Strikes poll results!
Recently, workers from various industries have chosen to strike and the news has been full of stories about how communities, and sometimes whole countries, have been disrupted.
This gave us an idea for this week’s poll!
For this poll we asked you to share how you felt about the following statement:
Should everybody be allowed to go on strike?
Here's what you thought:
Over to you!
What's your reaction to these results? For example, were they predictable? Or has something surprised you? Let us know in the comments below!
Comments (147)
Everyone should be allowed to strike so that their terms and conditions can be met.
Can you think of the impact if lots of different types of workers all went on strike at once?
In order to prevent a scenario like that, employers should play their part by meeting their employees needs before it gets to the point on strike.
I agree because if this is done everything will be ok and the economy will grow as people agree on things.
I agree because... if employers did thatthen there wouldn't be strikes
If that happens, then the government must have failed in its responsibilities. In my country, the strike is the only language that the government understand.
It will be a real problem when different important workers go on strike. People have the right to go on strike but they should also think about other people and their families.
In my city, Kaduna there was a strike in May 2021 that involves all workers, the electricity workers turned off the lights, the tanker drivers did not supply fuel, the workers in the water resources company stoped the supply of water and the train service was halted everything was down for 5days. People had no electricity no water and no fuel to fuel their generators. The strike was suspended on 19th May when the federal government summoned both parties for a discussion.
So it will be a real problem every different workers go on strike at the same time.
The picture is not complete except with everyone working in his area to complete the picture. The society needs all jobs without exception. However, there are daily emergency jobs that we cannot do without, such as the doctor who is needed by patients, and then the teachers who have a role in raising advanced and advanced generations, and the cleaners who reduce the carbon footprint, because without them, pollution and chaos will prevail. And let's not forget the engineer, the blacksmith, and the carpenter. All of these professions are not complete unless they are present together at the same time.
In all seriousness if all workers went on strike at once we have a purge like world , no hospitals no guardi no shop keepers no security simply war in the streets. To prevent this we need to listen to workers problems before they strike which they have every right to do they do a fare days work and there fore deserve a fair days pay they deserve workable conditions and proper treatment from their superiors , workers deserve fair treatment over all ,they don’t just strike for no reason so the only person who can prevent strike is the people who put them in these situations in the first place.
If the workers strike at one time, there is no one to work, so their demands must be fulfilled so that they do not strike
Cessation of work may be the result of conducting a referendum among the workers to decide on declaring this cessation.
I do not agree with you, because if workers or teachers strike, there is no one to teach students, and if students learn, it becomes a development in society, so they must be in agreement because this negatively affects students. ❤️
If lots of different types of workers went on strike at once, it would indeed have a significant impact. Strikes have the potential to disrupt various sectors and industries, affecting the economy, public services, and the overall functioning of society.
When multiple groups of workers go on strike simultaneously, it can amplify the collective voice and draw attention to their demands. It creates a sense of unity and solidarity among different sectors, increasing the visibility and impact of their grievances.
However, the impact of such widespread strikes can be complex and multifaceted. On one hand, it can exert substantial pressure on employers and policymakers to address the concerns and meet the terms and conditions of the workers. It can lead to negotiations, compromises, and ultimately positive changes in working conditions, wages, and other relevant aspects.
On the other hand, simultaneous strikes across various sectors can also cause significant disruptions and inconveniences for the general public. Essential services such as healthcare, transportation, and education may be affected, leading to potential hardships and consequences for individuals who rely on these services.
It is important to strike a balance between exercising the right to strike and considering the broader impact on society. While strikes can be an effective tool for advocating for workers' rights and negotiating better conditions, careful planning, dialogue, and communication are necessary to minimize the negative consequences for the general public.
Ultimately, the decision to allow or engage in strikes should be guided by the specific circumstances, the legitimacy of the demands, and the overall well-being of both workers and society as a whole. Open channels of communication and collective bargaining can often provide constructive alternatives to strikes, promoting dialogue and finding mutually beneficial solutions.
If all demands were met for every strike that occurred, what impacts do you think this would have (positive or negative)?
It will have a positive impact because there are strikes that lead to people getting hurt so if the employer meets their employees conditions, it will not result to strike whereas people getting hurt.
This is very true but can only be achieved if employers stop being corrupt,there are very many employers out there who don't value the efforts of their employees they all need to style up.
How do you think employers can show that they value employees?
Yes, employers must appreciate the workers so that they accept the work while they are satisfied and for it to be a profitable business with a satisfied soul. 1- Praising them and thanking them for their work and always motivating them. 2- Granting them leave on special occasions and others. 3- Granting them financial rewards and increasing their salaries.
4- Acting modestly and not showing off in front of them. 5- Resolve differences in a positive way. And many ways all this will lead to evolution. social
Respecting them and providing them with safety, unlike what happens to us, not tiring them, but rather giving them breaks, reducing the number of hours, and giving them a bigger salary, but not in an exaggerated amount. For example, a construction worker wants to take a doctor’s money. This is not permissible. If that happens, the employer can report him or expel him.
Employees, who feel valued at work are happier and less likely to look for other opportunities. Keeping employees valued can create a better atmosphere. There are many ways to show employees how employer values them. For example, listening and taking actions on employee feedback. Knowing the importance of valued employees, it creates a strong company. Thanks to indeed.com for giving some informations about valuing employees.
The employees are valued by:
1. Having a positive attitude and respect towards employees make them feel safe and secured.
2. Celebrating achievements can keep teams and employees engaged.
3. Employers spending time with employees can establish connection between them.
4. One of the best way to show employees that you appreciate them is to offering them bonuses.
5. Sometimes in the workplace, people begin to lose tracks of how their work impact other. Here, personal responsibility plays a role.
Importance of valuing employees:
1. Building trust between employer and employees like value their input and feedback.
2. If employees work are appreciated and valued, they will continue to work hard and it will increase productivity.
3. When employer takes time to know employees, they contribute and show their values this will increase their morality, team department and company morality increases.
How I think employers can show that they value employees:
1. Use simple gestures:
Small, simple gestures can be a powerful way to show your employees you value them. Consider handwritten notes of appreciation, emails expressing your gratitude or personal phone calls of encouragement. These efforts take little time and effort to complete but can have a big impact on your employee's perception of your appreciation. When you notice an employee exceeding expectations, completing tasks outside of their usual responsibilities or needing a bit of encouragement, small gestures that express how much you value them can help employees feel acknowledged and appreciated.
2. Create new opportunities:
Providing opportunities for your employees to develop skills, advance their careers and accept new responsibilities can be a great way to express your belief in their abilities. When employees feel you believe in their ability to succeed, they may more clearly understand the value they bring to your organization. Consider promotions, opportunities to complete projects and asking for your employees' input to provide opportunities for them to succeed and feel valued.
3. Be specific and personal:
In order to most effectively express your appreciation and value of your employees, it may be beneficial to be as specific and personal as possible. To do this, instead of offering generalized comments of praise, do your best to include specific details about your employees' accomplishments. For example, instead of simply saying, "Good job," you could say something more specific, like "Thank you for contributing to the meeting today, your insights were really helpful and I'm glad you had the courage to speak up."
4. Build trust:
Building trust is an essential part of maintaining positive relationships with your employees. Employees who feel you trust them may understand the value of their skills, expertise and contributions to the organization. To show your trust, try not to micromanage or provide too much input for tasks you're sure they can complete independently. Providing your employees with some autonomy can help them feel you trust and value their ability to successfully complete their tasks.
5. Consider internal improvements:
Ensuring your team has the resources they need to succeed can show you value their time and effort. If there are any internal improvements you can make to contribute to your employees' success, consider implementing these changes. This could include updating software, purchasing new office furniture or supplies, ensuring up-to-date technology.
6. Make time to connect:
Making time to connect with your employees is another great way to show how much you value them. Consider organizing company events and activities, like trivia nights or office parties. These types of occasions not only offer an opportunity to get to know your employees on a personal level but can also act as an opportunity for your employees to relax and feel rewarded for their work. Special occasions for connecting with your employees could also include holiday parties, themed parties and company outings.
7. Incorporate mentorship:
Incorporating a mentorship system for new employees can help you communicate the value of even the newest additions to your team. Consider creating a mentorship or buddy policy to pair new employees with experienced members of the staff. Not only does this help the new employees feel valued and welcomed onto the team, but the experienced employees may appreciate being recognized for their experience and your trust in their ability to successfully onboard new team members.
8. Offer ownership:
A powerful way to motivate your employees while showing them you value their efforts is by offering chances to take ownership of important projects and tasks. To do this, reflect on your team members' unique skills, talents and areas of expertise. Then, try to match them with projects or important tasks that are best suited to their skill sets. Offering them ownership of these types of responsibilities shows you trust and value their abilities.
9. Be honest:
Being honest when communicating with your team can help them feel valued by building trust and aligning efforts for improvement. Truthful and transparent feedback can help your team feel you genuinely care about their success and professional development. Whenever possible, be honest about your employees' performances, discuss ways to improve and provide them with the guidance and resources they need to develop their skills.
10. Communicate clearly and often:
Communicating clearly and often can help your employees feel informed about the status of the organization and empowered to make thoughtful decisions about their roles. Consider sending regular organization updates to keep your employees informed about important company events. To do this, you can hold regular company-wide meetings or send out a monthly newsletter that outlines important events and upcoming changes.
11. Reward results:
Rewarding results can be one of the most straightforward ways to show your employees you value them. There are several ways you can reward achievements or exceptional efforts, such as:
1.Thank you notes
2.Gift cards
3.Additional days off
4.Public praise
5.Bonuses
6.An employee of the month award
12. Emphasize well-being:
It's important to encourage employees to prioritize their well-being. Employees who feel healthy and emotionally well are more likely to succeed, be productive and contribute to the success of the organization. To emphasize the importance of well-being, you can implement generous break periods, allow penalty-free leaves of absence for mental health reasons, provide resources that highlight ways to achieve a healthy work-life balance and provide plenty of water and snacks in the office. Placing value on the health and wellness needs.
Above are the ways I think employers can show that they value employees.
Employers can demonstrate that they value their employees in several ways:
1. Fair and Competitive Compensation: Employers should ensure that employees are paid fair wages that are commensurate with their skills, experience, and responsibilities. Offering competitive compensation packages and regular performance-based raises or bonuses can show employees that their efforts are recognized and appreciated.
2. Respect and Recognition: Employers should foster a culture of respect and recognition in the workplace. This includes acknowledging employees' contributions, providing regular feedback, and recognizing their achievements and milestones. Simple gestures like saying "thank you" and showing appreciation for a job well done can go a long way in making employees feel valued.
3. Opportunities for Growth and Development: Employers can demonstrate their commitment to employees' professional growth by providing opportunities for learning, training, and advancement. This can include offering workshops, mentorship programs, tuition reimbursement, or career development plans. Investing in employees' development not only benefits them individually but also contributes to the overall success of the organization.
4. Work-Life Balance: Employers can support employees' well-being by promoting a healthy work-life balance. This can be achieved through flexible work arrangements, paid time off, family-friendly policies, and promoting a supportive and inclusive work environment. Valuing employees' personal lives and creating a positive work atmosphere can enhance their job satisfaction and loyalty.
5. Employee Involvement and Empowerment: Employers should involve employees in decision-making processes and provide opportunities for them to contribute their ideas and opinions. Actively seeking employee input and involving them in shaping company policies and practices can make them feel valued and empowered.
6. Transparent Communication: Employers should establish open and transparent communication channels with their employees. This includes keeping employees informed about company updates, changes, and decisions that may affect them. Regularly communicating organizational goals, objectives, and performance can help employees understand their role in the bigger picture and feel connected to the company's mission.
By implementing these practices, employers can demonstrate that they genuinely value their employees' efforts and contributions, fostering a positive and productive work environment.
I disagree with you. Do you think that injuring people can benefit the workers? It is true that the employer will fulfill their requests after seeing the losses, but this will cause people to be injured, and with the repetition of that matter, the number of state personnel will decrease significantly and noticeably.
I agree because... Setting appropriate conditions and adhering to them will lead to impressive results such as non-strike and people not being affected or losing anything else
I disagree because first of all the employer can't see every employee's need but the employer can approve another employee to take care of the other employees. And secondly in strikes the common people should not get any hurt if the strikers do so they will be getting the punishment accordingly in the court.
THANK YOU.
I disagree because... The aim of a strike is to convince the employer to meet the demands of the workers, not to hurt innocent people. strikes are naturally supposed to be peaceful because the workers just decide not to work. But if strikes become violent, the government may decide to ban them to avoid the violence it brings. Strikes are just supposed to convince the employer that they are at a loss if they don't meet their demands and not to cause trouble which could lead to the death of people.
If a strike becomes violent, is it still a strike? Or should it then be classed as something else, for example, a riot?
Well yes I think it should be classified as a riot. A strike is a type of protest but it is peaceful most of the time. The aim isn't to hurt anyone but to achieve better working conditions. If the number of violent strikes should increase, workers may lose it as a right and they would have to either suffer in silence or take drastic measures.
YES, it should be classified as a strike if there is an understandable reason for example workers of the government have not been paid for three consecutive months and still the government is doing nothing ,for the government to be alerted and alarmed a riot strike must be organized because their rights are not being fulfilled.
You make a valid point. Strikes are intended to be peaceful actions where workers withhold their labor to pressure employers to meet their demands. When a strike turns violent and results in harm to people or property, it can no longer be considered a peaceful strike but may be classified as something else, such as a riot or violent protest.
The distinction between a strike and a riot is important because strikes are generally protected as a fundamental right in many democratic societies. They serve as a means for workers to collectively express their grievances and negotiate better working conditions, wages, or other demands. Riots, on the other hand, involve violence, destruction, and pose a threat to public safety.
When a strike becomes violent, it not only deviates from its original purpose but also undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the workers' cause. Violence can distract from the core issues, alienate public support, and lead to negative consequences for both the striking workers and the general public.
Furthermore, governments and authorities may be prompted to intervene if a strike turns violent in order to maintain law and order. This could result in restrictions, bans, or other measures that limit the right to strike altogether, which can be detrimental to the workers' ability to advocate for their rights.
It is crucial for workers and organizers to promote non-violence and maintain peaceful means of expressing their demands during strikes. Peaceful strikes are more likely to garner public support, encourage dialogue and negotiation, and achieve meaningful outcomes without jeopardizing the safety and well-being of others.
strikes are intended to be peaceful actions that aim to bring attention to workers' demands. When a strike becomes violent, it deviates from its original purpose and may be considered a different type of action, such as a riot. By maintaining non-violent means of expression, workers can uphold the integrity and effectiveness of their cause while preserving the right to strike as an essential tool for collective bargaining.
It has a positive effect. If the striker takes his right or his demands, he will perform his work to the fullest, and he will be sincere in the institution in which he works, and he will have a positive impact on the success of the institution.
I respect your opinion, but what about the negative effects, such as deaths, injuries, or even the demolition of buildings that are being built, and many others, all of which are behind the implementation of the strike?
Personally, I think that this would have a mix of both. It really depends on the Employee's character. Some Employees may take advantage of this, and start striking over the tiniest of problems purely because they know that no matter what, their cause for striking will be improved upon, and they can get whatever they want. However, this could also have a positive impact because we would need less strikes for people to get better pay and working conditions.
To sum my point up, whether it would have a positive or negative impact is based on the Employee. There is no way to know for sure if all demands being met would be a good thing or a bad thing.
Not all strikes are reasonable, some lack a proper driving force or motive. We all know pressure groups are an organized group of people that have similar occupations, now the main function of this group is to try as much as possible to influence government policies for the benefit of their members regardless the cost. This simply means that these people can declare strikes inorder to increase thier pay even if it comes at the cost of another groups salary now get me right, they are receiving a reasonable amount but they desire more at the cost of another group's salary, surely that can't happen. The government have prepared a budget and so therefore, they can't distort their budget for a groups selfish desire it sure can't work.
If such a strikes demands are met, it will give a negative impact because the citizens will use strikes as a means of manipulating and exploiting the system instead of a means of enhancing justice also, if such a strikes demands are met it will distort the country's budget.
Hi, Olivia @ KPMG,
If all demands were met for every strike that occurred, it would have both positive and negative impacts.
Positive impacts would be:
Improved working conditions: Meeting the demands of the workers or teachers on strike would lead to improved working conditions, such as better pay, benefits, and job security. This would enhance the overall well-being of the employees and potentially increase their motivation and dedication to their work.
Increased job satisfaction: Addressing the demands of the workers would contribute to higher job satisfaction levels. Satisfied workers are more likely to perform better and be more productive, which can positively impact the quality of education provided to students.
Enhanced social justice: Meeting the demands of the workers would promote social justice and fairness, ensuring that their rights and needs are recognized and met. This can have a positive societal impact, fostering a more equitable and inclusive environment.
Negative impacts would be:
Disruption of education: Strikes can lead to a disruption in the regular functioning of educational institutions. If demands are met for every strike, frequent disruptions in the form of strikes could hinder the continuity of education, negatively affecting students' learning outcomes and progress.
Financial strain: Meeting the demands of every strike could impose a significant financial burden on the institutions or organizations responsible for providing education. This may result in budget cuts for other important areas, potentially compromising the quality of education in the long run.
Loss of instructional time: Extended strikes can lead to a loss of instructional time, which is crucial for students' academic development. Students may fall behind in their curriculum, and it could be challenging to make up for the lost time and ensure they receive a comprehensive education.
While meeting the demands of every strike can bring positive changes for workers and teachers, it is essential to find a balance that considers the overall well-being of both the educational workforce and the students. Striking a fair compromise that addresses concerns without causing significant disruptions to the education system is crucial for sustainable development in society.
If the strike is permissible for everyone, then it is not possible to control matters in the state, because if each individual does not have his demands, then he must demand them before striking, and if he does not respond to them, they strike, and it is not necessary for all reasons to strike, so it is valid as a right for all, but when You ask this demand, if you are not answered then strike.
The right to strike is a fundamental human right recognized by international law and many countries' constitutions. It allows workers to withhold their labor as a means of collective bargaining and negotiating better working conditions, wages, and benefits with their employers.
However, while strikes can be an effective tool for workers to demand fair treatment and improved working conditions, they can also have negative consequences for both workers and employers. Strikes can disrupt business operations, damage relationships between employers and employees, and have negative economic impacts.
As such, it's important to strike a balance between the right to strike and the need to maintain productivity and economic stability. This can be achieved through fair labor laws that provide for the right to strike while also setting reasonable limits on its use.
In conclusion, while the right to strike is an important tool for workers to demand better conditions, it should be exercised responsibly and in a way that doesn't harm the economy or the interests of other parties involved.
I disagree because... if some workers go on strike for example police, doctors, nurses, etc. It would be bad for the people who need help them. Imagine if there's a burglary or shooting at a place there will be no one to go and stop it because the polices are on strike, and if a person has been seriously injured and is on the verge of death, he or she cannot be saved due to the strike of the doctors and nurses. Therefore not everyone should be allowed to strike, if they want their terms and conditions to be met they can protest about it instead of stopping their work.
I reject that. Can you think of the negative effects of it? Well, I will give you some of these effects. Causing deaths, injuries, not treating people with chronic diseases, causing thefts and lack of security, not completing studies and not completing houses whose construction has not been completed. You say that it has only positives, and this I add For some negatives, see your point of view
I think everyone should be able to strike because it will in the long run benefit everyone. I think that if people are going to strike if they get to terms that they agree to, they will want to do better work and overall have a better reason to work, producing better work.
I think that everyone should be allowed to strike but the strike should be regulated by the workers because it still has a big impact on the masses. This is because services that are meant to be provided are not as the workers are on the strike action.
Which group of workers might have the biggest impact in this way if they choose to strike? Which service is affected?
Doctors, the police and the teacher are the most harmful categories of work. If a strike is taken, doctors and the affected service can cause deaths, the police, if they strike, security is absent, and the teacher, if they strike, may lead to ignorance. Construction workers, if they go on strike, may cause construction not to be enabled. There are houses when It should not be delayed in building it, and many other such works
In my opinion i think health workers, teachers, police, firefighters,military personnel and airport staff will have the biggest impact on the society if they choose to strike. If health workers are on strike, the people will have no one to attend to them when they are sick or injured thereby leading to the loss of lives. If the police and military personnels go on strike, crime rate will no doubt increase which will also lead to the loss of lives and property. If firefighters go on strike it will also lead to loss of lives and property. If teachers go on strike, the money of parents will be wasted and the learning process of students will have to come to a halt. If airport staff go on strike, people won't be able to reach their intended destinations therefore causing a lot of problems. Due to this, countries like Japan has prohibited particular groups of workers from going on strike, although i do not support it because it should be their right.
If a group of workers chooses to strike, the impact can vary depending on the industry and the specific services they provide. However, there are some sectors where strikes can have a significant impact on the masses. Some of them include:
Transportation workers: Strikes by transportation workers, such as bus drivers, train operators, or airline staff, can have a substantial impact on the public. This can disrupt the daily commute of individuals, affect the movement of goods and services, and cause inconvenience for a large number of people who rely on public transportation.
Healthcare workers: Strikes by healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses, and support staff, can significantly impact the delivery of medical services. It can lead to the closure of hospitals or clinics, delay essential medical procedures, and affect patient care. The public's access to healthcare services may be compromised during such strikes.
Education workers: Strikes by teachers and education support staff can disrupt the functioning of schools and educational institutions. It can result in the closure of schools, cancellation of classes, and interruptions in students' learning process. Parents may face challenges in arranging alternative childcare or educational support during these strikes.
Public service workers: Strikes by public service workers, such as government employees in sectors like law enforcement, sanitation, or municipal services, can have a significant impact on the community. It can lead to disruptions in public safety, waste management, maintenance of public facilities, and other essential services that people rely on for their daily lives.
Utility workers: Strikes by workers in the utility sector, including electricity, water, or gas providers, can cause inconvenience and disruption for the general public. It can result in power outages, water shortages, or heating and cooling issues, affecting individuals, businesses, and public facilities.
It's important to note that the impact of strikes can vary depending on the specific context and the extent of participation by workers. The larger the scale and the longer the duration of the strike, the greater the impact is likely to be on the affected services and the general public.
I agree with you but the employees can not set regulations on their own, the state has to come up with laws that will enable all masses to have positive strikes.
Can you explain what you mean by a "positive strike", quick_lime?
In response to your question, I think a positive strike is the refusal to work for a reasonable and acceptable reason. For example, a worker refuses to work because there is no availability of quality materials to care for its customers or patients
It is positive but if doctors refuse to work, it will affect us so much. The death rates will be so high since there will be no one to treat people if they fall sick.And if teachers refuse to work, there will be high rates of illiteracy since there will be no one to teach students.So stopping to work affects so much. You would rather strike so that your issue is worked upon very fast.
I agree that if doctors strike it will affect us so much. But would you rather still have them use faulty equipments on their customers or patients thereby endangering their lives and putting guilt and regret in the minds of the doctors. The same case applies to the teachers, if they lack the right resources to care and fend for themselves how do you think they would have the zeal to be hardworking and impact in the lives of the students. I suggest in order to solve strike, I think that essential professions should be allowed to strike but for a limited time and the government should be informed forehand before it is carried out.
I agree because...
This is true, not every strike is caused by the work manager, perhaps the company has a shortage of funds, so he may not receive his full salary, so a law must be drawn up regarding this thing and it must be stipulated that the strike must not be due to suffering financial conditions Including companies or workplaces, but rather because of a lack of a worker’s right, such as the work manager’s condoning the low salary of his worker.
And one more thing, how is the strike? I believe that we have learned what the strike is, its causes and results resulting from it, so this topic has aroused my curiosity, and when I searched for it, this is what I concluded: Both the employer and the competent administrative authority must be notified at least ten days before the date specified for the strike. In all cases, the reasons for the strike and the date of its start and end must be known.
It also concluded that workers are prohibited from calling or announcing a strike with the intention of amending a collective labor agreement during its validity period.
Before the strike, they should try to raise their demands and claims to those responsible for them before the strike, in order to avoid its problems and the consequences of that, as the strike is a right for everyone, but they must be raised. Demands and problems, and if they are not resolved and compensated for this shortfall, they resort to striking
I agree because... if every one is allowed to strike, people will be able to express their problems.But they should also have a limit to doing this.Strikes have a lot of effects so people who strike should have a clear reason why they are doing so.
I agree with you in everything you said, but why don't we find another way to ensure the safety and satisfaction of everyone, a way to satisfy employers, workers and citizens?
I agree with the previous statement (Strikes should be allowed) because it"s a human right for every one ,and it's the most effective way to get rights that related to wages, improve the life level either for individuals, communities or countries.
To be honest the whole strike has a disastrous impact on all,so what about the partly strike,after trying all ways to solve the issue???
I think it's a big problem. But you mentioned that there are ways to solve this problem. Can you mention it please?
A partial strike is the failure of employees to work more than the minimum required by the rules of their contract, which may cause a slowdown or decrease in production, because they are no longer working during their rest periods....
I think that this strike is less severe than the total strike...and some countries allow this strike, so I don't think that this strike is very bad, but it reduces production....
In my opinion strikes should be allowed depending on the situation and who is going on strike as Strike is the refusal to work by a group of people or an organization and when people go on strike they always have a need that they are seeking to be addressed by their employer. People go on strike when they reach out to the government but to no avail so they forcefully demand it by going on strike. As I said earlier on, strikes should be Allowed but not to everyone because specific organizations like hospitals, banks, Schools etc… will have a big negative impact on the country when they go on strike.
Like in my country Nigeria, after the lockdown there have been several strikes like the Academic staff union of universities (ASUU) went on strike for over 8 months in 2022,and before that they went on a 9 months strike in 2020 for better working conditions for academic staffs, increase funding of universities and improvements in the education system as a whole and it had a negative impact on the students of universities given that they couldn’t go to school and are forced to stay home for 17 months in total.
Although I believe that strikes are good, there should be a limit on how long the go on strike and if that limit is exceeded the two parties should be forced into arbitration
Welcome....
Your opinion is very good, and I liked it, especially that "hospitals and schools cannot be bombed." I replied to active_black_bear to clarify what I said above/
1- (It is not possible to strike in hospitals).. Certainly this is not possible because the hospital is not empty of patients, and if doctors suggest a strike, then this is the end, as the disease will spread throughout society. The spread of diseases among people, which leads to death.
2- (In the event of a teacher's strike) the students will not be taught, and if the strike is prolonged, time will be lost. Those who were middle school students, a year later they were supposed to be in high school, but the strike disrupted their education, causing danger to the future of these students. ...
