation where a vital service is unavailable. In the UK one example of this is that the police can't strike. I'm not sure that I'd count transportation workers as "vital" though.

But definitely workers providing public services should have some unbiased forum or court of law where they can address their grievances

Unfortunately sometimes there isn't such an way of addressing their grievances. One recent example in the UK was when a subcontracting company took over the maintenance of part of the track on the Tube network. The train drivers became concerned that the quality of the work was low, and they were being put in danger. They complained to their bosses, but nothing changed. They had no other route of complaint open to them, so they decided to consider strike action instead. In this kind of situation, striking may be a valid route for transportation workers to put forwards their concerns. Often the threat of a strike can lead to increased communication and negotiation and the strike can be avoided.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 783
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm not sure that I'd count transportation workers as "vital" though.
In this case, the transportation workers are vital. The vast majority of the people that work in the city, which is one of the largest economic cetners in the world, live outside the city. They need a way to get into work, and there simply ins't enough room on the road, nor parking spaces in the city for everyone to drive themselves in. Many people that have nothing to do with the transportation industry are forced to pay high cab fares, walk to work, or simply not go to work at all. The estimated loss to the city is between $440 and $660 million per day. People outside the transportation industry stand a real chance of losing their jobs or pay of they cannot make it to work.
Unfortunately sometimes there isn't such an way of addressing their grievances.
But in this case there was. The Union had been in negotiations with the city, and both sides were making progress. Just not fast enough for the Union Local's president. BTW, the Union workers are breaking the law by striking, and they are being fined somewhere around $1,000,000 each day the strike continues, with the fine doubling each day. And, both th enational and international branches of the same union have published statements to the press stating that the strike is illegal, and they do not support it.
 
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1241
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Paul Bourdeaux:
In this case, the transportation workers are vital.


They certainly have a very important role to play in keeping the city going, but they're not quite in the same league of vitalness as the emergency services. A city without transportation workers for a couple of days will still be ok, but a city without police for a couple of days could descend into anarchy.

I guess the thing the law makers need to decide is where to draw the line between those who should be banned from striking and those that shouldn't. Maybe its not that simple - maybe transport workers should be allowed a short term (say one day in any given period of X days), but no longer. That would give them the option of making their point without long term economic costs.


BTW, the Union workers are breaking the law by striking, and they are being fined somewhere around $1,000,000 each day the strike continues


I was thinking yesterday that I didn't really know much about the issues in the this strike, so I tried to look it up. I found an interesting comment on one discussion board from a union member on strike who said that he didn't feel that the union was properly putting across their point of view. He felt that most people in the city didn't really realise why they were striking, and that employers and the business community where denouncing the strike but the union wasn't really making the most of the strike by explaining why they where doing it.

From what little I know about the situation, I can sympathise with both sides. On the one hand there is a view that in a capitalist market these people should just quit and look for work elsewhere if they don't like their pay. There is also a view that they are selfish to inconvenience so many people through their strike. Finally, but importantly, its illegal for them to strike.

On the other hand, I can also see why union members would be upset that they are loosing out on some privileges in a year when their employers are awarded huge pay rises and made a massive profit. For them its about the normal person not being downtrodden by the corporations. They probably see their strike as part of a much bigger process of improving the way things work in relationships between employers and employees. If its true that they are being fined and loosing out financially by striking, then its surely not a decision they made lightly - they must surely believe that they are striking for a good reason if they are giving up income at a time of year when it is often most needed.

What I don't know is how much negotiation and mediation is taking place. It'd be a fairly pointless strike if the two sides where not talking with each other, so hopefully there are people working behind the scenes to sort it out.
[ December 22, 2005: Message edited by: Dave Lenton ]
 
Lookout! Runaway whale! Hide behind this tiny ad:
the value of filler advertising in 2020
https://coderanch.com/t/730886/filler-advertising
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic