The crux Yorkie as I think you really know is about principle. Whether the strike is for one day or for months, the principle is the same. Is it alright to punch someone if you don't do it too hard? A single parent struggling to bring up children who loses a day's pay may answer you "yes" Another argument suggesting two wrongs make a right.
I believe striking is wrong in all circumstances. Just as I believe killing people is wrong in all circumstances. It is always possible to justify an action by taking an extreme case and then letting that apply to lesser cases. We would kill Hitler beause he was evil - so can the Iranians justifiably kill the US President? There are always other non-violent ways to resolve disputes.
The logic of this is to abandon your family too. Nope, do not agree with these sentiments at all. We are all very different and should be proud of our differences as well as who we are and what tribes and religions we belong to - the trick is to respect all the others.
Not sure I find the logic here entirely convincing, Leo. It assumes a punch and a strike have some kind of equivalence, yet the first is often instinctive while a strike, whether or not you agree with the principle, is usually a considered action. Most of us were taught not to punch others and were punished when we did. Even those who would ban all strikes rarely suggest that the intended outcome is to harm others. If we are to impose a total ban on all things which may have an unintended harmful impact, there will be very few permissible human activities left. If instead of using your analogy, I choose another...manufacturing labour-saving devices or moving call centres abroad...these have far greater economic impact than one day strikes.
Collective action and unionisation is a right for which several generations fought. Similarly education for all and a benefits system which supports the elderly and infirm. These rights - including the right to strike- should be cherished as part of our mature, developed democracy. Remove them and we become yet another repressive, inhuman system. It's not a question of left or right. It's to do with a society which matures to a point where we all look after and care for one another, rather than fencing off wealth or denying opportunity. Traditional Conservative/Tory values express this as a form of benevolent parochial care, and socialism expresses it as 'to each according to his/her needs' but they are very similar in 'christian with a small c' caring for each other.
I do not follow your logic Theo You seem to suggest a punch is wrong as it is instinctive (which implies may not have been preventable) yet a premeditated action such as a strike with a consequence which is not only foreseeable but often intentional - i.e to disrupt innocent others is fine? A premediitated piece of violence usually is regarded as a more serious offence. When teachers strike the harm done to children's education and to parents who have to take time off is not at all unintended but is the calculated action of the strikers. It is not about economic activity - economic changes are a necessary part of life - a strike is only called because the parties do not resolve the dispute. What is worse is that many strikes are called on the vote of less than 20% of the union membership so do not even represent the majority of those gong on strike - yet most union members are unable to ignore a strike they may not agree with. I am sorry to keep labouring the point but strikes are usually intended to harm "innocents" Look at the tube strikes - which may be a little less emotive for some on here as we do not seem to have any railwaymen. If I was forced to condone any strike it would be either a wildcat strike - called on the spur of the moment through an incident that "flared up" (akin to your instinctive punch) or an industrial dispute within a factory or workplace that led to loss of production and so harmed employer and employees but nobody else (assuming it was not for a product in a monopoly position). In both those cases I would call for a cessation of hostitlities as quickly as possible and arbitration. I honestly believe that very few people on this board would support a Strike - such as those leading to a closure of schools or a rail system had there never been one in history. If it were developed as a new "weapon" it would be universally condemned. But as people have done it before somehow some think that makes it all right. It is a workers "right"
In such an instance - yes. Those in the position of power and 'wielding the stick' generally appear to place themselves above the rest of society and repeatedly don't listen to any concerns/arguments placed before them. The current incumbents in Westminster are in no mind to even pay lip service to a process of negotiating, being more intent on pushing through their policies with indecent haste - in the face of that it's not hard to accept that some members of society will react as they have done.
Education and NECESSARY benefits are good things. We should provide as much of these as we can afford. Unionisation is generally a good thing except when its powers are abused - it benefits workers and management. Strikes should never be cherished - they are bad for everybody - the workers, the management and innocent others. What was good in the 19th century is not necessarily good now - we have a far better body of industrial law and arbitration services that make strikes obsolete. To cherish something bad is not sensible. To remove one obsolete weapon is no more repressive than removing obsolete blacksmiths - they belong to anther era. To stop somebody intentionally hurting another is NOT inhuman - allowing it may be. Are you saying strikers are caring for their victims? The Tory / Labour debate for me is for another place.
I am aware I talk too much and give my opinions very freely. Please tell me to shut up on this topic if I have said too much or am just repeating myself. I enjoy a good debate so tend to respond to comments but am happy to sit back and watch others debating it
Yes it should. But it's a two way thing. When management abuse their position, what then? Evidently it doesn't. And as I've said before, no-one takes strike action lightly. The strikers will think long and hard, both because of the prospect of losing a day's wages, but more, I would think, because of the 'co-lateral damage', as military jargon would have it. As a teacher I hated striking but (very rarely, remember) I did it. I wanted to teach, surprisingly enough, not to be involved with wrangling with an intransigent authority. It is a last resort, a bitter, regrettable last resort, but the right to so should be upheld, and yes, cherished.
