You bring up a very good and interesting point RainOfStars.
It does seem somewhat of a flawed system if worker are allowed to go on strike since they've agreed and probably
signed contracts to receive a certain amount of money, benefits, and securities for their employment. Additionally, as
you've mentioned, there are certain jobs that are essential for society to function. Public transit strikes strand
commuters; health worker strikes endangers lives; garbage strikes destroy the environment. Strikes like these can
literally paralyze society with devasting consequences. Also, strikes can have a destructive ripple effect ~ a public
transit strike results in many people unable to work, if people don't work, it hurts businesses and thereby the
local economy. If a business is part of a more international network, such as banks, damage can even ben on a global
scale.
Although definitely important, these reasons should not mean that workers should be stripped entirely of their right to
protest and demand better. Everyday the world, society, and the workplace changes. Some demands of the worker as
outlined in a contract signed years ago may not be suitable or apporpiate in the present day. What might have been
considered a good salary for a certain profession might have increased over the years Sometimes a company may decide to
drop or replace some benefits and securities it had originally provided to it's workers ~ benefits such as
health/dental/childcare. In such cases, I think workers should have the right to demand more and even take stirke
action if it's necessary.
I know I've contridicted myself by giving points for each side of the argument, but I think it's important to
analyze siutations from different perspectives to fully understand the scope of the matter. As a conclusion, I believe
workers should be able to take job actions if necessary but I also believe that they have to consider the consequences
and impact that their actions will have on the rest of society.