Let the state do its best and provide the employees with all things so that the strike does not take place and the state's condition does not deteriorate
thank you all
Your opinion is beautiful and everyone respects it, but have you thought about the negative aspects of the strike? It is true that it is a right for all workers, but what will happen to the citizens and what is their fault in things they are not in? It is a problem between the employers and the workers. What is the fault of the citizens?
welcome Dear I agree with you. If we look at the blow, we see that it is a double-edged sword that has its pros and cons. When employees go on strike, it affects our daily lives. The strike has been agreed upon, but we must feel for the employees. My father is a policeman and my mother is a teacher. They come back from work very tired. As children we are forbidden to talk to our parents, as a result of they are back from work, tired because they work long hours. My mother comes back from work tired and prepares food and cleans the house all this tiredness in exchange for low wages, and we in our region are facing the problem of high prices. Employers must meet the needs of employees so that strikes and conflicts do not occur.
I feel your suffering, but there is a misunderstanding. I do not mean the employers. I mean the citizens. What is their fault in the strike? Why do we not see another, simpler way that does not harm any of the parties?
Yes, I agree it is a problem between the employer and the workers and the citizens have no fault in it but that is exactly why workers go on strike so the public pressure will be on the employers and they have to give in to the workers demand. And also that is why I said that there should be a limit to haw long the workers go on strike and if the limit is exceeded the two parties should be forced to go for arbitration.
I agree with you that it is an indispensable right, but what about its drawbacks when we do not find a way other than strikes
Telecommunication companies are companies that provides communications in the form of voice, data or signals through wires or optical cables. The main channel of communication in the world today is through this means. Almost all the activities that are happening in the world depends on internet connectivity and voice calls.
I believe if the telecommunication company chose to go on strike, it will have the greatest impact in my country and the whole world.
With the cashless policy in my country, banks won't be able to operate well and organizations and people won't be able to make transactions which will slow down most of the activities. Organizations won't be able to send and receive mails as well. Also exam bodies who conduct their exams online won't be able to have access to their portal which will affect the whole schedule of their examinations.
lastly even this global conversation will not be able to hold without telecommunication. Thank you.
Can you do some research and find an example of telecommunication workers striking? What happened?
After my research, i found out that there was a telecommunication workers strike of New England telecom workers in the US. The main reason for the strike was for the workers to curtail work transfers among the three states were they had branches. The strike lasted for a long time. The company became bankrupt and workers became unemployed. They were able to survive from their savings and through fund raising. Both parties had a tough time but at a end of it all they reached came up with a better terms and conditions and workers resumed work. Here's the link if you wish to learn more
https://inthesetimes.com/article/workers-in-new-england-win-largest-telecom-strike-in-history
One example of a telecommunications workers' strike occurred in August 2021 in Sri Lanka. The strike involved workers from the Sri Lanka Telecom (SLT) company, who were protesting against the government's plan to sell a 49% stake in the company to a foreign investor.
The strike was organized by the All Ceylon Telecommunication Employees Union (ACTEU), which claimed that the privatization of SLT would result in job losses and reduced benefits for workers. The union also accused the government of not consulting with them before making the decision to sell the stake.
During the strike, around 10,000 SLT workers stopped work, causing disruptions to the company's services across the country. The workers also staged protests in several cities, calling for the government to abandon the privatization plan.
The strike lasted for four days before the union called it off, citing an agreement reached with the government to postpone the sale of the stake for six months and to engage in further discussions with the union.
Overall, the SLT workers' strike was an example of labor unrest in the telecommunications sector, driven by concerns over job security and government policy.
I agree because... we experienced a network down time from all the telecoms early this year. Making research for my assignment became difficult. I heard my teachers in school taking about how they couldn't have access to do their work. We had to stay for almost 4 hours without light because there was no network to buy electric unit for the meter my house. My parents were not able to transfer or withdraw money. With this experience i also believe if the telecom chose to go on strike we will have a great impact in my country.
I think everyone can strike because it is a human right that everyone should enjoy, but if they strike without any reason the government should punish them, but if the government doesn't give them their wage I think they should strike until the government give them their wage because they are working every moment for us
Can you think of any negative impacts striking indefinitely, until wage demands are met, might have on the economy/general public or otherwise?
Yes, the negative effects:if teachers strike for a long time, there will be a deterioration in the educational level of students and will be a failed generation also if doctors strike for a long time the percentage of diseases will increase, and people will hate each other
I disagree because there is no strike without any reason. In the end, strike means protest, and there must be a reason for them to invoke the strike is not for one person, but for a group of people who believe that there is no justice and balance between the effort and the wages therefore, they resort to a strike, which is the only way to help them regain their rights but if I strike a person for no reason, he can submit his resignation.
Excellent point centered_radio. You draw attention to the fact that a strike is a collective action not an individual one.
Do you think there might be an individual strike, and why??
From my point of view, there may be an individual strike, but we will not call it a strike, rather we will call it opposition, because it is from one worker, but let us take this seriously, when the worker is bullied and that others distinguish him from him and that he works overtime without additional pay Here, the worker has the right to object in order to regain his rights.
But on the other hand, this worker may be dismissed or expelled, because he is the only one who opposes his work and the laws by which he works, and this will make others silent about their rights that are taken away from them.
So do you think that there should be an individual strike, and if your answer is yes, what are its negative and positive consequences??
I agree because... Workers can't just go on strike without a reason, or go on strike without a logical reason. For example, if the workers in a company decide to go on strike until their employer pays them wages that is equivalent to that of a doctor's, that wouldn't really be a sensible reason to go on strike because they are demanding too much. Moreover, strikes are really important because they help workers express their demands. Workers like police, firefighters, doctors etc, have life threatening jobs and I think if any body should be given the right to strike, it should be them.
Yes, your words are correct, so equality must be made between the two parties, and the demands are good and acceptable, and the worker does not demand a wage greater than his wage, and it is possible for him to demand wages that reach more work than his work. In that case, it is correct for the employer to refuse or reject the worker or inform the government instead
I agree because... a person cannot go on strike without any reason, and if a person does go on strike without a reason a lot of people will think that that person is taking some days off from work without asking any permission, therefore the government will not take heed to the person. Moreover, I love your idea that the protest people make when they go on strike is to help them regain their rights, however, I have one question to ask you. What do you mean when you say if a person strikes for no reason he or she can submit their resignation?
They rarely strike for no reason. In addition to the strike, it is not always about salaries. Governments must follow up on these matters and provide strike requirements before striking, because this results in a lot of negative things.
I think everyone should be allowed to strike because they have the right to protest if they have an issue with their working conditions. But for workers that are important to the betterment of the society such as doctors, teachers, police and fire fighters, their strikes should be limited and the officials should be informed beforehand about the strike to see if they can negotiate and meet the workers conditions to avoid the strike.
I agree with you that everyone should be allowed to strike but stringent rules and regulations need to be put in place to safe guard the masses and destruction of property especially when these strikes get violent like in school for example in Makere university last year when students striked, some lost their lives and very many were injured plus many university facilities got damaged.
And I agree with you on that, because everyone, not just doctors and teachers, must demand their rights, and if they are not fulfilled they resort to striking so that no crisis, problems and unrest occur in the state.
I strongly agree with you because if these important workers go on strike without informing the officials there might be a lot of problems, moreover, I love your idea of workers informing officials beforehand of their strike so that this doesn't cause any absence of important workers.
In my my own opinion the national electric power authority ( NEPA ) will have the biggest impact in my country if they chose to go on strike.
The NEPA are in control of all the electricity supply in my country. Once they go on strike there will be total outage of electricity which will decrease most of the productive activities in the country. Telecoms, hospitals, banks, individuals and other organizations will have to use other methods of electric supply in other to continue with their daily activities. As such this will increase the use of generators which will affect climate change because not all have the power to use solar panels as an alternative. I personally will have to use generator to charge my gadget in other to continue this conversation which will increase my personal carbon footprint.
Do you still think the NEPA workers should be allowed to strike given the impact it will have on everyone else? Why/why not?
NEPA could be allowed to strike if they need a better payment or better working conditions, because that is the only way they can be heard. But as for me i don't think they should be allowed to strike because once they on strike, they will be outage of electicity which will lead to different things like change in teaching style, sleeplessness, unscheduled tasks, uselessness of home appliances, inefficient learning and incompletion and delaying of tasks. NEPA in Nigeria carries almost every operation in Nigeria and if allowed to strike will have a very serious effect in the productive activities of the country. So as soon as the call for a strike, government should make quick adjustments and make sure their demand is meet.
NEPA workers should not be allowed to go on strike because if NEPA should go on strike their will be a nation wide blackout as long as NEPA remains on strike. Last year NEPA went on one day strike which resulted in a nation wide blackout that caused the national grid to crash to zero megawatts throwing businesses and homes across the country into darkness which lead to a loss of 3 billion naira in a day. People started using generators as an alternative for the electricity plus the population in my country is over 200 million so one can imagine the amount of harmful gases that will be emitted in if every one were to use generators during the time NEPA was on strike.
Rather there should be a proper negotiating channel to avoid them with proper working conditions to prevent this strike.
Striking is a legal human right which no one can prevent or deny . All principals should take care of their employees ' complaints to avoid strikes because any strike in any field will affects life negatively. So, government should help to make employees in every field to be protected and satisfied to avoid strikes. Do you agree with me?
Yes, my dear.
The government should be held responsible for any strike or civil disobedience. Because it's the government's role to do the right thing, preserve the financial and well-being of its people, and guarantee that they have got all their rights. If the government follows the rules it sets, there will never be something called strike but as you know there's no smoke without fire.
I agree with you my friend, but there is a simple point I would like to share with you: Isn't the strike affecting the general public??. Although it is a legal right. Let's look at it from another side, not everything is in the hands of the manager, perhaps the company is suffering from financial problems. Therefore, I suggest that companies establish a constitution that stipulates the right of every worker.
I support you but some leaders don't under stand people's conditions unless they strike. So the only solution to such leaders is striking.
I agree with you, we all know that it is a legal right, but have you thought about the damages caused by the strike? Or how will it affect people if it is of unlimited duration?
Thank you for your comment
I agree with you strongly, so governments must provide all the needs of workers, but do governments have the ability to do this and provide all their requirements? And sometimes assistance is provided to employers in order to organize the work, such as giving them money to provide for what is lacking and what will solve some problems at work, but they take the money for themselves or do not use this money well for work, and this is also a problem when the employer is dishonest, so this problem is in the person himself and not at work
I believe that strikes should be allowed, but the duration of the strike does not exceed one or two days as a maximum, because most of the strikers are teachers, and this happens in my country, and this negatively affects the lives of students. For example, when we return from school after a long strike, we discover that we have become behind in the curriculum, and the teachers begin to explain to us in a quick and incomprehensible way, and the end of the year comes, and we get low and low grades, and the parents refuse to strike because the most important thing they have is the safety of the educational life of their children.
Great suggestion @happy_flower! You suggest strike durations should be kept to a minimum of 1 or 2 days. Do you think applying this limit would causes the number of strikes per year to increase as a result of the short duration?
Yes, the number of fines will increase, which will make people afraid of strikes and refrain from them.
I'm not sure about this because...
You provided a great solution, thank you for your point of view But since the period during which they will strike is short, they will not be able to deliver what they want to the government, nor will the government be able to meet their needs, so they will have to repeat this strike over and over again, and this will also negatively affect the students, so another solution must be found. I believe that the government bears a great responsibility for this teachers' strike in the Gaza Strip. Sooner or later, the teachers must obtain their rights, and the strike will stop. Why did the government not hasten from the beginning to give the teachers their rights and salaries, instead of causing this strike and great harm? For my part, some of the teachers began to explain quickly and say that we do not have enough time, and now we do not understand much, and in the end we get low grades, and this is bad for us.
Is the strike in general because of the workers or the government, and can we solve this crisis without strikes??
Really made me think of this. I believe that the government is the cause of the strikes, and we can solve the crisis without strikes by increasing salaries and holding meetings to discuss any issue. As for the government's role, it is to reconsider any decision it takes.
And Thank you for presenting your point of view and your beautiful question.!
Yes, I agree with you. All of this is because of the government, because the government believes that there are more important and better things to meet, so strikes take place
I think if medical doctors chose to go on strike, it will have a great impact in my country. The ill people will have no one to attend to them because the hospitals will be empty of doctors for consultation. Those who need medical attention will be left unattended to which will increase death rate. others that are priviledged will go to private clinics for consultations at an expensive rate.
Good point @zestful_artisti. How could doctors make their demands known whilst keeping the impact on the general public to a minimum? Can you find any examples online of alternatives to strikes that have been successful?
I agree with you but on the other hand the doctors also need a favourable working condition which when denied can be at the detriment of the patients. In my opinion involvement of the doctors can make great impact. Considering the right to life and good health of the citizens
I agree because... doctors can't carryout some things like operation under unfavourable working conditions so their working conditions should be improved.
I agree because...
You have expressed your point of view beautifully, thank you.
For hospitals to remain without doctors, and for patients to resort to private clinics with high fees, this is a negative effect of the effects of the doctors’ strike, so I think that at least two alternate doctors (or according to the number of patients) should remain in the hospital when this strike occurs, so as not to Patients are harmed or one of them dies.
On the other hand, the government should not procrastinate in returning rights to doctors, so as not to harm other groups of society .
I believe that everyone has the right to carry out an open-ended strike, but there are ways that can be a solution, such as the unions' intervention first, and if there is no result, then I think that an open-ended strike should be carried out.
One of the effects of the unrest here is in my country, Palestine, where teachers do not receive their full rights, so they go on strikes, and the educational process of students has been affected
In France, when the cleaners decided to strike, the country was exposed to a large gathering of rubbish
Therefore, I hope that the states and the responsible authorities provide the workers with all their needs and salaries in an appropriate amount so that unrest does not occur, because the effects of the unrest are really very bad for the state and the people
Hello..... 🖐
Yes, I agree with you in terms of the most important disadvantages of strikes here in Palestine are:
➡️ Disturbances in the educational process in relation to the teachers’ strike.
💫 But open strikes can continue for longer times What is necessary, which negatively affects this simple Arab society.
In your opinion, how will we find a solution to this crisis other than that officials try to increase salaries....reduce working hours..???
Just a cute little opinion 😁
Thank you for your comment, in my opinion This crisis can be resolved by assigning officials to supervise the work managers and their dealings with the workers, and to give the workers time to rest after the fatigue of work And meet the workers with a jovial and smiling face to encourage them to work And in the event that the manager thinks about any decision, he must consult the workers and take their opinion and work collectively to show better ideas because the collective opinion leads towards the correct opinion and to avoid any defect that occurs in the work Talk to the workers in a decent manner and not be arrogant towards them because they work for the owner of this employer And holding meetings to discuss anything the workers are exposed to and anything they are dissatisfied with and try to correct it
I believe if the telecommunication company chose to go on strike, it will have the greatest impact in my country and the whole world.
With the cashless policy in my country, banks won't be able to operate well and organizations and people won't be able to make transactions which will slow down most of the activities. Organizations won't be able to send and receive mails as well. Also exam bodies who conduct their exams online won't be able to have access to their portal which will affect the whole schedule of their examinations.
lastly even this global conversation will not be able In my opinion strikes should be allowed depending on the situation and who is going on strike as Strike is the refusal to work by a group of people or an organization and when people go on strike they always have a need that they are seeking to be addressed by their employer. People go on strike when they reach out to the government but to no avail so they forcefully demand it by going on strike. As I said earlier on, strikes should be Allowed but not to everyone because specific organizations like hospitals, banks, Schools etc… will have a big negative impact on the country when they go on strike.to hold without telecommunication. Thank you
I think strikes should be allowed to some workers if their demands are reasonable.
For example if a worker thinks his or her wages are too small they can then demand for more wages and if the demands are not met I think that worker should go on a strike.
Are there better alternatives to a strike, in your opinion?
I think that an alternative to strikes is protesting.
If the workers protest and the government do not adhere to their conditions, then I think that worker should have a strike.
Which workers do you think would have the most impact if they went on strike in your country?
I think that doctors would make the most impact if they went on strike because if doctors were to go on strike there wouldn't be anyone to treat all the patients that go to the hospital and that could lead to the death of a considerable amount of people.
I disagree because... In 1973, doctors in Colombia went on strike for 52 days, and the death rate decreased by 35%. In the same year, in Palestine, doctors went on strike for a month, and deaths decreased by 55%. In the American city of Los Angeles, a partial strike of doctors took place in 1976, and deaths decreased to 18%. According to what was stated in the book “You Will Never Get Sick” by the writer and chemist Raymond Francis, who wanted to deliver a message saying that “the more doctors are active, the greater the number of deaths.” There are also some strange opinions in the book by the writer who believes that modern medicine treats symptoms only and does not dive and analyze The disease is at the level of the cell, where the origin of the disease begins by infecting one cell and the treatment of this diseased cell is done in one of two ways or both: “Providing the cell with nutrients whose deficiency was the cause of the disease” Removing the accumulated toxins. Several factors are as follows: - Unnecessary surgeries - Prescribed medications, which Prof. Raymond believes are the real disaster because they mostly contain one or more toxic chemical compounds, not to mention the interactions and their results between two or more classes of drugs.
In fact, your point of view is convincing if you look at it from this side (the positive side), but when you look at it from the negative side, this may lead to the spread of chronic diseases and pose a greater threat to people's lives and the killing of innocent people who have nothing to do with these problems. But if this happens, who will bear the consequences of this result, the doctors or the government??
I agree because... Yes, your words are 100% correct, and everything you said is correct. Therefore, I suggest that there be another way that does not lead to danger to the lives of these innocent people. It must be a solution that satisfies all parties.
In my country, our economy depends on agriculture, and our food also depends on agriculture, and in our country farmers are struck because of the large population density, and because of the wars that we are exposed to that have dried up the land and soil and made it unsuitable for agriculture, and this negatively affects agricultural results, which It leads to crops not being produced and not being sold, and thus not getting the wages they deserve .
I every one has the right to strike but this should be ruled by a group or a union and should have gradual steps before reaching the strike itself. What I am agaist is that there is a trend that has been the rise of "wildcat" strikes, which are spontaneous and unauthorized strikes that are not sanctioned by union leaders or officials. These strikes are often fueled by worker frustration with slow or ineffective union negotiations and can be particularly effective in achieving quick results. Overall, these new developments in workers strikes reflect the evolving strategies and tactics of labor movements in response to the changing global economy and the growing power of multinational corporations.
I think that strike should not be allowed to everyone because some people might take advantage of it and decide to use it negatively by going on strike unnecessarily, threatening their manager etc.
If this is the case, how do you think this could be regulated? How would you determine who is striking for 'right' reasons?
Employees should learn to solve issues in workplace, make conciliation and have better understanding between the employers and the employees.
The government and labor union should provide a standard criteria to be followed before any strike is carried out.
Strike with genuine reasons will determine who is striking for the right reasons.
Can you do some research and find an example of a strike you think was unnecessary? Why do you think this?
Aviation worker's two days warning strike action was unnecessary because it will cause hardship to citizens due to flight schedules affected which lead to economic losses.
Nigerian union of electricity employees (NUEE) strike which threw the country into total black out in 2022.
sit down strike carried out in educational and health institutions strictly based on religious sentiments.
two million man match in Abuja during president Abacha rule to support the elongation of his rule from military to civilian.
I agree with you and also some people can use the strike for Illegal things, such as if the police officers strike, many crimes will spread, and if the teachers strike, many students will become ignorant of knowledge, and if the doctors strike, it will facilitate the entry of criminals into hospitals and the killing of patients. I am not talking about the negative effects in general. I am talking about what will It happens if these workers go on strike, and thus the negative results will become high
You are right that strikes can have negative effects. However normally when groups of workers strike there are provisions put in place to ensure the safety of people. For example, when doctors strike there will still be nurses and other health professionals in he hospital.
There are many workers who are striking but if the farmers and trash collectors are start to strike the will definitely see a biggest impact that the country will have never seen before. Because ,first if farmers are striking the GNP of the country will start to decrease and within 6 months the country will suffer without any food and the has to get the food from other country. And second, if the trash collectors are striking just for a week the country will face health hazard and the country will start to smell. So if the farmers and the trash collectors start to strike the impact will be very worse.
THANK YOU.
I think if people working in fuel-producing companies and organizations decided to go on strike, it would cause a big problem and it will affect everybody because it would cause fuel scarcity, the cost of transportation will increase, and the price of commodities would also increase as a result of the increase in the cost of transportation.
You have introduced a new idea into the discussion by mentioning fuel companies and the effect their strikes would have. Some people think that hindering the operation of the oil companies may be a good thing, why do you think they think this? Can you relate it to one of our other Festival topics?
Yes in a way it could be a good thing, because there would be
Yes in a way it would be a good thing because carbon dioxide would reduce it would reduce the effects of climate change and the world would be cleaner, but there would also be some disadvantages, for example, it would make it impossible to meet the world's energy needs etc.
Yes, by human nature, they drive cars a lot, and most cars run on fuel. Also, electricity comes from fossil fuels, and it has many other characteristics.
I disagree because...
If workers in oil producing companies strike, this will be good, it will force others to rely on renewable energy as a major form, and this will help solve the problem of climate change, don't you think that too??
I feel that workers have the right to go on strike for what they want. People say that it is unfair to go on strike but they do not experience what the workers are going through.
Also the workers should think about other people before they go on strike how the strike will affect the people's families and lives. For example if banks go on strike we won't be able to withdraw our money and we won't be able to buy things also if the workers in the power company go on strike and we don't have inverters we will be stuck in the dark. The workers should consider all those things before deciding to go on strike.
In my opinion, strikes should not be allowed. Strikes have their advantages and disadvantages. Strikes help the weak to make their voices heard but it also makes the innocent suffer. For instance,if doctors decide to go on strike, how will the sick get treatment? The sick have nothing to do with the strike but they end up dealing with the consequences to come. In my country, airlines decided to go on strike therefore leaving thousands of travelers rendered helpless in the airports. If strikes are allowed many people will use it as an agenda leaving the economy progression at a halt and also it may cause crisis because if their voices aren’t heard ,they strike practices may look for a more violent means to get justice
If you do not think strikes should be permitted, could you make a suggestion for how workers can make their demands heard by governments and corporations?
okay In my opinion, when a crisis occurs, the government may have to listen to the demands of the workers so that their strike does not pose a threat to the economy. In fact, the strike may have positives and negatives. We humans have to look at the positives and negatives of each action before we do it and bear the consequences of our actions.
Your words are correct, but unfortunately our government believes that they have more important things to meet and implement, so they do not care about strikes or workers, so we are from undeveloped countries
By organising healthy trade unions that will be able to resolve workplace issues by being a voice for employees. They should be able to bargain for better conditions of the employees from the employer. The trade unions ahould be there to ease the stress of the workers that are less favoured. Trade unions should learn how to stand up for their rights and take matters into their hands to stop strike from rising from the workers themselves.
I like the phrase (strikes must be allowed) because it is considered an expression and clarification of what is in the soul and the heart, and it is related to future matters.
But I learned from that one case, which is the prolongation of strikes, because this will negatively affect the students, i.e. they will stop studying because of these strikes.
Basically, why don't we ask ourselves one question, why don't we solve the logical crisis peacefully without protests and problems?
Not everyone, in my opinion, should be allowed to go on strike because many things can go wrong. It is common knowledge that doctors work to save people's lives, so when they go on strike or shut down their equipment, they have the greatest impact on a country because we need healthy people to carry out any nation's economic activities. When doctors go on strike it causes a lot of danger, like loss of life, lack of proper care for patients, overcrowding of hospitals e.t.c
In my view, doctors' well-being should be taken seriously, if not treated as an urgent matter. Governments worldwide, particularly in Nigeria, should make it a priority.
When all of these factors are taken into account, the strike will be greatly reduced. However, if the government continues to dismiss the value of doctors in the country, we will face the challenge of doctors going on strike.
Every worker, in my opinion, should have the right to strike. Doctors, on the other hand, save lives. When they are not treated fairly, they should be allowed to go on strike. When teachers are underpaid, I believe they should go on strike. Everyone gets an education because of teachers, and doctors get to work because of teachers. So, in my opinion, teaching is one of the most important jobs on the planet. Maintenance workers contribute significantly to the repair of items; it is acceptable for them to strike; it is their right. I believe that if people go on strike frequently, particularly teachers, the government will be compelled to do the right thing and not encourage social injustice.
I believe that everyone should be allowed to strike because it is their right, but I believe that the sanitation workers and the municipality will strike more harmfully because waste will accumulate and insects and flies will spread and lead to pollution of the environment, which leads to the spread of many diseases among people.
Everyone should be allowed to strike for their rights. Why do some believe that striking is not available to everyone, and what is the idea in that? And why does the government not provide the services that should be available to workers without strikes if they are able to provide them?
In my personal opinion, I see that strikes are the only means for workers to demand their rights, especially when there is no one who meets their demands, so they resort to strikes and go out in demonstrations in which they demand their rights. Everyone has the right to go on strike, but they have to strike in a reasonable manner. For example, the doctor, teacher, or policeman should not strike for a month. During this period, there may be a patient who needs a doctor, or there are crimes that occur and they need a policeman, and there are students who are protesting for a teacher to teach them, so everyone has the right to strike, but they have to think carefully about this matter
I agree because...Strike is a way to express a need, but whoever strikes must think carefully before taking any action or decision and think about the pros and cons
Yes, for example, if it is a doctor who is beating, he must think about the number of patients who will need him, and one of them may die while he needs this doctor, or for example, if he is a policeman, he must think about the number of crimes that may occur, such as theft, murder, or breaking the laws and the lives of innocent people that It is threatened by danger, for example, teachers should think about students who need education and learning in order to become the generations that will build the future and many other professions in which workers must pay attention to the negative effects of their strikes
From my point of view, any strike, even if simple, would be disastrous, because all jobs are important, but the most influential are the security men in the state, because if they strike, whatever the reasons, chaos will prevail in the country, and the matter will be disastrous, and road and car accidents will increase, and criminals will take advantage of this Opportunity, crimes and thefts abound, and this leads to people being afraid and not leaving the house, and thus disrupting movement in the country, lowering the standard of living in this country, and economic decline.
From my point of view, any strike, even a simple one, would be disastrous because all jobs are important, but the most influential are the cleaners. Their task may seem simple and not important, but it is the basis of all tasks. Especially since it will produce a very good environment for the spread of diseases and epidemics, in addition to polluting the waters of the seas and rivers with waste, because the waste that has not been swept away will be driven by the wind into the rivers, and thus the elimination of biodiversity in the sea and land, and it will be very disgusting when you go out to the street and see the waste Everywhere, some people stay at home, and do not forget that this matter will also cause a decline in tourism to those areas, as it is considered a dirty and polluted environment and a carrier of diseases, and thus the country's economy will decline
Well, I can say that I am not one of the best people in choosing, and I do not know if what I will choose is the right choice for many or not, but many professions are very important, as they were not created out of nothing, and this is what makes it difficult for me to choose, but as I said earlier, my father works as a doctor, and for me work As a doctor, it is a very difficult field, and whoever decides to enter this field must bear a great responsibility. Also, I see that on the day my father takes a vacation, he receives many calls and messages from many patients who follow up with him, and certainly not only him, but certainly all the other doctors, and this is what makes me I'm thinking about what would happen if the doctors went on strike completely, so do you agree with me?
