From Friday, South Africa will most probably be gripped by the worst strike in a decade when the one million public sector workers will go on strike. The are demanding a 13% increase in pay, whilst government is offering them 6%.

The problem is that it is ALL public sectors that will begoing on strike. This includes docters and nurses in the public health sector, policemen etc.

The question is now being asked. In the old days it was ilegal for these people to strike, but under the Const. it is now allowed.

What do you all think? Should the providers of essential service like health and safety have the right to strike?


AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

There should be no strikes at all, because there should be no unions.

Think for yourselves, and get control of your own lives, sheep.

You do realize that the second sentence contradicts the first, right?

__________________
Man up.

How so? To belong to a union is to forfeit your individuality. Union members do not control their own destiny, as far as their work goes. Union workers who excel at their jobs get the same pay that scrubs get, that do "good enough." They can not negotiate their own wages, rather they are at the mercy of "the vote." If they don't like it...too bad, drone bee. You're "union."

Public employees should not be allowed to strike in any circumstances. There should be no restrictions on the right of private sector employees to unionize and strike (and, in turn, no restrictions on the right of their employers to fire them). However, government employees (and my father is one, so I have nothing against them personally) get their pay from coercive taxation, and as such they must, as long as they are receiving tax money, continue to serve the public that pays them. If taxation is involuntary, so must working be for as long as one is receiving tax dollars.

Moreover, to strike against public safety is immoral in the extreme. What these police officers are saying with their actions is that they care more about that extra 7% pay increase than about the lives of those whom they agreed to protect from horrendous crimes. That is itself severely criminal.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

I agree with Force. Unions are part of a free market, provided the government does not take sides and simply enforces contracts and ensures no violence takes place. The public sector is not part of the free market and therefore the government can regulate rights to unionize and strike. In emergency-related positions this should include a ban on striking.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

At base, a union is workers banding together to equalize the unequal power relationship with their employer. It is workers taking control of their own destiny.

Not true. Unions negotiate *minimum* pay scales. Nothing stops an employer from paying above scale, or an employee from negotiating for such a raise.

__________________
Man up.

Java. I do not agree that public sector workers should not be allowed to unionize and or strike. Why should the state be allowed to not treat it's workers fairly. The state is a normal employer, and therefor there can not be special rules for them. Also, not all sectors are totally not part of free market. Take hospitals for instance, SA has state owned hospitals and private ones, so there is a element of choice and therefor free market.

But having said all that, I think SA should return to the old system where certain jobs are classified as 'essential services' and they should not be allowed to strike, even though there should be other ways for them to handle grieviances. I just read that the Teachers Union is now also joining the strike, and they are another group I think should not strike.

But to be fair, some of these people have fair grieviances. I remember about 3 years ago, one of the provinces teachers had a strike over pay. The public was very upset, untill it became public that this province (Limpopo) have not given their teachers a raise in 5 years!

AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

Not necessarily saying that public sector workers should not be able to strike... just that it is justifiable. And I think there should be some way for people working in essential services to take care of grievances... just not through striking.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

You can't really make an argument one way or the other on this.

If a group of people who work in the same industry all decide not to go to work for a few weeks until something is changed there is not too much that can be done to stop them.

The only option is for the employer to hire new people or negotiate.

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights