Should Public Transit Workers be Allowed to Strike?

[ibeeberz]

Hey, i'm a little new so let me know if i'm doing anything wrong.

I am going to the final debate championship and have prepared to support "Public Transit workers should not be permitted to strike".

The problem is I need more than the simple obvious, that public transit strikes, especially ones on short notice and in densely populated cities, cripples the city and affects way too many people. There should be more concrete facts about why they should not be allowed to strike, just like police officers and firemen.

Discuss and help :)

[ibeeberz]

In Toronto we recently had a 'wildcat' public transit strike that came unexpectedly without notice. This caused great distress as it crippled the city. Anybody know of any other case studies or examples of pub.transit strikes causing major reprecussions?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: ibeeberz "Public Transit workers should not be permitted to strike". The problem is I need more than the simple obvious, that public transit strikes, especially ones on short notice and in densely populated cities, cripples the city and affects way too many people. There should be more concrete facts about why they should not be allowed to strike, just like police officers and firemen.

(Scratches head, puzzled) What do you mean, police and firemen are not allowed to strike? Sorry, but which third world banana republic do you live in?

cripples the city and affects way too many people.

Which is a trivial complaint compared to living in a country where the government is allowed to curtail the peoples rights and freedom to express themselves.

There should be more concrete facts about why they should not be allowed to strike, .

True and seeing as your say "more", then I can assume you have some concrete facts already? Try posting them. I suspect the concrete was laid by management , so is probably a shoddy job.

[ibeeberz]

[quote=SoylentGreen;502876](Scratches head, puzzled) What do you mean, police and firemen are not allowed to strike? Sorry, but which third world banana republic do you live in?

It's called Canada, and i just need some concrete ideas

[Matt W]

Of course they should. I go to London most weekends, and am always prepared to deal with the eventuality of a strike.

At the end of the day, there are other ways to get where you're going aside from public transport. It's an inconvenience, but if they have a legitimate dispute, who cares?

[The Dunedan]

Of course they should be allowed to strike, it's not the business of the State to prohibit people from acting in their own best interests or to prohibit them from peaceably assembling to attempt to redress a grievance.

However, their bosses (in this case, the State) should also be allowed to shitcan their asses if they don't show up for work. Freedom of association carries with it the corresponding freedom of DISassociation; ie an employer has the perfect right to fire someone who doesn't do his job (ie doesn't come to work and makes a neusance of himself with a big sign).

Freedom cuts both ways.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Pay em a fair wage and they're unlikely to strike. Any excessive strikes will be handled by the fact that mobs of transportationless citizens will descend on union headquarters. Many other industries can have devastating affects if they are shut down, but do we really want government support of management reminiscient of the late 19th century? In a free society, any group of workers should be able to organize any way they like, but, like Dunedan says, they do so at their jobs' peril.

[SoylentGreen]

[quote=ibeeberz;502881]

Quote by: SoylentGreen It's called Canada, and i just need some concrete ideas

IN my country wild cat strikes are illegal. A union can be fined for calling one. There must first be seen to be fair and equitable talks between the groups concerned and then warning must be given of strike notice.
The same goes before managment can order a lockout.

[Osborn F Enready]

Individual rights exist whether or not a government recognizes them, and in my opinion they should be obviously allowed to strike as they have the same rights as any other workers.

If the city doesn't want to be hurt by striking workers they should have another system to compete with the current system, or treat their employees to the point they DON'T strike.

Removing a person of their right to strike is impossible without the use of force, and if force is being used against people for simply refusing to work, its obviously either a forced labor camp or a police state.

[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.

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. 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.

[Simonius]

Quote by: ibeeberz Hey, i'm a little new so let me know if i'm doing anything wrong. I am going to the final debate championship and have prepared to support "Public Transit workers should not be permitted to strike". The problem is I need more than the simple obvious, that public transit strikes, especially ones on short notice and in densely populated cities, cripples the city and affects way too many people. There should be more concrete facts about why they should not be allowed to strike, just like police officers and firemen. Discuss and help :)

If you do not allow them to strike then you ultimately do not allow them to defend their rights as workers, and if the Government and the law are unwilling or unable to defend their rights (which will inevitably happen at some point) then their rights will not be defended and those rights will not exist.

Logically people should never strike, because in a properly run society there should never be a legitimate reason to strike. The laws of the land should make clear the duties and responsibilities of both parties, and if one side has a legitimate greviance then it will be upheld by the law.

But of course things are never that simple.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Simonius If you do not allow them to strike then you ultimately do not allow them to defend their rights as workers, and if the Government and the law are unwilling or unable to defend their rights (which will inevitably happen at some point) then their rights will not be defended and those rights will not exist. Logically people should never strike, because in a properly run society there should never be a legitimate reason to strike.

True, and if all people felt in control of their own labor, we wouldn't even need strikes. There are simple principles in my argument, and you can look them up of course.

However, I disagree with the premise that "rights will not exist" where government and law" are "unwilling or unable" to defend them. Rights exist wherever they are perceived, regardless of formal social structure. In fact, to think rights can only be enforced by law is a fundamental attack on the idea. If we depended on legal initiative -- that is, the initiative of bureaucratic policymakers -- for all our rights, we'd essentially be human cattle, all penned up with no freedom to move around independently.

However, the view that rights and virtually everything else must be formally regulated is widespread. Looking through Google Groups just now, I found the following quote which sums it up nicely: "The only reason...solar energy is not being used on a widespread basis is that nobody's come up with a way to run
a sunbeam through a meter yet." Of course, that's only true if solar energy technology remains in elite hands.

Grandpa h.

[Simonius]

Quote by: grandpa However, I disagree with the premise that "rights will not exist" where government and law" are "unwilling or unable" to defend them. Rights exist wherever they are perceived, regardless of formal social structure. In fact, to think rights can only be enforced by law is a fundamental attack on the idea. If we depended on legal initiative -- that is, the initiative of bureaucratic policymakers -- for all our rights, we'd essentially be human cattle, all penned up with no freedom to move around independently.

Well what I really meant was, in effect those rights, or the ability to enjoy those rights will cease to exist. It depends on wether or not rights are concessions granted by the elite to appease a riotous mob, or unalienable birthrights that are owed to us... which is quite an academic distinction.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Simonius Well what I really meant was, in effect those rights, or the ability to enjoy those rights will cease to exist. It depends on wether or not rights are concessions granted by the elite to appease a riotous mob, or unalienable birthrights that are owed to us...

That we need a formal government for rights to "exist" is the proposition in
question. I wouldn't say the question should be ignored altogether, but the answer is so obvious I shouldn't have to mention it. We have rights so long as they are perceived. We might perceive them incoherently, but thy'd still exist in our minds.

Grandpa h.

[Simonius]

Quote by: grandpa That we need a formal government for rights to "exist" is the proposition in question. I wouldn't say the question should be ignored altogether, but the answer is so obvious I shouldn't have to mention it. We have rights so long as they are perceived. We might perceive them incoherently, but thy'd still exist in our minds. Grandpa h.

Well as I say, you can't really insist on what the proposition is in question whilst not defining the terms of reference.

[another day]

Ok so we seem to basically agree that transit workers should be able to strike, but what about police officers, hospital workers etc? In those cases there could be a significant amount of lives in danger.

[Domino]

Any job that society seriously can't do without should be paid well enough that a strike would never be necessary.

In general, I believe that, if any significant portion of a profession believes they're not getting a fair deal, they're probably right. After all, it's not like fair deals abound in our economy. A basic tenet of standard business practice is to pay as little as possible for anything, and that includes labor. Fairness is bad for business.

[Simonius]

Quote by: another day Ok so we seem to basically agree that transit workers should be able to strike, but what about police officers, hospital workers etc? In those cases there could be a significant amount of lives in danger.

I suppose I'd accept their right to strike in principle as long as their pay masters accepted that their fair treatment was a law!

So they have a theoretical right to strike, but it is understood it will never happen because their rights will always be upheld and they will not have any legitimate grievances.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Simonius I suppose I'd accept their right to strike in principle as long as their pay masters accepted that their fair treatment was a law! So they have a theoretical right to strike, but it is understood it will never happen because their rights will always be upheld and they will not have any legitimate grievances.

No, why would it be only theoretical? The right to strike is meaningless unless the possibility to do so is also there.
There will always be dispute between workers / management. But the right to strike can take many forms other than out right walk out.
It can be done by holding public demonstrations , going on a go slow and refusing to do necessary paper work.
In my country at least we have the disputes tribunal which allows worker and management to let a third party view the demands and conditions.
We have a young doctors strike going on at the moment.
It is conditional strike as they will return to work in case of emergency but otherwise normal or non urgent surgery does get canceled.
The greedy buggers want a 40% pay rise.

[Simonius]

Quote by: SoylentGreen No, why would it be only theoretical? The right to strike is meaningless unless the possibility to do so is also there. There will always be dispute between workers / management. But the right to strike can take many forms other than out right walk out. It can be done by holding public demonstrations , going on a go slow and refusing to do necessary paper work. In my country at least we have the disputes tribunal which allows worker and management to let a third party view the demands and conditions. We have a young doctors strike going on at the moment. It is conditional strike as they will return to work in case of emergency but otherwise normal or non urgent surgery does get canceled. The greedy buggers want a 40% pay rise.

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!