Apparently it would never happen because it would have to be approved by parliament and let´s face it they´re not going to..........
As a trade union representative I believe that every worker should have the right to take industrial action as a last resort,
however we are talking about the police force and the possible consequences of strikes could be.......???????
2007-12-12 05:54:44 · 25 answers · asked by JOMAMO IS BACK 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
The right to strike was taken away years ago on the understanding that they would never need to strike because under an agreement in the 1970's they would always be granted a rise in line with inflation. Last year that agreement was reneged by the gov.and the dispute went to arbitration and was resolved .The same thing happened again this year but the Home Sec has over ruled the arbiter. This shows what the Gov really think of the police. The police should either be given the right to strike or the right of arbitration without Gov interference at the moment they have neither and it is just not right. This gov are riding rough shod over our police force and they should be ashamed of themselves.If the police did strike then the country would be in a big mess.If this had been the Fire service they would all have been out by now !!!! FACT.
2007-12-12 06:12:22 · answer #1 · answered by little weed 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
In the US, police unions have struck or, more often, threatened to strike, even though this is illegal. The same is true of other essential government services. This is generally done only as a last resort, and sometimes results in the strikers being fired. However, the unions usually exercise some social responsibility in this kind of strike, allowing some essential workers to remain on duty, or otherwise mitigating the negative effects of the strike on the community.
2007-12-12 06:04:56 · answer #2 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
In most European countries the right to strike is enshrined in, and protected by, a written constitution. The contract of employment of those who strike is considered suspended for the duration of the strike. It is not considered to have been broken.
Exceptions are the UK and Ireland.
The UK has no written constitution and the right to strike is not protected. Dependent on which side the government of the day represents, the law is changed to favour either owners and directors or else the working population. Conservative governments, for example, in power since 1979, had by 1996 passed something like eight Acts of Parliament reducing, indeed removing, basic rights of the working population.
Under this legislation any striker in the UK is considered to have broken his contract of employment as all those on strike may be sacked together without compensation. They may be sacked selectively when the strike is 'unofficial'. The lack of protection applies regardless of the cause of the strike. So where an employer deliberately engineers a dispute it is the workforce which may be in breach of contract. The workforce is then exposed to dismissal without compensation, may lose redundancy payments, may be disqualified from unemployment benefit, and all without remedy for unfair dismissal.
2007-12-12 06:06:04 · answer #3 · answered by Robert S 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
could be pretty bad yes! thats why the government should pay up! but like u said every worker regardless of their job title has the right to strike for a good enough reason, if the police do strike, then they will order troops to take over until the issue has been solved
2007-12-12 06:04:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think they should have a right to strike - I'm sure Government would declare that the police force should not hold the country to ransom in such away......but isn't that exactly what the Government has done by making it illegal for strike action to happen?
Very few, I'm sure, would want to strike - it takes a lot for strike action to occur as seen with other organisations/Public Sector.............but not being able to strike Government can do as it wishes without any risks to their actions/decision making.
As for the consequences - what about the consequences of having an incompetent Government ?
2007-12-12 06:07:25 · answer #5 · answered by Leu 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Good question!!!!!!!!!! id say NO because peoples lives would be at risk.BUT they deserve union rights just like us lot lol.so in my defence m,lord id say LET them strike BUT cover the shifts lol xxxxxxxxx
http://freespace.virgin.net/peter.culley/dixon01.jpg
2007-12-12 09:07:04 · answer #6 · answered by Bluebudgie21 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ten years or so ago we would all have been worried sick about the Police striking. Nowadays, sadly, it won't make much difference to most of us except perhaps motorists!
The only time I ever see a copper he's in a car speeding off somewhere, they are almost never on the streets.
2007-12-12 06:35:17 · answer #7 · answered by Rosina 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I think they should all hand in their notice on the same day as they are unable to strike.As for the consequence the army would have to do it and they may be a bit stretched at the moment
2007-12-12 06:00:19 · answer #8 · answered by golden 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Everyone who has a job knows what that job payed and what the benefits were. If you don't like the job you applied for quit that job and get a different job. Going on strike should be considered AWOL and you should be fired. Now, see how you like the pay you're getting.
2007-12-12 06:19:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
if they strike our safety will be compromised. i have an idea. Get rid of PCSOs and share the saved money out yearly with the police officers.
2007-12-12 06:00:04 · answer #10 · answered by Nansy 4 · 9⤊ 1⤋