The security sector though by their rules of engagement their not meant to go on strike but if anything warrants them going on strike it will have a huge negative impact because of the high crime rate and the high level of insecurity.
Another sector that will have a huge impact is the health sector, most times when the health sector goes on strike patients in the hospital have to go home without been treated and sometimes it can lead to death if their case is critical
For example one of my primary school teachers lost her babies because the hospitals were on strike.
Strikes may be the best solution for the workers, but if we want to solve the problem, we must go deep into it to discover the defect and fix it. For me, some strikes can be messy and not get the message across that the workers want to get across. So I am not a fan of strikes. I don't think everyone will agree with what I say, but the government won't care. Sometimes we see that the police resort to violence and harm people, and this is contrary to human rights and the laws that were established to regulate the relationship between the state and its citizens. In the strikes, innocent lives may be lost. All the blame lies with the governments that force workers to work long hours and cut salaries and if governments punish employers who do this, and establish complaints offices for workers, their complaints will be taken seriously and appreciated, and their complaints will be communicated to officials who must find solutions to these complaints from workers.
Yes, they should be allowed to strike because most strikes are about pay and better working conditions. Without the threat of strike action, corporations will be able to make bigger profits, while working conditions will get worse. Strikes are part of their bargaining tool. Should strikes to banned or not? My opinion will be strike should not be banned but the misuse of this right for unrelates issues as well as petty grievance. A strike is the solution to a problem because it is the best way to discuss your issues with the opposition. Strike is right but violence is wrong. By sitting on strike and raising your voice one can express one's views as to what is going wrong and what is needed to correct it. In a strike there is not the voice of a single person, but it is the voice of a group of people who are facing the same kind of problems. So, a strike is the better option to express opposition, but it should be done in a manner that it should not harm anybody physically and financially. There are some disadvantages to a strike, as it creates a loss as a result of lack of production because there are no employees to concentrate on production. It creates a loss of clients as there are no employees to attend to their needs.
The strike is a right for workers and employees, and they are all required to strike
Workers who have an impact on society if they strike
First, doctors, if they go on strike
For a long time, this leads to a high number of deaths and an increase in diseases. This is very dangerous for society
Secondly, if the janitors went on strike, the community would become utterly impure and lead to diseases from the filth. At the same time, doctors will strike, there is no cure, and diseases will spread.
Thirdly, teachers lead to producing an ignorant and uneducated generation
Fourth, the traffic police lead to serious accidents
Does this mean you think that some workers should not be allowed to strike, sociable_yuzu? Or do you think they still should, despite the issues you mentioned?
They must strike because it is their right, but not for more than a day or two, because the government knows that it badly needs them, and it is not permissible to leave the country without them so as not to cause destruction
Honestly, I feel everyone has a right to strike but there are some important people who provide emergency services such as law enforcement, heath care and somewhat education because they give services which are very essential for living in the society and now, I feel that if these emergency service providers are now not available when they are needed there will be chaos and disorder in the society and this will be bad for everyone so I feel that these emergency service providers should at least regulate the time span of their strike so that they won't be much be much commotion in the society and I feel that these emergency services providers shouldn't even strike in the first place I mean these set of people are very essential for the continuous flow of the society and because of the magnitude of their importance to the society they should be treated well and be given fair working conditions and the correct amount of salary when compared to their labor and if that is done there will be smooth running of the society. Another thing that baffles me about the whole strike thing is that don't the employers know that they are employing personnel to work for them so why would they hire them if they know they are not capable to give them a reward for their labor or not economically stable to pay their workers so what the point of even starting that enterprise if you that you are not even competent enough to handle the position of employer and boss?
Yes everyone should be allowed to strike. I think based on nature of work/job there should be levels or limits to how intense the strike can get especially essential workers such as doctors, bankers and so on in order to still maintain a stable society and avoid great loss.
If they choose to strike, employees in some sectors, including healthcare, transportation, and education, might create the most havoc. The loss of these workers instantly affects society's ability to operate because they perform important services. Additionally, strikes in these sectors may have a lasting effect on the economy and public sentiment. Therefore, it's critical to comprehend which employees could have the most effects on a nation if they decide to strike.
In my opinion, there are many workers who have an influence on the people and the country if they choose to strike, such as: doctors, policemen, cleaners, and there are other workers, but I think that these are the ones who have the most influence on the country and the people. Doctors: if they choose to strike and Stop working without them, we will not be able to be treated, and there may be critical cases that need treatment. By stopping the doctors, these golden people may lose their lives, so they will have a great influence on the people and the people. As for the police: if they choose to strike and stop working, crimes will spread and The country becomes anarchy, so the policemen have a great influence on the country if they stop working. As for the cleaners: if they choose to strike and stop working, the country will be filled with waste and dirt, and this may lead to air pollution, climate change, and phenomena such as global warming. And this leads to the death of plants and the infection of diseases and may lead to deaths, so if the cleaners strike, the country will be in complete chaos.
Thus, if one of these workers goes on strike, the country and the people will be affected by that, so the needs of these workers must be met.
I believe that people should be able to strike because they want to get payed fairly and have a safe job. If they don't strike though, then they won't get the money they need.
The workers that have the biggest impact on a country if they choose to go on a strike are doctors, teachers, power sectors, fuel tankers and most especially the security personnels.
Just imagine for a minute the war in Ukraine, if the military men and women had chosen to go on strike. What would have happened to the nation? We know members of the armed forces can not go on strike as this leaves the country unprotected. The armed forces need to discharge their duties and maintain peace at all times both at the national and local levels, so I think it is up to us to advocate for an increase in their pay and for a better working conditions.
I believe that employees should be allowed to strike so that they can express their rights, demands and opinions, and they should also be aware of the period during which they will strike. the society. If the teacher strikes, the students will be harmed and their academic achievement will decline. And the doctor: increasing the number of deaths and harming patients. Cleaners spread dirt and viruses, which leads to the spread of diseases. Policemen: chaos spreads in the city and the inability to control matters. Factory owners: The lack of supplies and needs in groceries and many others... Do you agree with me or not??
In my country teachers would have the biggest impact if they choose to go on strike. Recently many government school teachers have been on strike in my country. Teachers help to acquire knowledge , competence , or virtue. From the experience I heard about during the strike, people lost a lot of years in the university in time back, worthy of note is the university in the state where I live. If teachers were to go on strike there would be scarcity of education and because of that people will lose many job opportunities , which would lead to poverty, some of the reasons teachers go on strike are: no required equipment , low payment, and so on. Consider a widow who has put in all she has in sending one of the children to school praying and hoping he will finish his studies on time and come liberate the family from the circle of poverty they have found themselves and low and behold, the strike starts and no end in sight, this family I believe is going to be great affected and their suppose saviour so helpless. I can't begin to imagine the heartache of this mother. I hope that someday strike will be the thing of the past
I think all workers we need them. For example, if factory workers go on strike, the factory will suffer many material losses. Or construction workers, if they were to strike, the buildings would be reduced. With my awareness of the right of all workers to a higher pension.
Also, on the other hand, the workers need us, for example the construction worker, if we are not there, then who will build the buildings? Therefore, they also desperately need our support and encouragement.
Other than that, if we look at the long term, we may find that the worker who goes on strike has a right, because they may have children if they are in dire need to work and provide for their basic needs, such as food. If food is not provided to them, poverty and child labor will spread. This is a bad thing
Everyone shouldn't be allowed to strike because some times some schools get shut down example universities infact Many workers strike because they believe that they are working in unfair or unsafe conditions. And what do you think will happen if we all went on strike? In my country strike affects the cost of production and of course productivity.
I agree striking isn't the right thing to do for the unintentional harm of others and slowing the economy. Sanitation workers are the most underrated job here, but the most needed and the important job. If they went on strike, it would slow the cleanliness of the area. There are other ways to express discontent than striking, like boycotting unreal hours and overtime.
Do you have examples of other ways people can express discontent?
Welcome..
Today I will talk about the workers most affected during the strike. I will only express my opinion, and today I have something different from yours, something new, which is /
Soldiers: If the commanders and soldiers go on strike and attack an enemy country
Who will defend the state! Not all that glitters is gold, and not every head of state is good at using weapons, so how will the state act? , but I will look from the other side and it will be a question for you, dear experts and speakers: in your opinion, will the soldiers have patriotism. And won't he care to strike when danger comes to their homeland? In other words, will they go back to work and defend when the country is under attack, or not??
We love to see unique ideas on the Hub!
I liked your question very much, and I will answer it in my opinion. For me, there are soldiers who will return to defend their homeland if another country attacks, and they will dispense with striking in order to defend the state because they have a sense of belonging to the homeland and they fear that their state, society and prestige will fall, unlike soldiers who will not care about their state if an attack occurs. Suddenly, they were on strike and would not defend it because they did not care if their society and their state fell, in which they grew up and lived for years, and because they have no affiliation to the homeland.
Welcome
Your question is very cool, very polite _ dinosaur....
Your whole question and topic is yes, and your thinking is wonderful. My answer is: In my opinion, if the soldiers in their hearts loved the fatherland and defended it and did not leave it as a prey to enemy states, then they would not bother to strike. But if there are soldiers who do not care about the homeland or something like that, they will leave it as a victim of the enemies. And also, there are various soldiers, most of them go to defense, and most of the rest don't care. Finally, I have advice for the homeland is safety, security, and security that embraces you.
I would love to hear your opinions, experts and speakers.
Thanks
I believe that everyone should be allowed to strike because it is possible that the person who strikes has been damaged by the negligence of his owner, and that is why he wants to shed light on this negligence so that he can change and transform it. into something good.
In Nigeria, medical doctors and teachers/lecturers go on strike every year. Last year, the lecturers were on strike for 8 months, which is almost an academic year.
The impact of it on the entire educational sector was horrible and the government appeared to be insensitive. People who are supposed to spend 4 years in the system end up spending 5-7 years.
A large chunk of why this has become a reoccurring decimal is because the operators of the sectors (government) are not directly affected by it because their wards have access to private schools and can afford foreign healthcare.
Strike is everyone's right, and this is something that most of the world agrees with, but I think doctors have a big role to play in the strike, because they have a big role in saving human life.
Can you suggest a different way for doctors to share if they are unhappy with their working conditions?
They can incite patients to say that, how?? When doctors suffer from pressures or lack of salaries, they can tell patients that they do not want to treat them, or that if they do not object to the difficult life of doctors, they will not be given adequate treatment.
As for us in our school, when they wanted to go on strike, the principal of the school met with us, and explained to us what is the reason for the strike and why they are doing it, and when we understood that, we agreed with the teachers and encouraged them to do this strike.
Farmers and people who work in industries might have the biggest impact on a country if they decide to go on strike. I think this because farmers are in control of the agricultural part of a country if they go on strike then the whole country may starve. People in industries might also have the biggest impact on a country because if the people work in industries then there will be no farming tools to produce so once again, a country could starve.
I believe that strikes should be allowed because a person has the right to express his opinion. Especially when it comes to the worker’s wages or that he does not get enough of his rights, but he must also be careful so that he does not cross his limits and that the period of the strike is not long and does not cause any harm to people... This is my opinion
I believe that everyone should be allowed to strike, but there must be a reason for that. A person cannot strike without a clear reason, and as it must be organized by workers, this will have a result in obtaining the rights of the individual and improving the economic level of the individual and society.
People need to be heard and their terms need to be met. If they just sit around doing nothing the government will not listen to them. By going on strike they are affecting both the government and the people. The people who are affecting will most likely join in so everything will be over with. By doing so the government will have no choice but to listen because if not stopped the strike will destroy the government's name. So in opinion, strikes should be allowed.
I believe that not everyone can strike without a reason, or that the result of his strike is death or destruction of society, or neglect of patients. Therefore, the worker must be responsible if something bad happens and dismiss him from work because he is not responsible at work.
I believe that employees should be allowed to strike, but for a limited period, so as not to negatively affect society in many aspects, such as: education, learning, treatment, provision of water and lunch, and others. The government and employees must realize the danger of the strike extending for long periods so that it does not have side effects, and also realize that not everything is worth the strike.
Which workers would have the greatest impact on the country if they chose to strike? I think the biggest impact will be on doctors because they treat patients. In the event of their strike, hospitals stop, and the number of deaths increases, and diseases and epidemics spread, because there is no one to diagnose the patient’s condition and what is his treatment.
I think everyone should be allowed to strike because in every job opportunity you may one day find yourself in an unfair working condition or position and therefore you can't just sit there and watch yourself being cheated or going on paid for your endless effort, so my point here is that you can strike and peacefully protest in order to encourage the government to look into their working conditions.
As long as we believe in the concept of "human rights" then why not let people express their suffering? Is it a must to endure all the pain and do a donkey work with their mouths shut??
Didn't those people sign a contract to save their rights and the manager at work also agreed and signed this contract?!!
Then why oppress people and deprive them of their legal rights!!
So, yes strikes must be allowed to give weak people the freedom of expression.
I agree because everyone deserves the right to express their wants and needs
Unrest must not be allowed to spread because it negatively affects society
The effects of a workers' strike on a nation would rely upon various factors like the industry, the number of workers involved, the duration of the strike, and the country's dependence on that particular industry. However, some of the most crucial sectors where workers' strikes could have a major impact on a country are:
Transport: This includes airline staff, truck drivers and public transport workers. If these workers go on strike, it could disturb the movement of goods and people, affecting the economy and citizens' daily lives.
