Govrnment employee strikes

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2002-12-10 08:09am

Well, in my English class today we were discussing if government employees should be allowed to strike if they are underpaid, in order to get higer wages. The issue went unreasolved (well, it was a speech excersise, after all, not a formal debate), but it managed to slip into a morality discussion.

So, I am giving the board denizens a moral question...well, sort of: If a group of underpaid government employees (like, for example, nurses, doctors or policemen) decide to go on strike as a last-ditch method of increasing their pay, would it be moral to fire them for this?

I myself am uncertain of this. On one hand, you've got critical services, like police, that can cause a great deal of damage if their employees go on strike. On the other hand, these are people we're talking about, and they've got families to support, and in some countries (like where I live) they are paid like shit.

Thoughts, comments?

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-10 10:12am

If you pay emergency services people like shit, you get shitty work out of them. Pay them a decent wage, especially cops, and that will save money in the long run. (Less corruption, better hospital services, etc.)

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2002-12-10 10:21am

True enough, and it is my opinion that you should avoid giving those people a reason to strike in the first place. But let's assume that they DO go on strike. Would you fire them all, or try to negotiate, or do something else entirely?

EDIT: Fixed a little typo

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-10 12:49pm

In the long run it will be better to negotiate. What's to stop the next batch from striking if they end up getting the same shitty wages?

Besides, you used to have people that wanted to do the police work, nursing, etc. Now how are you going to get?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-10 01:11pm

I think it should be taken on a case by case basis. Plenty of strike happen because of some terrible treatment of the employees. And there are strikes that happen because the unions are acting selfishly.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-12-10 05:18pm

When members of an essential city service strike, it's putting people at risk. It should be dealt with swiftly, either with negotiations, or just giving into their demands if they keep the strike up, if the demands aren't too much. However, some might exploit this and give themselves raise after raise, sort of like how people exploit the US Justice System to start frivolous, baseless lawsuits that an exorbitant amount of money.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2002-12-10 05:39pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:When members of an essential city service strike, it's putting people at risk. It should be dealt with swiftly, either with negotiations, or just giving into their demands if they keep the strike up, if the demands aren't too much. However, some might exploit this and give themselves raise after raise, sort of like how people exploit the US Justice System to start frivolous, baseless lawsuits that an exorbitant amount of money.

Actually, that's what happening here right now. At the beginning of the year, there were several road blockades organized by farmers who couldn't sell their products and demanded that the government buys it. The government did. Then, the nurses came out on the streets, demanding a pay rise. Then the miners and shipyard workers. Now pretty damned everyone thinks they can just go out with transparents, throw some eggs at municipial buildings and bully the Parliament into giving them what they want.
A year before I was for reasonable negotiation. Right now I'm getting more and more drawna towards the options of using live ammunition the next time some fucked-up weirdos start throwing firecrackers with ballbearing spheres taped to them at the police...