should essential service workers be allowed to strike? - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

The best online Debate website -! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

should essential service workers be allowed to strike?
in Politics

By JuicyMelonTechJuicyMelonTech 98 Pts edited October 2017
Hello, everyone, this is my first post in quite a while as I am incredibly busy. This time I do not have an opening statement, instead I pose a question, should essential service workers be allowed to strike?
some argue that allowing them to strike will cause an increase in public service wages, which increases taxes, government spending and possibly create inflation

others argue that the right to strike is a fundamental right of the worker. What side do you fall on? I personally do not have a stance on this issue and I would like to be persuaded, this still wouldn't be considered a persuade me debate, as I have an open mind and am looking to find my own stance on this issue, happy debating 
 -JuicyMelonTech ( work trip)
  1. Live Poll

    whats your stance

    9 votes
    1. Essential service workers have the right to strike
    2. Essential service workers do not have the right to strike

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +


  • agsragsr 861 Pts
     I am not supportive or unions and organized labor in general.  In case of essential workers, they are putting public safety at risk and should be liable and subject to litigation if they decide to strike
    Live Long and Prosper
  • FascismFascism 342 Pts
    edited October 2017
    People have the right to do whatever job they want, and if they don't like their wages, they can choose not to do their job. 
  • The worker is commonly exploited. I think that government sponsored trade unions should be allowed to operate. From a fascists point of view. I believe in cooperation between the workers unions the employer and the government. I believe that workers unions or guilds should be part of private companies guided by the state. Also @Fascism some people can't merely change jobs that pay high wages they need.
  • @Oswald_Mosley, while a fair point, regulations and unions translates to inefficiencies and redistribution of wealth.  I would ban all unions, especially in cases where public safety is involved
  • @islander507 Depends on the workers union. State sponsored Trade Unions protest but don't break the pace of production while socialist ones disturb all production and destroy our efficiency. I agree on banning normal trade unions in favor of productive and state sponsored ones that help the worker and not destroy our economy. Also 1% owning 90% is not a good statistic to have so small reforms of Sharing the Wealth need to be taken. Here is a proposal on such a plan for such redistribution. Anyways back to the debate Ban normal unions for favor of government state sponsored productive and worker friendly unions. Workers Unions are not always bad.
  • @Oswald_Mosley, fair point.  But do you agree with me that letting any union strike when essential workers are involved is unacceptable?
  • Yes, it should be based on the area they were. This could be state regulated.
  • @islander507
    But a tech company going on strike wouldn't endanger the lives of millions.

    Also, by giving up some of our rights and liberties the government has agreed to protect us.

    Thus, the government would be violating the social contract if it let the military and police go on strike, leaving us weak and helpless. This has happened in Nova Scotia, Canada once. After striking for one night, many banks were robbed in daylight, open for everyone to see, the taxi union then sacked the airport, angry about shuttle rights
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1274 Pts
    edited October 2017
    Of course public sector workers shouldn't be allowed to strike.  No less a figure than the quintessential liberal icon FDR spoke out against government unions being allowed to strike;

    The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

    All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

    Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

  • @islander507 Unionized make a country richer and better off. They save lives by reducing accidents. For every 1% increase in union density there is a .35% decline in workplace deaths[1]. A meta-analysis concluded that unions increase productivity by 7%[2]. Banning uninons would make the country poorer and kill people while mandating unions would make the country richer and save lifes. 


  • @Oswald_Mosley
    My argument wasn't about finding a new job, and whether it will work out in the end or not. It was about the right that people have to strike. 
  • I believe that they should be allowed to strike. Unions may be good for the country.
  • yolostide said:
    I believe that they should be allowed to strike. Unions may be good for the country.
    It'd be nice if you explain why unions "may be good" for the country
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch