Strike by Public Employees: A benefit or a Risk?
Public employees are very essential in the working industries. This gives them a chance to exhibit their good quality work. Strike is therefore led by people to call for attention if they realize that their human rights are being debased. When government workers conduct a strike, it might be a risk on their side. The job is permanent and in some situations, they can be sacked, if the salary isn’t that big enough to enable them carry out the task. A worker in a poultry organization, who turns out to be a vegetarian would not concentrate if his/ her rights are violated. To them the firm has an indirect benefit (Dale& Anderson 43).
This is due the unresolved issues among the workers. Damage may be done through the strike. The strong fury among workers due to lack of salary increment leads to destruction of property and even in some cases, people end up dying from the anxiety. The whole strategy increases the price of operating a business hence; it brings great loss to the business operating cost. Strikes also benefit the public in general as they are accorded better services. This is a direct benefit of a public strike. Since employers have realized that the schemes of work change once strikes are conducted. For instance, the retirement benefit scheme in one of the organizations in the United States changed the whole firm’s retirement strategies due a strike conducted by workers (Estreicher 185).
Strikes pose a grand risk to the company due to the direct loss expected. For example in the private sectors, if work stops, the participants in the strike are highly affected. Private companies employ people on merits. This makes them vulnerable to any distractions in the owner’s company. Employees usually operate under very tight conditions binding them to stick and ensure the organization’s goals are met without any distractions. However in extreme conditions workers are left with no other option than to express their woes. This turns into a benefit to the workers but a risk to the company. In hospitals, it is a risk for workers to strike because the health of patients gets at risk. In some emergency situations, patients end up dying in the process.
Strikes have not found concrete reasons to be conducted anywhere. It should be done peacefully to prevent any damage on individuals and property. Mainly, it is the only risk workers take to express their complaints to their bosses and for action to be taken (Nordlund 27). As workers strike they should have predicted the outcome of the strike to the company or themselves. The workers in armed forces seem to experience more risk more than benefits in once they strike. This is because of the extended use of firearms compared to the normal usage. They become violent due to daily use of guns and end up misusing them. Whenever public workers cause a strike, there are more risks than benefits. This is due the widespread and advanced level of technology that makes jobs become more improved and initiate much use of expertise. More learned people without jobs have increased in number, making it easy to replace the stubborn employees. Benefits are on the lesser plane of the balance and risks outweigh benefits.
Work Cited
Dale, C. & Anderson, T. Safety-critical systems: problems, process, and practice: proceedings of the Seventeenth Safety-Critical Systems Symposium, Brighton, UK, and 3-5 February 2009. United Kingdom: ISBN. 2009.
Estreicher. Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. 2010
Nordlund W. Silent skies: the air traffic controllers’ strike. Chicago: Greenwood Publishing Group. 1998.
