Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
STOLEN FROM THE MORAL MAZE.
I say, yes.
these are the sort of opaque threads I make when I'm drunk... about sleeping under the bed and stuff.
not for the armed forces and shouldn't be for the emergency services.
and they failed to hire me when I was 22 so fuck them.
But if you've broken a contract then you can't really complain if the company you're striking against sacks you or hires scabs.
should (certain/all) employment contracts be allowed to have clauses which ban all trade union activity? Cause you can like ban those you know.
I mean, surely if you've signed a contract saying that you'll do something for work and in return the company will pay you, and you break that contract, then there shouldn't be a problem with them sacking you?
That's why strikes are only effective when you get basically the whole working population of an area involved, so it forces the hand of the employer.
then you you don't have a "right to strike" do you?
So you can protest by striking if you want to. That's a 'right to strike' in my mind.
It's the same kind of thing as 'right to free speech' - which means you can say what you want, and nobody can stop you saying that. If somebody then throws a cake at you or calls you racist or whatever then that's a consequence of that right, and the right doesn't mean you also have the right to avoid the consequences of that right.
by that logic: striking = quitting. By completely frustrating the purpose of the strike (to alter pay/conditions WHILST KEEPING YOUR JOB), it has nullified your right to strike. What kind of idiot would protest about terms of a contract they're not even bound by?
There's an inherent inequality of bargaining power in all employment contracts - hence the development of employment law and of trade unions.
Employers do not have free reign over the reasons behind dismissing employees. Taking into account factors which they shouldn't (taking part in strikes can count as this), they can be breaking the law (legislation).
But often you'd get the same result, so the effect is the same, which why you have employment laws and regulations etc. etc. as you say. That's all historical stuff that's fascinating and I'm barely able to comment on it with authority.
I'm just saying that, under the very basics of contract law, there is nothing to stop someone striking, but then there's also nothing to stop someone sacking someone for breach of contract. That doesn't mean there isn't a 'right to strike', it does however mean that there's an imbalance of power at a certain point in negotiations, to put it in corporate jargon of a sort. And which you also point out, yes, and that's why you have trade unions. Because if enough people strike together then it makes sacking people counter-productive. The only real problem for people who want to strike is when they can't muster enough popular support, so that the company has no problem sacking people, I suppose.
But then surely that just opens up a lot of other legal questions.