The insightful conception of general strike

The insightful conception of general strike, is the one pointing to a thorough change of the present system: a social revolution of the world; an entire new reorganisation; a demolition of the entire old system of all governments. The first theorist to formulate and popularise the idea of a general strike for the purpose of political reform was the radical pamphleteer William Benbow. The main types of strikes are: Unfair labor practice strikes, which protest employers’ illegal activities. Economic strikes, which may occur when there are disputes over wages or benefits. Recognition strikes, which are intended to force employers to recognize unions. Striking unions should not be forced to work, unless interference by the government is to look into the matter and adopts the process required for more favourable working conditions, such as to get rid of troublesome situations, for example: disputes, withdrawal of privilege, incentive problems, unbalancing economy etcetera.
The government take measures to end strikes, deliberately sending dispute to obligatory judgement and unionized employees will be forced to return to work, which is an insult to the collective bargaining process. Delayed in negotiation threatens economy. Conservative government acts to end strikes is an affront to the collective bargaining process and discourages either side from negotiating (Atkins, 2015). The objective of the act should be to guarantee to employees, the right to self-organization, to form, join or to assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. It is unacceptable to say that men and women lose that right, if somebody is inconvenienced. The right to withdraw one’s labour is a basic civil right in a free society (John Cartwright, 2012). Arbitrator is limiting to selecting either the union proposal or the employer proposal, i.e. one party will lose, and one will win, hence imposing settlements on the striking workers. Back to work legislation generally mandates arbitration, which generally satisfies the need for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism (Restrictive labour laws in Canada, n.d.).
Balance should be stuck in favor of more, not less, employee expression. A tension exists between the need to maintain discipline and the employees need to voice their grievances in the tense atmosphere often prevailing after the strike. Usually strikes are never pleasant but every cabin worker knows that without the unions, they would see their pension rights stolen and conditions eroded to the same levels enjoyed by their counterparts. Control over an individual or employee will only lead to his/her detachment from his workplace and also dissatisfaction (Barnett, 1994, p.103). By banning employee expression, not reducing anger and frustration of workers, reinforces their sense of insignificance in the workplace. Forcing employees to work without mediation causes insult to injury (Barnett, 1994, p.103). For striking employees, a strike is both a threat to their economic well-being and a symbol that they are not being valued for their contribution to the workplace, which may affect their emotions and can also lead to violence. The employer often counteracts the union’s tactics with its own campaign to capture public opinion. And in economic strike, the employer may further respond permanently replacing its striking workers (Barnett,1994, p. 88).
Ignoring employees voice does not only cause work stoppages but public sector is also affected with ceased public services. Also, it is hard to plan bargaining strategies if there is no clear idea if employees will be able exercise their right to strike or not. It also upsets with the progress that there are same parties again and again at the table for bargaining for their rights which eventually does not only affect employees but employers as well. To stay in the clear, one should obtain legal advice before speaking in opposition to a union. The interference, intimidation and warning to the union from the beginning of unionization reveals that the intervening authority does not know how the system works which is troublesome and hence create problems rather than solving them (Stastna, 2011). It tends to be mostly the public sector because although the public is affected by all work stoppages but more of them are affected more directly with public services. It has also almost always been directed at public sector workers (Stastna, 2011). It could be somewhat destabilizing, that not knowing whether employees will be able to exercise their right to strike and also as things progress forward, some parties are back at the table next time for bargaining. I think it ultimately, though, can have an … unanticipated impact on bargaining in the future because the parties don’t really necessarily understand what the landscape is anymore (Stastna, 2011).
Strikers are an index of freedom in advanced societies, they can shake the world or nation at any rate and often for the better. Employees refuse to work typically to protest and employer decision. DP Leader Andrea Horwath called it “undemocratic” and said that the chaos in the education system is of the Liberals’ own making (Allison Jones,2015). If problems are not solved at first place, conciliation could set the stage for a strike at higher level, i.e. provincial strike. We’re looking at where we can go in the fall ( Allison Jones, 2015). Failure to win unanimous consent to get the bill passed will push back more days and put school kids at risk. It will be several days before 70,000 Ontario high school students can return to class after the New Democrats delayed Monday the passage of new legislation that would force striking teachers back to work (Allison Jones, 2015).
Forcing union can be threat to democracy as it reduces the effectiveness of the people’s control over how their organization or nation is run. These threats shift the balance of power in government hands specially in the favor of the special interests at the expense of all others. Government interventions in forcing union to work may result in ominous future consequences. But when push comes to shove, unless you agree to what employers want, we will bring the full force of the state against you and impose what employers want (Judy Haiven ; Larry Haiven, 2004). Forced settlements for all intents and purposes render collective bargaining dead. Governments are bypassing the arbitration route and writing the terms of settlement into the legislation (Judy Haiven ; Larry Haiven, 2004).
Employees are usually the part of give and take in the workplace. It is important for all the parties to keep an eye on the fact that negotiations are central to employment relationships. A small issue can develop a momentum of its own and become a catalyst for a much wider expression of dissatisfaction. Forcing union to work and settling down the issue without getting into the bargain system can damage reputations and risk future business.