Chicago Braces for Teachers Strike

by them striking being legal.

you know, you actually have to smack down an illegal strike, or else it wouldnt make much sense to make it illegal in the first place.
 
holy king said:
not? well, if nobody enforces that law (and it doesnt look like it) it might as well not exist, so...
Click to expand...

Dino Doc is trying to trick you by purposely confusing the argument between teachers striking (they are NOT federal workers) and federal workers, who cannot strike without being fired a la Reagan and the air traffic controllers in the 80's.

It's a completely unrelated conversation and he's taking advantage of the fact you're from Austria to score some points.

Teachers can strike, and they are not federal workers.
 
hobbsyoyo said:
Dino Doc is trying to trick you by purposely confusing the argument between teachers striking (they are NOT federal workers) and federal workers, who cannot strike without being fired a la Reagan and the air traffic controllers in the 80's.
Click to expand...
He was saying that public workers being unable to strike would lead to violence. I merely asked how federal workers managed without that "right" and restraining themselves from rioting in the streets.
 
DinoDoc said:
Can someone tell me why public sector unions are allowed to strike to begin with?
Click to expand...

Not all of them are allowed to. Remember the air traffic controllers in the 80s?

EDIT: Blah, Hobbsyoyo beat me to it on the next page before I read it...

783c8bcb.jpg
 
DinoDoc said:
He was saying that public workers being unable to strike would lead to violence. I merely asked how federal workers managed without that "right" and restraining themselves from rioting in the streets.
Click to expand...

by "turning violent" i wasnt really talkign about rioting, what i had in mind was police crushing down on strikers at their workplace.

anyway, to answer your question, apparently they are being kept so happy that they see no reason to go on strike. lucky them.
 
DinoDoc said:
He was saying that public workers being unable to strike would lead to violence. I merely asked how federal workers managed without that "right" and restraining themselves from rioting in the streets.
Click to expand...

It was deliberately misleading.
And to answer your question:
They don't 'manage', they deal or get fired. Very equitable system, wouldn't you say?
 
i dotn know who or what federal workers are, but them not being allowed to strike is rather uncivilized, i have to say. why would you want to expand this practice?
 
DinoDoc said:
Yes. Now back to my original question, why should public sector workers be allowed to strike in the 1st place?
Click to expand...

Public sector striking is an important tool to prevent successive governments fiddling with contracts, pension and working conditions.
 
@Holy King
S/he disagrees with the notion of striking to begin with, I assume.
@Dino Doc
What Truronian said.
 
However do federal workers manage without this tool to prevent the Feds from fiddling with contracts, pensions and working conditions?
 
hobbsyoyo said:
@Dino Doc
We covered this. They deal or they get fired.
Click to expand...
Then we're back to me not seeing the justification for public sector workers striking if it seems to work just fine for federal workers and public sector workers in other states that deny them the right to strike.
 
Who said it was 'fine' that Federal workers to not be able to strike. I certainly don't agree with that supreme court ruling in its entirety.
 
DinoDoc said:
So what? Has the public already paid for their services or not? Is the Chicago public getting a refund on taxes during the CPS strike?
Click to expand...

You do know that the teachers aren't getting paid during the strike?
 
DinoDoc said:
Can someone tell me why public sector unions are allowed to strike to begin with?
Click to expand...
What are you, a communist?

hobbsyoyo said:
Dino Doc is trying to trick you by purposely confusing the argument between teachers striking (they are NOT federal workers) and federal workers, who cannot strike without being fired a la Reagan and the air traffic controllers in the 80's.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, that means that striking is unlawful, not that it is illegal. "Unlawful" just means that they lack legal protections, and a strike will be treated as mass-absenteeism. If it was "illegal", then they would be arrested.
 
holy king said:
begging the government to be nice?
Click to expand...

you work only to the terms of your contract. you don't do overtime, you do the bare minimum to fullfill your objectives. it slows down your service which forces your employers into bargining with you. i would guess it is less effective then an all out strike but then again if your a policeman it's your only option. if your cutlass you'll let them strike and let the public get robbed, raped and murdered a bit more for a few days but as long as your doing it to boost your pension - it's ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

amadeus
What was the first big news story you remember?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
caketastydelish
caketastydelish
bene_legionary
Moments of Spontaneity
Replies
1
Views
476
warpus
warpus
T
Am I A Civfanatic?
Replies
7
Views
473
Broken_Erika
Broken_Erika
Dhoomstriker
  • Locked
Proposal to End the Russia-Ukraine War
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
7K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
K
Theocracy
Replies
2
Views
1K
Skojardu
Skojardu
Back
Top Bottom