What if fire fighters went on strike?

[MarxSchmarx]

OK I don't know if this is the right forum but...

Should it ever be OK for all fire fighters, all ambulance drivers, all doctors, all public health workers, etc... to go on strike? I mean, with bus drivers it's just a royal pain in the ass, but with these folks going on strike that really means life or death.

But aren't ALL workers allowed to go on strike to fight back? Why or why not?

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:43 pm


Should it ever be OK for all fire fighters, all ambulance drivers, all doctors, all public health workers, etc... to go on strike?
Yes, of course they should, and they have in the past.


I mean, with bus drivers it's just a royal pain in the ass, but with these folks going on strike that really means life or death.

No, it doesn't. "Strike" doesn't mean just to stop working.
For example, ambulance workers in Sydney during the APEC summit were going to go on strike by providing free transport to all patients, etc.



But aren't ALL workers allowed to go on strike to fight back? Why or why not?

Yes. Of course.

[MarxSchmarx]

No, it doesn't. "Strike" doesn't mean just to stop working.

True dat. So what about work stoppage per se?

[Tower of Bebel]

They can, but they would also need a certain strike committee, a pre-soviet, to ask for workers who want to drive an ambulance when neccessary. I think a trike can be very adaptable. Look at it like PTiT's example.

[bezdomni]

But aren't ALL workers allowed to go on strike to fight back? Why or why not?

Under capitalism? No. There are lots of jobs (mostly in the "public service" sector) where strikes are illegal and result in an automatic sacking.

For example, in the 80s, Reagan fired a lot of striking air traffic control workers.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 12:53 pm

There are places with volunteer firefighters.

Yeah, most of the United States, for instance.
Only big cities have full-time fire fighters.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Organic Revolution+November 03, 2007 03:11 pm--> (Organic Revolution @ November 03, 2007 03:11 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 12:53 pm

There are places with volunteer firefighters.

Yeah, most of the United States, for instance.
Only big cities have full-time fire fighters. [/b]
If there were a strike in the cities, Volunteers would do the firefighting.

I don't see any need for anyone to want to break a firemans' union.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 03:04 pm
Some don't consider firemen a part of the working class.
Do they consider firemen bourgeois?

[Forward Union]

fire fighters went on strike here a few years ago. They called the army in.
Police are not allowed to strike in the UK, same with skilled meical profesionals.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 03, 2007 09:57 pm
fire fighters went on strike here a few years ago. They called the army in.
Police are not allowed to strike in the UK, same with skilled meical profesionals.
i dont think police arent allowed to strike (as far as i know they have a union so how could they be stopped anyway) per se, its more a case of the government bending over backwards to keep them contented.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Why or why not?

The community better start listening to their demands then, eh?

Forcing someone to work is the equivalent of slavery. Unless they're directly jeopardizing others' lives by getting up and leaving the air control station mid-flight or walking off on a patient during surgery, workers have the right to leave. This includes military personnel.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+November 04, 2007 03:21 am--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy @ November 04, 2007 03:21 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 02:24 am
There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, anytime.
There are places with volunteer firefighters. That could be utilized in situations where it needs to be. [/b]
Otherwise known as a 'scab'

[CitizenErased]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:17 am
Forcing someone to work is the equivalent of slavery.
In this case, should most civil rights legislation be repealed because it demands shopkeepers serve every customer regardless of race?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by CitizenErased+November 04, 2007 05:12 am--> (CitizenErased @ November 04, 2007 05:12 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 02:17 am
Forcing someone to work is the equivalent of slavery.
In this case, should most civil rights legislation be repealed because it demands shopkeepers serve every customer regardless of race? [/b]
As a socialist I'm inclined to answer there shouldn't be shopkeepers to begin with. Of course I realize that doesn't answer your intended question.

No worker should be forced to do something that he absolutely refuses to even if the decision was made democratically, so long as he's not putting life directly in danger at that moment.

The community can demand whatever hate-based policies it wants for the work places. It can't demand obedience.

