Should Public Transit Workers be Allowed to Strike?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Simonius They must not strike because they have duty that transcends normal careers, it is not forgivable for policemen, or medical staff to go on strike. At the same time without their right to strike their rights are worthless. That is essentially the crux of what I am saying!

"A duty that transcends normal careers", does that come with an ability to leap tall buildings?

It basically gets down to the bottom line ,
"PRODUCTION" whether it be a policeman upholding the law or a doctor preforming surgery or a coal miner digging a tunnel, BELONGS to the worker.
It is their decision to perform or withhold that labour as they see fit.

[Simonius]

Quote by: SoylentGreen "A duty that transcends normal careers", does that come with an ability to leap tall buildings? It basically gets down to the bottom line , "PRODUCTION" whether it be a policeman upholding the law or a doctor preforming surgery or a coal miner digging a tunnel, BELONGS to the worker. It is their decision to perform or withhold that labour as they see fit.

Thats fine for a factory worker or a lawyer, but not a doctor or a policeman. If they don't feel a sense of duty then they should quit in favour of a better person.

But on the other hand such people should not feel the need to strike, because their service should be respected.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Simonius Thats fine for a factory worker or a lawyer, but not a doctor or a policeman. If they don't feel a sense of duty then they should quit in favour of a better person.

I understand this sense of duty thing you are talking about , but reality check here. Doctors and policemen do go on strike because they know they can get , and feel entitled to a better deal.
The sense of duty argument is often brought up , but can be countered with the idea that the workers in general acknowledge that their present employment contract is unfair and disrespects their sense of duty.

But on the other hand such people should not feel the need to strike, because their service should be respected

Exactly, And in this wonderful rampant capitalist economy respect comes with a $.

But on the other hand the workers and management should be able to put facts and figures together to justify their cases. Not rely on emotive arguments such as duty and honor which belong more in the tabloids.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Derach If they are 'public' workers (ie. the citizens are their bosses) ... there should be a vote to determine whether the striking workers should be terminated.

Do you really believe this "the citizens are their bosses" crap? I dare you to walk into some government office and start giving orders as if you're the boss and see what happens.

In other words, the public should determine if the service being rendered is worth whatever the union is demanding. Presumably, if the working conditions, compensation, and benefits are unacceptable, the public would be unable to hire replacment workers, and the forces of free market would prevail (as they always should) and the workers would eventually get what the union was rallying for in the first place.

Since these are government employees, the public in many places will automatically assume they already make too much money and have too many benefits.

If the service can be performed by menial labor (like passing out toll tickets at an interstate), perhaps the demands of a union for good benefits and wages are not worthy of the job being performed. On the other hand, if EMT's are looking for more ... well, the public should determine the importance of the service being provided.

What planet are you on? I don't know of any place in America where the public thinks government workers don't make enough money or get enough in benefits.

[Anmon]

force them back onto the buses at gunpoint, only bludgers strike.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Anmon force them back onto the buses at gunpoint, only bludgers strike.

Freakin communists!

[gela]

If they are being underappreciated, then striking is the only way to show the world how important they are, and gain some appreciation/extra cash.

Everyone is allowed that right

[grandpa]

Quote by: gela If they are being underappreciated, then striking is the only way to show the world how important they are, and gain some appreciation/extra cash. Everyone is allowed that right

If you feel you could make more, or that you're being underappreciated, you can always go on strike.
People the right to work, or to not work.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

It just seems dumb to me, to be able to deny someones right not to work. Any of the workers who wishes to should stay at work.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: gela If they are being underappreciated, then striking is the only way to show the world how important they are, and gain some appreciation/extra cash. Everyone is allowed that right

There is no right to force other people to appreciate you. Do your job well and decent people will appreciate you and nothing will get the small number of ungrateful people to have any appreciation for anyone.

[lsbskins1]

I have a hard time understanding the twisted logic that goes on around here sometimes. First of all, if you can be fired for exercising your right to strike, it is not, then, a right. It is like saying that you have freedom of speech as long as you accept the fact that you can be arrested for exercising that right. Second, being uneducated, undereducated or stupid does not mean the more educated or better compensated have the right to pay you anything they damn well please. That argument is stupid on it's face. It makes no more logical or moral sense than arguing that you should be paid less as a doctor if you can't dunk a basketball. If I can do the job without the skill and the wage is unfair, the wage is unfair. Nobody is suggesting that unskilled labor be paid at the same rate as skilled labor. What is being suggested is that striking is sometimes the only way to insure that compensation is rational and just.

[gela]

There is no right to force other people to appreciate you. Do your job well and decent people will appreciate you and nothing will get the small number of ungrateful people to have any appreciation for anyone.

What about when your boss is the one depreciating you, and it shows through your low pay?
Then do you have a right to stand up and prove your value?

[Simonius]

Quote by: Chancellor There is no right to force other people to appreciate you. Do your job well and decent people will appreciate you and nothing will get the small number of ungrateful people to have any appreciation for anyone.

How much do you appreciate the children who made your trainers for pennies in a vietnamese sweat shop? That is why workers need rights.