Healthcare: Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals are essential workers. A strike by them could substantially impact a country's healthcare system, possibly leading to a shortage of staff and disruptions in patient care.
Education: A teachers' strike could result in school closures, disrupting students' education and potentially affecting the economy if parents have to take time off work to care for their children.
Energy: This includes power plant workers, oil refinery workers and natural gas pipeline workers. Their strike could cause power outages, fuel shortages and increased energy prices, impacting the economy and citizens' daily lives.
Manufacturing: A strike by manufacturing workers could disrupt the supply chain, leading to a shortage of goods and potentially affecting the economy and citizens' daily lives.
In summary, any large-scale strike in any sector could potentially have a major impact on a country, and the effects could be widespread and long-lasting.
I agree with you, as I liked your way of thinking. Yes, striking is a human right to regain stolen rights, but you must strike for a limited period, and avoid inflicting human losses during the strike, because striking for long periods and striking through injuries; With the aim of forcing the business owner to meet the demands, this has a negative impact on society, as it causes heavy human losses, and leads to depriving the people of some rights such as education, treatment, and others.
I believe that the category of cleaners has the most impact on the environment, as their entry into strike means the collection of garbage in the streets, which leads to the spread of diseases and epidemics, and this directly harms the health of citizens.
Although striking may cause some inconveniences for people in need of service, the inconveniences that workers may be dealing with are equal to them. I think that everyone should be able to strike to get the changes that they need under the condition that there is a time limit for the number of strike days (such as a month).
Are you with or against the teachers' strike?
I am with teachers' strike. In my opinion, the only downfall is the long period it could end up taking. Teachers should be heard and get what they need so long as they take into consideration the education of students.
Strike is the best way for workers to obtain their rights, or we will not say the best way, but rather the only way to get their rights. In your opinion, are there better ways?
In my opinion, the workers who may have the greatest impact on society are doctors, because the profession of doctors is one of the most important and honorable professions, so it is very necessary because the doctor is the person who is able to diagnose the disease and is able to treat it. The disease, if it is not treated by doctors, and this will lead to the destruction of society and may lead to the destruction of the entire country. In my opinion, everything that all workers need should be provided, because all workers are important. There is no strike without a reason. It is possible for people to strike because there is no balance between work and wages. There are those who work all day for a small wage, and this is what happens here in Palestine, but not everyone. 80% of people do not receive their full wages and 10% there is a balance between their work and their wages. As for 10%, they get wages that they do not deserve, and for this I hope that a balance is provided between Work and wages
Yes, some employees should be allowed to strike, and teachers and doctors should not be allowed to strike, because this negatively affects our lives. For example, a doctor was on strike and a patient came to the hospital in not quite a deplorable condition. What will happen to the patient? Of course he will die, and you will bear the responsibility, doctor. The teacher's job is to educate and educate the students, not to strike. The strike spreads ignorance among the students and endangers their educational lives. For this reason, I do not agree that the strike is for all people. I also believe that a short period of strike should be set, not a long one.
that is my point of view.
Thanks.
Some interesting thoughts. What could be an alternative way to make changes in a career that is considered unsustainable?
I believe that other activities other than the strike should be tried. If the rights are achieved, then their demands will be fulfilled. If they are not achieved by all means, go to the strike path, but in a way that does not harm people much.
Hello doctors, they may be more influential in society. "Do you know the number of patients who will lose their lives in the event of a strike by doctors from carrying out their duties?" And will their return to work compensate for the lives of the people that were lost?" Do you know the extent of the suffering that people will suffer psychologically and physically as a result of this strike? As for the teachers, "Will the strike work and fulfill the teachers' demands? If the responsible authorities do not respond," Will the strike continue for a longer period of time? "For how long?"
Everyone should be able to strike, as striking is a legal human right. The reason for strikes should be justified, such as a demand for a raise in pay or improved working conditions. Companies, on the other hand, should listen to their employees' wishes and complaints in order to prevent the complications that striking generates. This results in more effective alternate strategies of demanding improved working conditions.
I scored a 10 on the quiz. I learned that strikes are a form of protest where workers refuse to attend work in order to advocate for better pay and working conditions. In my opinion, people should be allowed to strike, but only as a last resort. Strikes can cause many problems. Instead, workers can create a good line of communication with their company and boss. That way they can negotiate for change if they feel that their salary and wages or working conditions are unfair. It is a much less problematic method and could make a change without causing other issues. In the case where there is a strike, the government should also answer their request for a change in some way. Strikes lead to too many problems for the government to not comply. The reason for a strike in general is because of a problem as well.
If the employees are in strike the company will go in loss which lead to lack of goods to distribute it to another country.
So that the company can arrange the facilities and needs they want and also increase there's salary... So I agree with you because if the employees going to strike it will have a huge impact in the country not only in that country all country which are based on that company will also be affected.
If milk company workers are started to strike,then milk will be demand.
If car company workers are started to strike then,it will be a huge loss for that company..
Like wise china is a producer of electricity if workers of China started to strike it will loss for them and also the neighbouring countries..
So here we can understand that strikes can create huge impact around the world..
I agree with allowing all workers to strike
Because this is one of their rights, but I agree when the strike is partial so that it does not affect the country and the people.
The question is, will the city or town agree to that?
The employees or any other person should know that not everything can be resolved through a strike. Sometimes the most appropriate solution is dialogue and understanding, but I am not saying that they should not go on strike at some times if the understanding does not work when the employees must resort to a strike in order to demand their rights.
Well, I think there are some workers who have to be at their workplace all day.
For example, in my opinion, it is the doctor who must be present at his place of work, because his work is related to the lives of patients.
If there is a patient and the doctor is not present, this will affect his health, and may pose a threat to his life.
It is also important for teachers to be present at their workplaces, for example, if there are exams and students need a teacher to review them and the teacher is not present, it will definitely affect his academic life and educational attainment.
In addition to the civil defense, in the event of a major fire in an area and the civil defense strike, it may cause damage to people and the city and may lead to deaths.
Well, I also think that the presence of the police is important in their place of work, for example, if there is a theft, a car accident, or a murder, and the police are not present, then this will definitely pose a danger to the lives of people and society, and it is possible that crime cases will increase in the area.
Well, based on what I have studied and what I know, these workers play an important role in their presence in the city, and they must be present to maintain the safety of the community, and to work for the happiness of the people and their living in comfort and security.
I believe that if any party strikes, it will negatively affect the state, but the strike of doctors, teachers, and cleaners, I believe, will have very great consequences for the state and society
What consequences do you think there will be?
Iwill answer a question :which workers might have the biggest impact on a country if they chose to strike?The impact of a strike can vary depending on the industry, the size of the workforce, and the economic and political context of the country. Generally, workers who are essential to the functioning of critical infrastructure or services are more likely to have a significant impact if they choose to strike. Some examples of such workers include:
Transportation workers: This includes workers in the airline, rail, and trucking industries, who are responsible for moving people and goods across the country. A strike by transportation workers can disrupt supply chains, affect the delivery of essential goods, and lead to significant economic losses.
Healthcare workers: Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers are essential for providing medical care to the population. A strike by healthcare workers can lead to a shortage of medical services and affect the health and well-being of the population.
Energy workers: Workers in the energy sector, such as oil and gas workers and electrical workers, are responsible for keeping the lights on and the heating running. A strike by energy workers can cause power outages and disrupt the functioning of critical infrastructure.
Public sector workers: This includes workers in government agencies, such as police officers, firefighters, and teachers. A strike by public sector workers can affect the provision of essential services and lead to disruptions in the functioning of the government.
Manufacturing workers: Workers in the manufacturing sector are responsible for producing goods that are essential for the economy. A strike by manufacturing workers can disrupt supply chains and lead to economic losses.
In summary, workers who are responsible for critical infrastructure and services are more likely to have a significant impact if they choose to strike. However, the impact of a strike can also depend on the context of the country and the specific industry in question.
I agree that everyone should be allowed to strike but I believe that if things such as work conditions and pay would never become an issue if companies or the government would give workers the respect they deserve. If only the government or companies listened to workers needs they could avoid strikes harming both themselves, the workers, and other people affected.
I think that everyone should be allowed to strike, but the strike should be limited and with conditions. For example, when teachers strike, it is not permissible to exceed the duration of the strike for two days, because this is in the interest of the student, as it is easy to lose two days of his studies, but it is not easy to lose all his academic stage.
This is an interesting way of managing strike, objective_statement. Who do you think should be responsible for setting these rules and why? The workers who are striking, their employers, or someone else?
I think the state itself should put these laws in place because the striking workers can ignore the law of their employer because sometimes their employer is harsh on them or he is the reason that forced the workers to strike. Therefore, if the state law is violated, they will be punished by the state, and in this way everyone will abide. by international laws.
Every job in our life has importance and we can never dispense with it. Thinking about this question, you may find it logical and illogical at the same time. I will explain, for example, if we come and choose a profession to transfer medicine, for example, we will find that if doctors strike, we will not find treatment, diseases will spread and many will die, and if we say the teacher strikes, then ignorance will spread. And if we say the policeman strike, then we will find that theft and accidents are widespread, and chaos prevails in the place, and if we say the judge strike, then the state will also lack a person who restores justice to it, and we will continue in this case. I will answer that everything and a person has a job, and they were not created out of nothing. Or ordinary people respect each job and perform our duties to the fullest.
People should be allowed to strike in order to express themselves. They need to be heard because workers cannot keep working under conditions that stress them or doesn't pay enough.
Strikes will enable them to be heard and their requests to be answered.
Besides all citizens of the country have freedom of speed so I think the freedom to go on strike is a right.
Hello, everyone. I think my opinion will be criticized by many because the strike has its pros and cons, and everyone has my opinion.. Let us get to know the concept of strike, which means that employees stop working collectively. My personal opinion is that we should go on a comprehensive strike, except for doctors, because we desperately need them for The lives of the sick, but this does not mean that we will not defend their rights. The employees face many problems. My father is an employee who is exhausted from work in front of my eyes. He works long hours for low wages. My teachers are also very tired. Strike and demand our most basic rights. It is unreasonable for us to bear all this injustice and suffering. When we stand together and resort to strike, which is the only way to put pressure on governments to change their policy.
You say that professions should be allowed to strike apart from doctors because they are responsible for people's lives. What would you say to someone who says that teachers should not be allowed to strike because their students lives will be impacted due to lack of teaching?
Hello, By my words, I mean that people's lives are very important, so doctors should not give up their profession for the sake of striking. When they give up their occupation for, say, 3 days, how many deaths do you think will be? But this does not mean that we will not defend their rights, rather they are employees and deserve to be defended, but as for the teachers, when they strike, their demands will be met, and when they return to the teaching profession, the teacher will be able to compensate the students for the shortage, as the teacher does not underestimate him with his students and wants to raise generations Conscious and aware that all professions are important and strike will affect our daily lives, but it is the only way to meet the demands of employees and make them live a decent and safe life.
Even though I disagree with the fact of striking Everyone should still be able to strike so they can have a fair worl environment.
Can you explain why you disagree with striking?
I dissagree because what if a doctor goes on strike then people that need surgurey or need medication can't get it so I think employers should still listen to employees about their terms. And that is why I dissagree on striking.
It is true that everyone has the right to strike, but have you considered weighing the advantages and disadvantages of strike. I mean, a worker goes on strike so that his or her terms can be meet but have you ever considered the devastating effect this strikes can have on the lives of the innocent lives that were not part of anything relating to the strike. Even the worker gains a loss if he goes on strike. HOW? If the worker does not have another means of livelihood he would not be able to cater for the needs of himself and his family. The ASUU strike in my country left many families sorrowful and also made way for the perpetration of little or serious crimes carried out by idle students who just wanted to go school but were no able to because of strike. I strongly disagree to workers going on strike and even if they have to go on strike, because I mean a strike is the last legal option for a worker to get his terms and conditions met it should be for a limited time and the government should be informed forehand before it is carried out.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, productive_watermelon. What would you suggest workers who are unhappy with their situation do instead of strike?
To answer your question,instead of workers going on strike, I believe that workers can protest, they can have proper dialogue with their employers to discuss order means to achieve their aim instead of striking,they can sue their employers to court for unfair treatment or underpay after long hours at work and finally they can practice sympathy and try to find out why their terms and conditions are not met instead of striking.
I believe that everyone should be able to have strikes because if the feel like they are getting underpaid they can go on strike because otherwise they would just have to keep working with the amount they get paid which is not good because they also have to pay bills,rent and also buy food to provide for themselves and their family.
Hello.... 👋🏻👋🏻
➡️First: We agree that all jobs and workers are important, each worker has a job that contributes to the balance of the environment, but there are the most important tasks that we cannot do without, including: doctor💊💉 (medicine), engineer🔨📐📏 (engineering and construction), teacher📝✏ (education), cleaner (cleaning and cleaning🧹🧼).
➡️Secondly:
🔹️Suppose the doctor strikes, the world will increase in death and disease, reducing the population and thus collapsing the ecological and human balance.
🔹️2- If the engineer strikes, there will be no construction operations, so the unemployment rate of construction workers will increase, the construction will collapse, the number of houses will decrease, the proportion of stones and raw building materials will increase, and the environmental and biological balance will collapse.
🔹️3- If the teacher goes on strike, ignorance and backwardness will increase, so there will be no developments and inventions, and there will be no ... The virtual world that we discuss in the topics you gave us about general questions.