Obsolete means out of date - so yes it does Agreed many striking workers may not take action lightly - but many union people do. So hurt the innocents to get at "authority" Hmm - many teachers preach that in their classes do they?
Blimey I didn't think this would still be going on - but I'm happy to respond to a reasoned opposite view to what I said earlier. Leonardo - thanks for noting the passion in my piece - you are right I am passionate about these things. The point you make about how a strike impacts upon another person is a fair one. However, I believe as I suggested the strike comes about through a disagreement between two parties - the employer in this case the government and the workers who are in the union represented by the unions. So I don't believe you can just place the blame for others being effected solely on the door step of the unions. If this is accepted then its a matter of degrees as to who holds the lions share of 'blame'. I believe this lies with the government (I'm sure you won't agree here). But in order to get to a strike position there has been negotiations and debate beforehand. The strike comes about where this has failed. I see from other posts you are suggesting that in this day and age there should be other ways to negotiate settlements and on this we agree. The problem comes about when one or other of those negotiating fails to do that. The government in this case withdrew from the negotiations as they weren't prepared to listen to anyone but themselves. They stated that we were in a financial mess (not caused by public sector workers by the way) and that was that. Given this situation the unions were left with no option but to ballot for industrial action. of course the unions knew perfectly well what this would mean to those effected by the action and therefore they do have a responsibility - but no-where near that of the government - I would say the government hold around 80% blame whereas the unions hold say 20%. With regard to who is to blame for the financial crisis - sorry we can't agree - the labour government in my view had little option but to bail out the banks or else many people would have lost their life savings and homes and that would have been a worse crisis. But I think that's another debate to the one here. johnnywarksmoustache "Are you Red Ed's Speech writer per chance! You really need to find some new material as this is the same old bulls**t that has been trotted out since 2010 and the majority of the electorate just aren't listening". Really you should take a leaf out of Leonardo's book - name calling and trying to cat fight are no way to conduct a debate. I think it is quite obvious from my final paragraph that I no more support miliband than I do Cameron. If I were to write any speeches for him it would have much more favoured his fathers view of things - Ralph Miliband was a proper socialist. Oh and by the way get your facts right about who supports what since 2010 - you are actually well off the mark even here (even though it was meant to be a slur on my views).
Yello - it is good to have arguments to respond to and in reality I doubt we are as far apart as you may believe. I do not place blame anywhere - two opposing parties have failed to come to an agreement - that is why industrial action happened. My point is that as strikes are bad (my opinion) you must find an alternative. MY alternative is COMPULSORY negotiations under the aegis of the likes of ACAS. If one party will not negotiate then the Arbitrator will take that into account in making a judgement so that is likely to go better for the other side. If both parties negotiate honestly and fairly and in good faith then if they still cannot come to an agreement then ACAS makes the judgement. We will agree to leave the finanical mess to another thread shall we as I am sure it would take a lot of discussion
Leo- when I said 'Evidently it doesn't', I was referring to your claim that Witness yesterday. Strikes happened, QED. I agree that an infallible, fair arbitration system is an admirable way to resolve disputes, but as Yello eloquently points out, it takes two to tango. As for: you're being silly now. Of course they don't. They teach values of fairness and truthfulness. Unfortunately, grown ups of all sorts, including some managers and government officials, and, I'm sure, some union officials, often forget their lessons.
You miss the point completely. I am arguing that strikes are wrong and should be outlawed as we have a far better body of industrial law and arbitration services - not that we currently have a compulsory arbitration rule. If we had then yesterday's strike could not have happened and the dispute would be resolved under a non violent rule of law. It may take two to tango but it would take law to make tangoing compulsory. Then let one of the partners refuse to tango and see how their fare at arbitration. The clue is in "compulsory" If teachers are savvy enough to not teach it to their children it is because they know it is wrong - they should not then be arguing that it is an acceptable thing for adults to do. We all know adults often do not behave as they should but that does not condone arguing in favour of bullying. There are other ways of resolving disputes, teachers and most of hte rest of us know this and instead of relying on some "historical right" we should all be seeking a proper, equitable and permanent solution that does not harm bystanders. How can you not see that if you would not teach it to children then you should not advocate it for adults?
Actually, teachers don't teach it because a) it isn't in the curriculum, and b) our professional guidelines don't permit us to impose personal beliefs on students.
I think you quite well realise I was being facetious in suggesting teachers teach to "hurt the innocents to get at authority". However your answer is frightening if it means that because a) it is not in the national curriculum and b) guidelines don't permit us to impose personal beliefs on children you cannot teach right from wrong I am assuming you too are being facetious. Next you will tell me you do not teach that lying and stealing are wrong for the same reasons.