Private enterprise always enters a contract with the community of its operations. I realize in today's settings the laws grant businesses practically complete immunity on almost every issue beneath the sun, but that's not how it should be. The citizens of the community are what allow the land and resources to be used for enterprise. If the stipulation is that you can't discriminate based on race/gender, then the business owner is held responsible.

Hopefully the issue of private enterprise will be resolved where it won't exist on large-scale operations.

[LSD]

Should it ever be OK for all fire fighters, all ambulance drivers, all doctors, all public health workers, etc... to go on strike?

Yes.

Tt's called a general strike and it is one of the most powerful tools we have at our disposal. If people's lives start to be put in danger, it's up to the bourgeoisie to meet the terms of the strikers.

But no one has the right to compell working conditions, no matter how "essential" the work being done is.

If ambulance drivers or doctors or fire fighters or [i]whomever[/b] really are so "essential", then maybe the bourgeoisie should pony up and meet their conditions for working.

After all, it's not like they can't afford it!


There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, anytime.

And who gets to determine what constitutes "the public safety" or what class of worker is too "essential" to strike? Are nurses too "essential"? Are teachers? How about coal miners or air traffic controlers?

Because historically all of them, and thousands of other groups, have been bared from excersizing their democratic rights using the exact same argument that you now defend.

I think you need to consider for a moment that your position is contrary to the one held by every workers' rights movement in history, and precisely in step with the bourgeois state.

One can help but wonder what that says about your politics... :unsure:


No worker should be forced to do something that he absolutely refuses to even if the decision was made democratically, so long as he's not putting life directly in danger at that moment.

In other words, you have no objection to a pharmacist refusing to dispense emergency contraception to a rape victim? It doesn't "put her life in danger", it just seriously fucks her over.

You see, what you're missing here is the distinction between refusing to work and refusing to work properly, because they're actually two very different things.

You have the right, either individually or collectively, to put economic pressure on your employer. Refusing to work is a particularly effective means of doing that. It then becomes the responsibility of the boss to effect conditions that make it possible for you to return to work.

That kind of work refusal is therefore implicitly transactional .A strike, by its nature, is an exceptional circumstance. It's started for the express purpose of ending as soon as possible -- with the capitulation of the bourgeoisie and the meeting of demands.

As such, economic work refusal is entirely distinct from actively engaging in work, but refusing to carry out a nescessary element of that work due to personal objections.

This notion that we are all responsible only to ourselves is libertarian bullshit and it has absolutely no relation to the real world.

People have the right to chart their own lives in a general sense, but if you're performing a service to the community, you are obligated to do so impartially, regardless of the nature of that service or the person for whom you're preforming it.

So not only does a racist doctor have an obligation to treat his patient, even if she's black; but a black plumber has an obligation to fix his clients pipes, even if she's a racist.

Now, if that black plumber wants to trade shifts or find some other means of swaping out of the job, that's fine. And if he's fired or otherwise disciplined for doing that, we should support him 100% as should all other workers.

Also, it goes without saying that if the bigot abuses workers in his home, they have no obligation to stay and suffer said abuse. Again, everyone has the right to a decent working environment and that includes being free of harassment.

But if a plumber decides that because a customer's a member of the Heritage Front that they'll ignore their order, they've violated their responsibilities just as much as a doctor who refuses to treat Jews.

Again, there's nothing wrong with class-based economic actions like striking or work stopping. But there's a vast difference between leveraging economic power for better conditions and using positional authority to pursue a personal agenda.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 04:58 pm

Do they consider firemen bourgeois?

No, petty-bourgeois.
Though I recognize that you haven't claimed to hold this view, how the hell could somebody come up with an idea like that?

[catch]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 03, 2007 10:09 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 03, 2007 10:09 pm)
William [email protected] 03, 2007 09:57 pm
fire fighters went on strike here a few years ago. They called the army in.
Police are not allowed to strike in the UK, same with skilled meical profesionals.
i dont think police arent allowed to strike (as far as i know they have a union so how could they be stopped anyway) per se, its more a case of the government bending over backwards to keep them contented. [/b]
No, it's illegal. Same with prison officers (hence the publicity for the walkout they staged a couple of months ago).