🔹️4- The cleaning worker is the one who plays the big and most important role in this topic, because it maintains the cleanliness of the country, if it strikes, the world will become dirtier, and diseases and dirt will spread.
➡️Each of us in this world has an important role, and if everyone strikes, the world will lose its balance and be destroyed; so we must respect the functions and roles of everyone in this big world, and we must be united🤝; to build a strong, solid world united against difficulties.
In my opinion,I feel and suggest that everyone should be able/have the ability to strike because strike action also brings about numerous direct and indirect economic costs that can be high, depending on duration, number of workers involved and divisions affected. It is one of the only ways the employees say their mind and how they feel about treatment towards them.
There us also increase in the workers' collective bargaining power for improved wages and improve working conditions.
Firstly, yes.
Yes everyone should be allowed to strike.
Some companies are unfair to their union/workers, and certain "people" aren't allowed to go on strike, because it bypasses the law of their country.
I think the main issue is that many employers treat their employees unfairly or give them an unreasonable pay, if this weren't the case there would be no use for strikes in the first place.
I agree because... having the ability to strike is an universal right, and a human right. Striking is almost as fundamental to a society as having the ability to speak freely.
I disagree with the statement. Everybody should not be allowed to strike. If everybody is allowed, it would be nothing but chaos, as most of them would choose frivolous reasons to strike.
The bus was late, then strike. The bus conductor did not issue ticket on time, then strike. The seats arent good enuf, then strike. The list goes on.
Unless its an very important issue, and if the issue had not been addressed by the appropriate authorities at all, then permission for strikes should be given. Otherwise, strike shouldnt be allowed. It would not be a healthy culture.
To disrupt the normal lives, many external organisations also fund such cause and campaigns. Which we have seen across the Globe happening.
For e.g., one of the leading industrial houses, in India, The TATA Group, wanted to provide a car for every family at a very affordable cost. It began its manufacturing unit at West Bengal, so that more employment could be generated. This state is also known for going for strike at the drop of the hat.
Ultimately, the TATA Group was so frustrated with the organisations which were behind the strikes and disruption of manufacturing units that they had to move to Maharashtra, yet another state, known for its vibrant culture and industrialization.
The whole thing has delayed the production of a car that was seen as a gift to the nation. It was also seen as a way to provide employment to the people of west bengal state, which had one of the lowest employability rates. But, because of few fringe elements, which resorted to strikes, it was a huge loss for the Bengal state.
Such examples are plenty not only in my country, but across the Globe. Hence, my final thought is: Everybody should not be allowed to strike.
I like that you used an example here. Do you think there are different ways of striking, or being heard?
Thank you for your comment. In today's digital era, there are several ways. One such is the # Hashtag culture, where your thoughts could be brought to highlight through the hashtag. Tweet the story, take it to the larger crowd. Educate people around, about the problems faced. Write about it. Distribute pamphlets.
I think that we should strike to meet the needs of the workers by some other methods such as :
1. Stay away strike: workers stay away from work.
2. Sit down strike : workers come to work but sit idle.
3. Pen down strike: workers do not touch tools and other machines.
4. Token strike: Here workers do not work for certain hours as a prompt warning to the management and if the management didn't take heed, they would go for full strike.
5. Lightening strike : strike without prior notice.
6. Go slow strike: Workers reduce their speed of functioning.
7. Work to rule: workers strictly work according to rules and regulations without doing any extra work and work within the stipulated period.
8. Boycott : disturbing the normal functions of an enterprise.
9. Gherao: Physical blockage of a target area by blocking the entry and exit from the premises.
10. Hunger strike : Workers will not eat food for a limited period and protest to draw the attention of the management.
11. Picketing : Posting pickets or patrolling of workmen in front of the employer.
12. Hartals and political bandhs which are against a third party.
So what you are saying is that you want women to be harassed in the workplace and men to be treated wrong. You believe that corrupt bosses of corporations are right to pay less to those who deserve more. You feel that women should be treated unfairly because they are not men ok. I feel that is rooted and is your opinion but no one should be treated unjust especially if it is happening to others but ok. Speaking up and causing a delay I show justice is served losing profits can force change on those who need to change.women are not objects and men can’t endure even when things are hard sometimes so people should be allowed to strike because they have a right to speak up and be heard instead of endure till they want to rid their life and do something they will regret. These are examples of non frivolous reasons to strike and safety is no matter the seats could be unchecked and nails missing on a bus. And if the bus is late then that could lose people their jobs causing a shortage in things they need so I say that strikes should be allowed.
I think the wider strikes debate is usually around pay and poor conditions as opposed to harassment. However your passion and message behind striking for greater, long-term good for workers is very interesting to hear about!
Thank you for your comment. My comment was never intended regarding the workplace harrassment. This was in connection with the larger problems that is taken for granted and not being voiced.
In my opinion, all workers have a great influence, and a profession or work cannot be dispensed with, because in short, all of them depend on one another and depend on the other, and they all complement each other. The one who works in industry depends on the one who works in agriculture for the food industry or anything, and the one who works in agriculture depends on the engineer in Dividing lands, designing spaces, and so on, the engineer and the doctor, and in the end I want to say that there is no developed and established society without a specific profession, because they are all important
You make a compelling argument in highlighting the importance of all professions and their reliance on each other tranquil_attention.
i said yes because a lot of ppl dont get payed enough at work like ambulance ppl they had a strike in my country and they stood outside their workplace and held up signs i drove past with my neighbours mum driving and she bibbed at them to show that she agrees and i stuck my thumb out of the window to show i agree but also i think other workers should get time off and help their mental health if they have bad mental health.Strikes can be very helpful to help ppl with whatever problem they have and ppl deserves breaks so thats why i said yes that everyone deserves strikes
Yes, not everyone should strike so that the interests of the public will not be disrupted. Also, I have an example, such as doctors, in the event of a strike, this negatively affects the public and private interests.
How do you think the doctors should get their points across if they do not strike?
Strikes can help people to be heard. Therefore, I think that everyone should be allowed to strike.
My opinion in this poll would be that countries would suffer in large terms if farmers were the ones on strike. I do agree that it is okay to go on strike but if farmers were to go on strike, we would lose the privileges to fresh crops that we may need, along with that, most food markets usually sell farmers crops which could potentially bring down businesses. It would also be a serious lack of food due to the fact that farmers approximately produce 80% of the world's food. Another problem that can be produced if farmers went on strike would be the amount of people who depend on farming and agriculture (27.6% of the globe or almost 2 billion people) so it would be harder for those people to get access to fresh food. So in conclusion I think that if farmers went on strike, the consequences would be drastic.
Every one should be allowed to strike because working conditions are worsening every day and their basic needs are not being met so striking is a way to make it fair to those who need it. Teachers get payed less because the people and the government feel that they need this job and they have to teach kids so when they go on strike people get mad but no every one should be allowed to strike because of any reason that is unjust because a closed mouth don’t get fed so they should speak up.
I concur with the assertion that when workers from various industries opt to go on strike, it can cause considerable disruptions in communities and even entire countries. The degree of impact that a strike can have largely hinges on the industry and the level of essential services offered by the striking workers.
In my view, workers in critical industries such as healthcare, transportation, energy, and food production possess the potential to create the most substantial impact on a country if they decide to strike. For instance, a strike by healthcare workers can lead to delays in medical treatments and services, which could precipitate a public health crisis. In the same vein, a strike by transportation workers can trigger disruptions in public transport services, leading to a ripple effect on other industries like tourism, retail, and hospitality. Similarly, a strike by energy workers can culminate in power outages, which could have ramifications for various industries and disrupt daily life. A strike by food production workers can trigger shortages of food and other essential supplies, which could result in a potential humanitarian crisis.
In summary, work stoppages by workers in essential industries can have far-reaching consequences on a country's economy, public health, and social stability. Hence, it is crucial to ensure that workers in these industries are treated fairly and have their grievances addressed to minimize the chances of them going on strike.
I agree the statement that everybody should be allowed to strike cause strike is like not doing something illegal or causing an internal threat to their country or forming an armed rebellion it is not at all like that .Here is my perspective why people strike ? What makes people to strike ? Is it harmful to our country ? now let me answer it ,People strike when they don't have justice for their problem for example : Farmers protest against the government while they are not giving refund for their crops which are affected because of climatic changes (Monsoon, Drought etc) ,or their land is captured by some public authorities illegally , and while they are not having good MSP (Minimum Support Price ) from the government, we should not call it as 'Strike' we should call it as 'Protest'because people are not striking they are protesting against the government and asking for their freedom of justice when government do their job correctly there will be no such problems happening in a country or globally. People strike because when they are not given proper freedom they will approach the government properly but then ,when they are not given proper attention to the poor and illiterate people what can people do they can only protest against the government asking for justice and freedom this make the people to strike . It is not at all harmful to the country because people who are protesting for their justice ,protest with the intention of getting the solution to the problem they're have ,they don't protest to cause damage to others .So if they are causing threat then they should be brought to the police stations and punished . The government ough to pay attention for people who are poor and illiterate so that the country's GNP(Gross National Happiness) increases and people can also lead their lives peacefully.
people should be allowed to strike,though striking is the last resort but sometimes it is the only tool for workers to protect themselves. The right to strike is essential in preserving and winning rights .Any curtailment of this right involves the risk of weakening the basis of collective bargaining . without the threat of strike ,action corporations will be able to make bigger profit while working condition will get worse.
I agree because... Yes i agree with you. In a society where strikes are not allowed, the employers will make a lot of profit while the employees will suffer in silence as working conditions get worse for them ,they could still be underpaid and some may get injuries if there is an unsafe working environment. The reason why strikes are important is because they serve as a way to spread awareness of the needs of the workers. Some employers are against the idea of strike but it is a legal right of every worker. I think going on strike is thr best way to get their needs met instead of going on a protest which could lead to violence.
I believe everyone should be allowed to strike, because it allows workers to send a message and spotlight corruption and ill practices.
Can you give an example of where this has happened?
In my opinion yes everyone should be allowed to strike as a right to voice out on one's opinions/view on their working conditions or pay. Though I feel it will be of interest to both parties that other methods be considered before going on strike. Also factors should be considered like is it beneficiary, will it work in the place/society they are in? Will they
supported by the government? Can they survive through the period of time in which their demands may not be met? These should be looked into before embarking on a strike. When that is done ,limits to how intense the strike can go should be set based on nature of work done or service rendered.
Thankyou.
I disagree with the idea that everyone has to vote because workers who go on strikes will not receive their regular pay during the work stoppage, which can cause financial stress and hardship. Employers on the other hand will lose revenue due to reduction in production, which can lead to damaging of small businesses'.
I think people should be allowed to strike and this are some reasons:
1.Striking is a last resort but sometimes the only tool for workers to protect themselves: This is because workers don't just go on strike but they plead with the government first until the can endure it no more before going on strike.
2.To avoid being at the complete mercy of employers: Once people are not properly taken care of, they do not have any money or resources they can fall back on if the loose their jobs. this makes them at the complete mercy of their employers.
3.To give more of a balance between worker and employer power: This is also similar to the second point. If a person knows that what he is doing for a living is at stake, he or she will not want to upset the employer.This then gives an unbalance between the employee power and the employer power
4.Without it, more and more governments will ban industrial action and punish people who dare to strike.
5.Most strikes are over pay and better working conditions. Without the threat of strike action, corporations will be able to make bigger profits, while working conditions will get worse.
Strike is the only tool workers have that will drag the attention of the government(in the case of bad government), so I think workers should be allowed to strike.
should every one be allowed to strike ?
I don't think every one should be allowed to strike because if every one is allowed to strike, it may lead to constant destruction of the environment and some people for example young children in school might be affected by the strike like they may be killed ,injured and any others during their participation in the strike.
I think that it wouldn't be fair if not everyone could strike and it makes sense for everyone's conditions and requests are met
through strikes. Some of the employee's rights are highlighted, which are not extravagant to him and he cannot claim them. From my personal point of view, strikes are collective punishment. Most affected by it is the public interest
Can you explain what collective punishment is?
everyone should be allowed to strike what they want
Everyone should be allowed to strike so they can be comfortable in their workspace.
Strikes mostly occur in response to unfair or unsafe labor conditions. It arises for a number of reasons to improve wages or other benefits to workers and employees and make better working conditions. Country like India had one of the biggest strikes done on February 28, 2012, by dozens of trade unions and Indian workers for the betterment in area such as pay, pension and employment rights. This strike affected many sectors which includes public sector bank, railways, insurance, road transport and aviation workers. Strikes cannot be stopped or criticized as they are a legal right and not a fundamental right towards employees. One of the biggest disadvantages is lack of production. For example, when workers in the medical industry or food industry start to strike it affects the people who were depending on the goods produced by those industries.
I believe that there should be more strikes because if at work you feel like your getting underpaid or want better work conditions then how could you do it because if you just tell your boss he/she might not care so you wouldn't have that much money to pay your rent or bills and won't have much money to buy food and provide for yourself and your family but if you have more strikes you will protest and that might give you a chance to earn more money or work in a safer place but also at the same time you would lose some money because on those days that you went on strike you would of have not went to work and that means you would of have earned no money on those days so on you next paycheck it would be less money than before.
How can we prevent it getting to the point of strikes?
