I've a strong opinion that strikes should remain legal but have the implication that the participants volunteer themselves for redundancy. i.e. If someone else is willing and able to do the job for the existing working conditions and existing pay then striking to better your own conditions will only result in you being replaced.
Allowing strikes in their current form (i.e. where the strike participants are protected from dismissal by law) means that essentials can hold the country to ransom.
Where does the boundary between strikes and terrorism begin and end?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-09 08:10 am (UTC)Allowing strikes in their current form (i.e. where the strike participants are protected from dismissal by law) means that essentials can hold the country to ransom.
Where does the boundary between strikes and terrorism begin and end?