Striking

[Steezie]

Should it be illegal for certain people (Or anyboddy for that matter) to stop thier work in order to effect a change in thier work environment?

It is illegal for any employee of the US federal government (As well as certain members of deemed vital occupations such as teachers, firefighters, and police) to strike. Certain employers will require that employees sign a contract that includes an agreement not to strike, violation of this agreement often results in dismissal.

Employers also have legal standing to do what's called a "lockout". A lockout consists of an employer physically preventing (usually by locking the doors to the business) employees from returning to work. This is done to put pressure on employees and labor unions.

Now is this fair practice?

I say no. If a group of employees feels that they are being treated poorly then they should be allowed the right to withdraw thier labor without fear of being punished or fired.

 

[tocis]

If the grievance perceived by the workers is a sufficiently serious one, I say they have the right to strike. But not for trivial matters.

Years ago I read about some workers in Australia who actually went on strike because a distance of some 30 meters between two buildings at work wasn't sheltered, meaning that they would catch some rain in bad weather. What the (beep)?! Never heard of umbrellas et al?

This is the kind of strike I would not condone...

(In the case of EMTs or similar, strike of course mustn't mean that people are actually being harmed or worse. For example, firefighters on strike may refuse to rescue the proverbial kitten out of a tree, but they better not dare to sit in their rooms idly while an apartment building is burning down...)

 

[Ampoliros]

I'm not sure about *anyone* being able to go on strike. I remember hearing that there was some problems about a transit worker strike (link):

The strike brought to a grinding halt all Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses and subways throughout the city. The system averages about 7 million passengers on weekdays....


City officials have said a transit strike could cost the city $440 million to $660 million a day.


Bloomberg said the strike affects everything from the restaurant and hotel industries to working-class New Yorkers who could lose their jobs as a result of the strike...


Traffic clogged all of Manhattan's inbound bridges and tunnels early Tuesday in spite of a city mandate allowing only cars with four or more people entering the borough and traveling below 96th Street. Schools started two hours late.

(bolding mine)

Now, I certainly wouldn't say they shouldn't try to get their workplace demands met...but when you're causing serious harm to an entire city of 20million+ people because of the difference between 8% wages or 6% wages, things seem a bit minor.

 

[Lynden1000]

I'm not sure about *anyone* being able to go on strike. I remember hearing that there was some problems about a transit worker strike (link):

(bolding mine)

Now, I certainly wouldn't say they shouldn't try to get their workplace demands met...but when you're causing serious harm to an entire city of 20million+ people because of the difference between 8% wages or 6% wages, things seem a bit minor.

Good point. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd want to be on bus with a disgruntled worker who is being forced to work and prevented from striking. I can picture him driving the bus all the way across town at 2 mph.

 

[kopilo]

Now, I certainly wouldn't say they shouldn't try to get their workplace demands met...but when you're causing serious harm to an entire city of 20million+ people because of the difference between 8% wages or 6% wages, things seem a bit minor.

I agree, there has to be another avenue for people in these services either then striking.

Good point. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd want to be on bus with a disgruntled worker who is being forced to work and prevented from striking. I can picture him driving the bus all the way across town at 2 mph.

At that speed they wouldn't be doing their job anyway (also they would actually be breaking the law).

I don't believe employers in life critical industries (fire-fighting, medicinal, etc) should be able to legally hold a "lockout" and would be very surprised if they actually would do it without a lot of repercussions from the general public.

 

[Lifesaver]

Employees should have the right to not showing up at work.
On the other hand, of course, employers must have the right to fire everyone whom they wish.

The work agreement can only last while the two parties deem it favourable for themselves.
Surely, there can be provisions and penalties for breaking the contract before a certain term, or without meeting some condition.
But just like an employee can choose not to go to work because they think their salary is too low, the employer can fire the worker whose work they now deem not to be worth the costs they incur for it.

 

[wanderingone]

Well... as a public employee who is not legally allowed to strike I chomp a bit at the notion of not being allowed to have an organized strike however I also realize the danger of allowing those with the ability to shut down a city to be able to hold that over the negotiating table.

Part of the problem is when public employees strike we're not taking a bite out of the profits of our employer.. we're taking away the rights to services the public is paying for.. and they don't get to say "no work, no pay.." their taxes keep on coming out of their checks.

I understand the fine line.. I personally come down on the side of the line thinking all workers should have not only the right to organize but to an all out job action if reasonable demands are not met at the negotiating table...

 

[ebia]

Should it be illegal for certain people (Or anyboddy for that matter) to stop thier work in order to effect a change in thier work environment?

Yes, unless suitable and fair alternative arrangements for negotiation are put in place.

If you need to prevent a particular group from striking you must first put in place equitable and independent alternative arrangements for resolving disputes.

 

[wanderingone]

I'm not sure about *anyone* being able to go on strike. I remember hearing that there was some problems about a transit worker strike (link):

(bolding mine)

Now, I certainly wouldn't say they shouldn't try to get their workplace demands met...but when you're causing serious harm to an entire city of 20million+ people because of the difference between 8% wages or 6% wages, things seem a bit minor.

The TWU really pushed it... but I can't say I disagreed with them...of course I had already moved out of NYC when the transit workers pushed the envelope on legal striking.....so I didn't have to worry about getting from here to there you think those percentages are minor but if you worked for years with increases of even less.. and your city's transit system is operating with a surplus and none of the employees who helped run the system during that surplus gets to see an increase you might be inclined to say you've had enough and refuse to get behind the wheel on those buses yourself.

 

[Rorshack]

Hrmm, too cold to do in winter. Oh you mean striking not streeking.