Generally, what is a strike? A strike is a period of time when people refuse to go to work, usually it will happen when the employees or workers are not satisfied with their salary or working conditions. Main cause of strike was dissatisfaction with company policy, salary or wage problem, worse working condition. Without the threat of strike action companies or an industry will be able to make higher profits, but the working conditions will get worse. The best way to reduce strikes is to reduce work pressure, provide better working conditions and provide better salaries or wages for the employees or for the workers. In Country like India strike is not a fundamental right but a legal right. India propounded a rule that is a proposal as to go on strike should be sent to management by way of prior notice, that is the 14-day stipulated time period should be given to the management to respond or react so as to avoid a strike. During this 14 days' time no workmen should go on strike.
We can prevent getting to the point of strikes by; for example, doctors being paid their money on time and not delaying their payment, the board of management in schools listening to the problems students have and addressing them , the government paying its workers well and presidents ,kings and prime ministers understanding problems of its citizens and provide a positive solution.
I think everyone should be allowed to strike. Strikes can help workers project their thoughts and feelings. Their thoughts can be heard quickly and sometimes, it is acted upon immediately. Striking is also a good way to make things fair at a workplace or in a nation.
I believe that the customs and traditions of the ancestors and fathers of kings must be changed and not dealt with because we are in an era different from theirs and people have become different from the people of their era and the two eras may be completely different from each other so they may be subjected to injustice and violation of their rights all this because they deal with the customs of their ancestors... I I do not say that we abandon it completely, but rather we try to reduce the bad nature of it. This is from my point of view
Everybody should be able to strike as sometimes you need more money and they maybe can't afford the bills or their house, but some jobs - Police officers, NHS doctors and people that help the community to live - you can't strike. Why can't people strike? A reason people strike is because they can't afford something in their life that is big!
I think that when the workers in the primary sector which includes -all the works of extracting raw materials (agriculture,minning etc.... )which is slowly going down in India compared to other sectors .
Many people are not engaging to these activities compared to the past years if these workers start striking in a country the country will be forced to a condition to import raw materials from other countries which will cost more than the internal trade occurring within the country which if continues ;will lead to great crisis in economy and food. All other sectors will get collapsed as these primary sectors are the starting point to many other sectors so; the primary sector workers striking will have the biggest impact on a country.
I think that everyone should have the right to go on strike because if they feel like they don't have good working conditions or if they feel like they are being underpaid they should have the right to go on strike because they wouldn't get much money plus they would have to pay taxes which will result to them having even having less money and also they have to pay bills and the rent and they have to buy food to provide for themselves and their family.Finally, to sum this all up i think that everyone should be allowed to strike so that their terms and conditions are met.
I believe strikes should be allowed as some workers are put in unsafe and dangerous conditions and have inflexible hours . although it is unlikely for a worker uprising there has been many this, year and the chances of change are slowly increasing but strikes are increasing . British workers have a tradition of striking. In 1888, the match girls reminded us to not settle for unfair and dangerous work places . bigger companies are treating their workers with inhuman rights . They believe that they can get away with these actions as they are bigger and supposedly '' invincible ''.
I think half the workers should be on strike and the other half on work and then switch so it would be fair as doctors, firefighters and nurses still need to help or save people because they are supposed to not let anybody die if there was an emergency.
I disagree because this would be good but however, it isn't very realistic.
we should keep strike days
I think that everybody should be allowed to strike because everyone has a right to good pay and working conditions. However, people should not have to strike in the first place because they should already have access to these things. Yes, police officers and doctors have an important role, but they also should be allowed to strike, as if they do not have good working conditions then that could be bad for them and the people who they look after.
I disagree because some jobs have good pay and good working conditions but people that work in those types of jobs still go on strikes with no actual reason. I do agree that police officers, doctors and other jobs in that category should be able to strike since their job is more important to the economy and if they do not like the way their job pays, they would quit and then the economy would not be as safe and healthy.
I think this is very difficult if a strike occurred because of what the people suffer from, such as the Corona virus. Without the presence of doctors, we would not have been able to save their lives, and also the earthquakes. If it were not for the presence of first aid, we would not have been able to save the lives of those who were under the soil
I think everyone should have the ability to go on strike but it would be better if they spaced it out instead of doing everything all at once as that would cause more chaos than anyone would want, even for the workers striking themselves.
I think everyone should be able to go on strike but the workers have to know when to stop because people can cause something even bigger to happen.
I believe not all people should be able to go on strike because some workers do not have reasonable reasons and need to keep the jobs they have without changing it. For example doctors may be able to go on strike for certain things but nurses are assistants so they do not have all the pressure and it is more of a light job compared to doctors. This applies to other jobs as well which is why some people should be able to strike while the rest should not be able to go on strike and keep the job they have.
I believe that everyone should be allowed to strike, however, there should be some boundaries set for the amount of strikes people are able to do. For example, people should strike when they feel it is a good need to, yet they shouldn't do it all the time when they feel they should. They should consider people's families and how they would feel about them doing such specific workers. Overall, people should be able to strike, yet there should be some limits to the amount of times that they are able to do so.
Firstly government are not doing what is expected of them in terms of what they had produced in their manifesto's before being elected into government. They are paying government workers, they often forget the those people have families they have to provide for and they rely on those jobs to get their source of income forcing them to look for an alternative way to get their money making them to strike. Now if the government do what they are expected to do, what they have assured us that they would do there will be no use for strike because at that point everyone is happy. Coming back to the topic I think everyone should be allowed to strike because Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act states in part “Employees shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Proving that strike is legal.
The strike is good for the laborers, when they make big strike they will have their rights, so they will do their job with passion and love.
I disagree with the idea that everyone should be allowed to strike because workers such as doctors and nurses really help the environment ,so if they go on strikes patients will be on the verge of dying ,in addition teachers should not go on strikes because students will fall behind in their studies and have trouble catching up therefore I think the government should find suitable ways to appease these social workers because they bring impact to the youth.
I agree that strikes are good because they somehow serve as eye openers for the government so that they could know how workers feel towards their working conditions. Though strikes can prove as deadly in the medical field and are also harmful to students in government schools, they sometimes prove to be effective in the end.
Although striking is not good because it can result in death in some cases, such as health workers striking, it has resulted in better outcomes for workers in many cases because when workers strike, employers listen to their grievances, negotiate with them, and reach a compromise that helps to address workers' problems.
the strikes are also important for people to rest and others to take their place and then this is repeated
Everyone should be allowed to strike no matter their profession. The more people that strike the greater impacts the strikes would make and no matter what the government will have to address the matter, but emergency workers and emergency responders ( like firefighters,policemen,doctors etc) should not be allowed to strike unless it is absolutely necessary. If emergency workers and responders strike then we will have a big problem as it would put hundreds of thousands of lives in danger.
In general, anyone has the right to strike, but there may be certain legal restrictions or requirements in place depending on the country or jurisdiction. For example, some countries require that workers must belong to a union to be able to strike, while others allow non-unionized workers to strike. Additionally, there may be rules around the minimum number of employees required to strike, notice requirements, and limitations on the types of strikes that are permitted. It's also worth noting that striking can come with potential consequences, such as the loss of pay or even the loss of one's job in some cases. Therefore, it's important for individuals to carefully consider the potential risks and benefits before deciding to go on strike, and to make sure they are aware of any legal requirements or restrictions in place.
No, they shouldn’t, and I disagree with the statement it would adversely affects the entire country, the impact of a strike would depend on various factors, such as industry, the number of workers involved, the duration of the strike, and the level of dependence on the services provided by the striking workers. However, some workers that could potentially have a significant impact on a country if they chose to strike are:
Transportation workers - such as bus drivers, train operators, and airline pilots, as their absence would disrupt the movement of goods and people across the country.
Healthcare workers - including doctors, nurses, and other medical staff, as they provide essential services for the well-being and survival of citizens.
Teachers and education workers - as their absence would affect the education and development of students, potentially leading to long-term impacts on the workforce and economy.
Public safety workers - such as police officers and firefighters, as they provide critical emergency services and maintain law and order.
Energy and utility workers - including electricity, gas, and water supply workers, as their absence would lead to disruptions in the essential services that keep society running.
Manufacturing and construction workers - as their work contributes to the production and development of infrastructure and goods, which are crucial for economic growth.
Any group of workers whose absence would lead to the disruption of critical services, or the smooth functioning of society would have a significant impact on a country if they chose to strike. Instead of allowing people to strike. The company management or even the government must provide the best working conditions and even better salaries, which would considerably reduce the strike and make better economic growth across the world. But if we start to implement all the demands raised by workers it adversely reduces the national income or government treasury which would be used in growth of public welfare will be affected. So, the management has to decide which demand is most important to implement, which would reduce or stop strikes.
Strikes should be allowed as they give employees the power to negotiate for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. They also provide a means for workers to voice their concerns and hold employers accountable for their actions.Without the ability to strike, workers may be left with little leverage in negotiations, leading to a power imbalance between them and their employers. Allowing strikes can help level the playing field and promote fairness in the workplace.
Everyone should be permitted to strike as they protect jobs, fight against worsening working conditions, and putting an end to insecure contracts and outsourcing. They also do this influential action to get pay rise. Doctors need to be authorised to strike because they are not financed by hospitals. Builders also strike to get superior working conditions. We need to coax the government so everyone, from adolescence to adult, so they can strike and everyone can get an even better life in the future.
In my opinion, it would be electricity workers in my country Nigeria.
Electricity workers in Nigeria have gone on strike numerous times in recent years to protest a range of issues, including poor working conditions, unpaid salaries, and the privatization of the power sector. Some of the major strikes by electricity workers in Nigeria are:
February 2016: The NUEE went on strike to protest the non-payment of salaries and the alleged plans by the government to sell some of the power plants to private investors.
December 2019: The NUEE went on a nationwide strike to protest the non-implementation of an agreement reached with the government on issues including the payment of outstanding salaries and the release of funds for the improvement of the power sector.
Normally, everyone has the fundamental right to strike because we are humans not machines so people need to rest.
Aside from this, there a lot of things, actually good things that strikes could lead to..... We all know that strikes means to take a break from work. My main point is PRODUCTIVITY.
For Example: Am a worker and I am stressed out and very tired, what do I need? It is a break from work because when I take the break and I come back from it, you will notice that my productivity has increased. And my question is which worker will be the best at work, a stressed out worker or an energetic worker. And this is beneficial to the employee, employer and the organisation.
It is beneficial to the employee in the sense that when you are productive, your salary will increase.
It is beneficial to the employer because when employees are productive, profits will increase.
It is beneficial to the organisation because in the sense that, when productivity is high, recognition increases and more sales come in.
I think that everyone should allowed to strike as long as it's for a legitimate reason. For example, trying to get more funds for a work place.
Strike the most common thing in our working industry's well in my opinion teacher's might have the biggest impact if they choose to go on strike cause most teacher's go on strike mostly cause they don't pay them enough money or should I say they don't pay them their salary's. Take a look at the University in my country called castle. Castle is a state university and is the only university I now in my country that mostly goes on strike for a long period cause the state doesn't pay them enough money so they choose to go on strike until the state pays them their money. I believe that no country no workers should be going on strike cause it could really have a negative impact especially for the students I hope we can fix this problem now and also in the future. Thank you
yes they should though they should make sure that the company know in advance or the reason so they can understand the strike.
The yes side at 75% surprised me because I thought it would be 50/50 because of the different mindsets people have. I would have picked the no side because if everyone is able to go on strike and their job pays well and in general is a good job then they are striking just to strike and have no reason to. This can also hurt citizens in need of that type of worker. For example doctors, firefighters, police officers, and transportation workers. On the other hand though for the people saying yes they probably did not think this far into it and instead only thought about equality.
The majority of the graph being yes was surprising to me since I know that some people have good jobs that pay well and treat their employees well. It is not like every job in the world is bad so if everyone is able to go on strike then the customers or the people in general in need of that job can not go because all of the workers would be gone. Simple things like this can harm people not just one day but possibly their lifetime so we need to be mindful of the jobs that have no issues and can help people.
I stand with those who say yes... because everyone should be allowed to strike because he is the only factor to communicate their opinion to the government and the ministry and to express their opinions and they have the right to strike and get the appropriate salary for them, but I think that they should be vigilant for the period in which they decide to strike so that it does not result in any effects Sideways in terms of treatment, learning, education and lunch so that the economic level does not go down. Therefore, I repeat my words, the government must allow employees to strike or so that they can provide the needs of employees so that they do not have to strike and in order to reduce the occurrence of losses
In my opinion, it is not necessary for everyone to strike, but I do not mean that the demands of the workers are not met, because if the doctor strikes from work and there are dangerous cases, then this strike may lead to the death of many people, and also what if the teacher strikes from work, then there will be an ignorant state, and of course there are workers They are important, so not everyone should go on strike, and all the workers' demands must be met so that no strike takes place
These results were predictable, as most people stand for workers rights, and without workers our world would not function.
Strikes are the legal rights of people.
But in my opinion, I think that if people will strike more they will destroy the democracy of a country. Strikes destroys the peace of a country or city. In my country Pakistan , Recently a strike has been practiced to release Imran Khan from jail .It destroyed the democracy of our country and had several bad impacts on Pakistan as a nation the protester damages the historical Pakistan places which proved to be a severe critical act.
Strikes can be advantageous or detrimental. Workers intend to strike in order to get their voices acknowledged and followed. But wouldn't going on strike be disastrous for some workers, such as doctors and police?
There would be a great loss of life if doctors went on strike. So many crimes would be committed if polices went on strike.
Thus, in my opinion, a trade union should exist at companies or place of employment rather than going on strikes. A trade union is essentially a group of employees that want to keep or improve the terms of their job, such a raise in pay. The opinions of a trade union may be heard and followed in a calm and peaceful manner because they are better coordinated.