A little debate started here in Canada and it has been an ongoing debate for decades. Does the Government have the right to force essential services workers to work.

I remember reading in my social studies books of a walk out of Winnipeg's police department. The Police decided to walk off the job and demand more salary and such. They brought the city to a stand still and there actions left citizens unprotected. The Government intervened and forced them back to work.

Here in BC a while ago nurses decided they were going to strike and walk off the job. However the Government quickly intervened to keep them working because nobody would get health care without them. This enraged Union's and lead to alot of debates.

Then just the last few days Canada Post walked off the job. The employees demanding higher wages and better retirement etc...etc... this meant no mail was delivered for over a week. Multiple attempts were made by Canada Post to reach an agreement with the postal workers but none could be reached.

Finally the Conservative Government passed back to work legislation. The country had been without mail for over a week. Buisnesses were going under and people's cheques weren't arriving. However the New Democratic Party was upset they said the postal workers had a right to walk off the job.

A poll was conducted and found that 70% of Canadian's backed the Government in demanding postal workers resume service. Only 30% supported the NDP's position.

So I ask you, should the Government force essential services workers to keep working? Or should essential services workers like doctors, police, fire fighters, mail services....etc....etc... be able to strike?

Yes.

You go into an essential service, and society chooses not to train someone else in that service because you have essentially told us "you got this."

If you're being forced back to work and you hate it that much, quit.

This question doesn't really make much sense. If conditions are too bad and workers want to strike bad enough then there is nothing the government could do about it aside from making them work at gunpoint. And for those highly motivated for change, even that wouldn't be enough.

But yes they should be able to strike if they want to and anyone with a brain and courage will always be able to. That's the beauty of free will.

Also, what's with the wording of the question?  It's a little confusing.

Yah sorry about the wording of the question. I meant to leave that not part out.

As for the strike, the conditions were not that bad. The average salary was between 50k-60k a year and the retirement age is 55. My friend knows a worker who only works four 8 hour shifts and has a salary of like 57k, he never went to college and was striking for higher wages. My mom a teacher who had to go to University for five years was only making 33K or such a year and retires in her sixtees.All the guy does is drive to a neighbourhood and deliver the mail. 8 hours 4 times a week.

If thats considered bad working conditions then heck everybody making less then 50k should be walking off the job.

As for how the Government is enforcing this law, 1,000$ fines per day for staying off work, unless the employee quits.

That's essentially what I meant.  If the government is able to "force" them back to work then things must not be that bad.  As to whether the government should be able to pose fines to try and goad them back to work then yes the government has every right to do that as well.

They should be allowed to strike.

Alternatively, they should also be allowed to come back to the job and find out they no longer have employment, either. If I were a mayor and had a service sector walk out, I would look into privatizing the service with another company. At least in the US, government workers usually have the best, highest paying, most compensated jobs by comparison to the private employment field.

I don't believe they should be allowed to unionize at all. It's one thing to unionize against a potentially abusive boss who is driven by a profit motive, and it's quite another to unionize against the taxpayer and negotiate with politicians who have generally proven themselves willing to give away anything to win union support.

If you have adequate right to work legislation and union workers are not allowed to interfere with non-union workers doing their job then I don't think this would become much of an issue. Many of these public sector workers would soon find out that there are tons of people who would gladly steal their job for these unsastifactory work conditions and benefits if they were given the opportunity to.

if there are actual grievances then yes...they should be able to strike without interference.
but this bullshit? no way. been getting into arguments with my union jackboot family members who feel the government is victimizing these poor little postal guys. the arguments usually end when i start yelling they should all be fired and then employ the thousands who would happily take their "horrible" pay and benefits at these no-skill jobs.

They should not be allowed to strike; they can still be in a union and pressure the government via the media. But I would restrict "essential" to military, a subset of hospital staff, police and fire. Mail isn't, most medical professions aren't, and teaching isn't.

Marginally unrelated: in the UK there is going to be a teachers' strike. But only a small percentage (I think 20-30) are in the union, so it will be uneven provision (some schools shut) yet all teachers will benefit from any compromises.