2007-10-09 09:53:02 · 5 answers · asked by see u jimmy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Why is it that the government prevent the police, firemen, prison officers, ambulance driver from striking? Sure these people are essential service providers and we don't want homes to burn down or criminals to escape from prison.
However the other side of the argument is that if the government treat our essential service personnel like humans, with decent pay and conditions for the work they do we would not be in the position we currently are.
The first rule of negotiations is to work from a position of strenght, if you cannot withdraw your labour from a job then what can you do?
2007-10-11 01:34:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get a politician to do a real job?. That is a comic scenario.
Can you imagine anyone employing Gordon the One Eyed Bandit, David "Mr. Bean" Milliband, Douglas "I don't shave yet" Alexander and many others.
I have never been to prison, but I would love to see any of the above shouting and telling a hairy ar*ed burglar or murderer what to do.
It would be great fun, I'm sure.
2007-10-09 10:04:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know the department I worked for prohibited strikes, I would think this is pretty common. The reason for this is obviously public safety.
Gees where are the liberals now? You mean law enforcement doesn't have the same rights that everyone else has!!!!
2007-10-09 10:00:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its very common for law enforcement and fire personel to be prevented from striking, it is also illegal for their employers to lock them out....in exchange for losing the right to strike, disputes are settled thru binding arbitration
2007-10-09 09:57:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
if they paid them better wages there would be no need to go on strike.
2007-10-09 11:05:16 · answer #5 · answered by tony c 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