Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Right to strike for public sector workers
Section E. Social, moral and religious

This debate focuses on employees such as teachers, doctors and nurses, transport workers, etc. who are working within the public sector. It may or may not include emergency service workers depending on the definition. It does not usually cover the armed forces. In many countries, trades unions in these areas are very strong and workers use striking as a bargaining tool for better pay and working conditions. Is this an important protection of workers’ rights against their powerful government employer, or is it anti-democratic to hold the government to ransom in this way when it has been elected?

Pros

[1] The right to strike is a key part of a fair society, as it shifts some power from the employer to the employee. Without it, the employer — in this case, the government — can do what it likes to its employees and they have no redress.

[2] The right to strike is particularly important in the public sector, as there is no, or little, competition between employers, so employees cannot easily find work elsewhere. For example, if you are a teacher in a country with very few private schools, then the government is not competing to hire you and you cannot leave for an alternative employer. Without the right to strike therefore, you are forced to put up with any changes to your contract.

[3] A general election is not the place to decide on the details of nurses’ pay or immigration officers’ working hours. The country elects a government, but is not giving it a direct mandate on every detail of working conditions for its employees.

[4] A strike allows workers to raise awareness of their plight and therefore informs the electorate on the government’s actions which they can take into account when they vote.

[5] Strikes are not always about more money for workers. Sometimes they are complaining about policies that will affect the quality of service that the public will get. For example, nurses may be striking over job losses that they believe will affect patients’ safety.

Cons

[1] The government is not like any other employer. It is the representative of the people, voted for by the people and governing in the interests of the people. It is not motivated by profit or greed. There is no need to have this check on its power.

[2] Public services are usually essential and it is irresponsible to interrupt them through strike action. A teachers’ strike threatens a child’s education; a nurses’ strike jeopardises a patient’s life. People who go into these industries should not cause suffering to the people they look after.

[3] The government has a mandate for its actions from the electorate. If the people do not like its actions, the government is accountable at the next election. It is antidemocratic if a party has been voted in on an agenda of austerity to hijack this and demand pay rises that the country has rejected at the ballot box.

[4] The country often does not support strikes and the general public often loses sympathy for the workers. The strikes cause great inconvenience to the country, which the public resents, and they can lead to a loss of trust and respect for the strikers, as it seems that they are risking services for their own financial gain.

[5] Most strikes are a simple form of blackmail; the public will suffer unless the strikers’ pay and/or working conditions are improved. This is selfish, as when the government is also the employer, the extra money has to come from the taxpayer and therefore strikers may be making the whole country worse off.

Possible motions

This House would remove the right to strike from public sector workers.

This House believes that everyone should have the right to strike.

Related topics

Capitalism v. socialism

Civil disobedience

Democracy

Salary capping, mandatory

Fairtrade, we should not support