Should workers on strike...

[John Dibble]

...get paid while they are on strike?

Or, in other words, should their employer be required by law to pay them while they are on strike?

[senatortombstone]

I hate strikes, they bring out the worst in people and show the terroristic tendencies of union memebers.  Try crossing a picket line and see what happens to you, when your lazy-ass coworkers finally stop striking and get back to work.  If are considering crossing the picket line, you'd better park your car in a safe place, cause those tires won't last long when one of the people defending fair wage and labor get ahold of it.

[dazzleman]

Workers on strike should not be paid.  It's ridiculous to even think it.  Why should they be paid for doing nothing?

[John Dibble]

Workers on strike should not be paid.  It's ridiculous to even think it.  Why should they be paid for doing nothing?

That's my sentiment, but apparently at least one person on this board things they should. I have to wonder what the heck that person is thinking.

[Jake]

Workers on strike should not be paid.  It's ridiculous to even think it.  Why should they be paid for doing nothing?

That's my sentiment, but apparently at least one person on this board things they should. I have to wonder what the heck that person is thinking.

It's opebo or BRTD most likely.

[opebo]

Workers on strike should not be paid.  It's ridiculous to even think it.  Why should they be paid for doing nothing?

That's my sentiment, but apparently at least one person on this board things they should. I have to wonder what the heck that person is thinking.

It's opebo or BRTD most likely.

No, I don't they should.  Certainly they should get 'welfare' though. 

[John Dibble]

Workers on strike should not be paid.  It's ridiculous to even think it.  Why should they be paid for doing nothing?

That's my sentiment, but apparently at least one person on this board things they should. I have to wonder what the heck that person is thinking.

It's opebo or BRTD most likely.

No, I don't they should.  Certainly they should get 'welfare' though. 

They have jobs - it's their choice not to work, they have ample opportunity to make money. It was they who decided to strike, why should the taxpayers pay them for it?

[David S]

Workers on strike should not be paid.  It's ridiculous to even think it.  Why should they be paid for doing nothing?

That's my sentiment, but apparently at least one person on this board things they should. I have to wonder what the heck that person is thinking.

It's opebo or BRTD most likely.

Opebo says no, so that narrows it down a bit.

[Peter]

It might be Al, he is after all our favourite pro-Union forum member after all.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Of course workers on strike should get paid.

It should be mandated by federal law.

[John Dibble]

Of course workers on strike should get paid.

It should be mandated by federal law.

And why should they get paid? They aren't working!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I didn't vote until just now, but I voted yes.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

And why should they get paid? They aren't working!

They probably wouldn't be on strike if the employers had paid them properly.

[John Dibble]

And why should they get paid? They aren't working!

They probably wouldn't be on strike if the employers had paid them properly.

And your point is what? That's why they strike. But when they strike they aren't working, they aren't producing, they aren't doing anything for their employer - why should they get paid for doing nothing? The employer already is losing money, which is leverage enough, is it not?

[dazzleman]

I didn't vote until just now, but I voted yes.

If that were the case, I'd just go on strike all the time.  Why not?

This is further proof that your economic views are derived from the confines of a fantasy world.

[David S]

Of course workers on strike should get paid.

It should be mandated by federal law.

What motivation would the workers have for settling the contract going back to work... ever?

[WalterMitty]

not only should they not be paid but they should be replaced immediately.

maybe you cant fire them for striking, but in sure you can find something to fire them for.

[A18]

maybe you cant fire them for striking

I don't see why not. I would fire them, and blacklist the fools so they could never get jobs in that town again.

[The Duke]

They shouldn't be paid, and practically speaking can't be paid.

They shouldn't be paid because their wage is acquired in exchange for services rendered.  Its a contract, you hold up your end as a worker and do your job, the employer holds up his end and pays you money.  Its a simple contract, and one of the most basic building blocks for the modern economy.  Creating a situation where wages can be acquired in exchange for no labor breaks this contrct down, and in so doing undermines the foundations of capitalism itself.

Practically speaking you can't allow this breakdown to occur.  Lets say a grocery store suffers a workers strike, as happenned in CA last year.  If the store has to pay the workers, then the workers will win every time they go on strike.  The only thing keeping all unions from being on strike almost all the time is that their workers won't get paid if they go on strike.  The company loses money, the worker loses wages.  Its bad for both sides and this keeps strikes from happenning except in the most egregious cases.  This stability helps the economy function.  Once you rig the game, and let unions take no risk at all for striking, the whole thing falls apart.

[John Dibble]

Excellent analysis, Ford.

[PBrunsel]

No.

I feel that skabs are great people for taking their jobs while these ungrateful workers whine uncontrollably about some little issue. Strikes are pointless.

[DanielX]

No.

Besides, i thought one of the main purposes of union dues was to establish a fund so that workers on strike won't starve?

[Richard]

I didn't vote until just now, but I voted yes.

Sometimes I wonder if I don't want to live in your world.  I'd go on a permanent strike, get welfare, and be paid for it.

[Nym90]

No.

I feel that skabs are great people for taking their jobs while these ungrateful workers whine uncontrollably about some little issue. Strikes are pointless.

I don't understand why workers are automatically to blame for striking. Strikes result from the fact that unions and management don't see eye to eye; sometimes it is more the union's fault than management, sometimes more the management's fault than the union, and sometimes equally both. Both sides can be unreasonable in their demands.

I voted no, BTW.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I don't understand why workers are automatically to blame for striking.

Because the Republicans deem it so. And everyone knows the Republicans are never wrong. (I'm being sarcastic, everyone.)