Striking against the "public safety"

[CitizenErased]

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

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:24 am
There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, anytime.
It isn't a strike against public safety, but a strike for workers power. Seems like a fox news argument.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:24 am
There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, anytime.
there is no right for public service bosses to create the circumstances which precede and provoke a strike.

Methinks your heart is not in the right place.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [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.

[CitizenErased]

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+November 03, 2007 05:21 pm--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy @ November 03, 2007 05:21 pm)
[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]
I'd fear for my life if our volunteer firefighters were actually in charge of something. In fact, the only huge fire we've ever had in my area was started by a volunteer firefighter.

And I like your name.

[CitizenErased]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:46 am

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:

If our government didn't hold a monopoly on such services, maybe a worker's strike wouldn't put us all in danger.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by CitizenErased+November 04, 2007 10:24 pm--> (CitizenErased @ November 04, 2007 10:24 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 07:46 am

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:

If our government didn't hold a monopoly on such services, maybe a worker's strike wouldn't put us all in danger. [/b]
So we should let the essential public services go into private hands? Before you know it, firemen would be asking which type of credit card you have before putting out a fire at your home. :rolleyes:

[LSD]

If our government didn't hold a monopoly on such services, maybe a worker's strike wouldn't put us all in danger.

:o

Welcome to OI.

Restricted!

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:28 am
So we should let the essential public services go into private hands? Before you know it, firemen would be asking which type of credit card you have before putting out a fire at your home. rolleyes.gif
Not necessarily. Assuming that a community of people wished for firefighting to be an essential public service, they would simply put out bids on community firefighting service contracts. The contractors would be obligated to respond to all fire service calls, with the community financing the service through taxpayer revenues as it currently does. As an added bonus, private contractors can be sued for negligence or lack of performance in the performance of their firefighting duties, whereas sovereign immunity prevents anybody from suing government firefighting agencies no matter how poor their performance.