[Derach]

Are we talking about the 'right' to refuse to work without reprocussions to employers? ... That's just nuts! ...(even on my planet, Chancellor). Workers (in most democracies/republics) have the right to find alternate employment, or even to start their own businesses and hire their own labor. Businesses (should) have the right to terminate employees for causes like refusing to work. They should also have the right to find people willing to work for less than organized labor unions are demanding. Even more so if the jobs are in the public sector (where they are presumably more important than 'menial' labor).

We have the right to pursue an avenue of employment on an equal playing field ... we don't have the right to place a stranglehold on a business or industry by preventing them from hiring willing employees in order to further our own greedy and lazy whims. Don't like how your employer treats you? ... Start your own competing company and put your former employer out of business .... that's how many of the most successful companies in America started.

It doesn't help consumers, businesses, or ultimately the work force as a whole to basically quit your job hoping they will cave to demands.

Besides, how many people do you really think are being paid what THEY think they are worth (not what the market dictates they are worth ... as should be in a FREE market) ....

Allowing workers to strike without consequence is a socialist value that only hinders the consumers ability to make choices about how to interact in the economy. Completely adversary to capitalism and free market economic theory.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Simonius How much do you appreciate the children who made your trainers for pennies in a vietnamese sweat shop?

My what?

That is why workers need rights.

Rights are for individuals, not groups.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Derach Are we talking about the 'right' to refuse to work without reprocussions to employers? ... That's just nuts! ...(even on my planet, Chancellor).

That's exactly what these communists are talking about. Of course, there is a great deal of precedent for this, particularly in America.

Workers (in most democracies/republics) have the right to find alternate employment, or even to start their own businesses and hire their own labor. Businesses (should) have the right to terminate employees for causes like refusing to work. They should also have the right to find people willing to work for less than organized labor unions are demanding. Even more so if the jobs are in the public sector (where they are presumably more important than 'menial' labor).

Should but, thanks to the big government nanny staters, don't.

We have the right to pursue an avenue of employment on an equal playing field ... we don't have the right to place a stranglehold on a business or industry by preventing them from hiring willing employees in order to further our own greedy and lazy whims. Don't like how your employer treats you? ... Start your own competing company and put your former employer out of business .... that's how many of the most successful companies in America started.

But then came the labor unions and the result was that American businesses can't compete in the global economy because labor costs have priced them out of the market.

It doesn't help consumers, businesses, or ultimately the work force as a whole to basically quit your job hoping they will cave to demands.

What these idiots in the unions don't realize is that cost to the company of the $20 an hour unions extorted for janitors at an automobile plant gets passed on to the consumers in higher prices for cars.

Besides, how many people do you really think are being paid what THEY think they are worth (not what the market dictates they are worth ... as should be in a FREE market) ....

I don't know of too many people who earn anything near what they think they should make.

Allowing workers to strike without consequence is a socialist value that only hinders the consumers ability to make choices about how to interact in the economy. Completely adversary to capitalism and free market economic theory.

Well, at least with regard to things like wages and benefits.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor Rights are for individuals, not groups.

That's hilarious. Are individuals not members of groups?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor That's exactly what these communists are talking about. Of course, there is a great deal of precedent for this, particularly in America.

I didn't know everyone who supported strike is a "communist."

And what are you talking about, "particularly in America"? Strikes can happen all over the place -- thanks more to capitalism than to communism.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I have a hard time understanding the twisted logic that goes on around here sometimes. First of all, if you can be fired for exercising your right to strike, it is not, then, a right.

It isn't a right.

It is like saying that you have freedom of speech as long as you accept the fact that you can be arrested for exercising that right.

And yet the big government nanny state your leftist buddies have helped create does exactly that. Ever notice the police at protest rallies? Ever notice that the government (utterly contrary to the Constitution for which you have so much contempt) has come up with such infringements on free speech as requiring a permit to protest, creating "free speech zones," and the like? Excuse me? Why the hell should I have to get permission from the government to protest the government?

Second, being uneducated, undereducated or stupid does not mean the more educated or better compensated have the right to pay you anything they damn well please. That argument is stupid on it's face.

No, the reason they can pay you whatever they damn well please is because they're the employer and you're asking them for the job. Now, if you weren't quite so stupid, you'd negotiate with the rate of pay with the employer, keeping in mind, of course, that when there's a large number of people competing for the same job the employer is going to get pretty much what he wants. It's only when there's a considerable shortage of labor that the employees are more likely to get a higher wage.

It makes no more logical or moral sense than arguing that you should be paid less as a doctor if you can't dunk a basketball.

No, you're the one not making sense now.

If I can do the job without the skill and the wage is unfair, the wage is unfair.

The only "fair" wage is the one you agree to take. Life is unfair, get over it!

Nobody is suggesting that unskilled labor be paid at the same rate as skilled labor.

Oh really? Talk to those damned union rats in the auto plants. Working on an assembly line is unskilled labor and look at what the unions have extorted in wages out of the automobile manufacturers.

What is being suggested is that striking is sometimes the only way to insure that compensation is rational and just.

No, it's extortion and should be treated as such.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor And yet the big government nanny state your leftist buddies have helped create does exactly that.

Since when is censorship of protests a "leftist" phenomenon? When it comes to "the left" in general, the government tries to wipe its ass with them. So again, I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about.

Grandpa h.