As a pragmatic libertarian, I fully support people's right to strike, which is nothing more than an extension of the 'right to change jobs' or the 'right to throw a sickie'.
Similarly, I fully support the right of employers to tell employees who threaten to go on strike to piss off.
An interesting scenario is where police officers and prison officers go on strike at the same time (despite this being against the law).
Who'd arrest them, and who'd keep them locked up?
Aah .. Nulabour, they've really thought this through, haven't they? To say they couldn't run a bath is an insult to Princess Margaret (scroll down to the very end).
Male Talkers
45 minutes ago
5 comments:
The daft buggers have only just repealed the law preventing prison officers striking in favour of a voluntary ban on strikes. Clearly nobody in New Labour is either old enough to remember the 60's and 70's or has read a history book.
You think strikers shoud be fired do you. Escalate it further , why mot then have other workers strike in sympathy , as was the case, forcuing the company to taske them back. Why not its a their free right to do so isn`t it ?
Hell why not have them and execute the Tsar and his little dog and avail themsleves of their free right to take whatever they casn. thei Libertarianism does not work , you will reach barriers and then you will find you are actually a Conservative
I didn't say they "should" be fired, "should" is a grossly over-used word. I said it was up to the employer. As to being 'forced' to take them back, that's up to market forces, isn't it? There is nothing we can do about market forces, so best not to interfere.
What's the Tsar got to do with it? The cornerstones of libertarianism and/or pragmatism are law and order and protecting private property rights.
I support people's right to strike, but only if that was the agreement they reached with their employer. If an employee and employer agree on a contract whereby the employee can strike, perhaps with this being in lieu of wages, then that's fine. But in this country we have made laws that allow employees to break binding contracts with their employers and are given special protection by the government rackets. From a moral standpoint this is simply wrong, it's essentially theft at the barrel of a gun held by the state.
However, beyond simply reducing welfare through a degradation of freedom, how is it bad economically? It's no different to forcing employees to take (and employers to give) a portion of wages in the form of a La-z-Boy chair and a flat screen TV in the staff room. Some employees will like this, perhaps preferring this to an equal face value of wages. But many employees won't and would rather have wages. By the same token, enforcing a state mandated 'right to strike' at the barrel of a gun only serves to reduce the wages of those who don't value striking as much as cash and/or to cause unemployment.
"What's the Tsar got to do with it?"
For that matter, what has his dog got to do with it? :S
It's all an excuse to bring the troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Or aren't they so subtle?
Post a Comment