Should people working in essential services be allowed to strike? (M.Waleed)

Should people working in essential services be allowed to strike?

How does one define duty? A duty is a responsibility or obligation that is required of you, either by virtue of some position you hold or in accordance with some custom, law or authority that you more or less willingly accept.

Thus the question arises, should people working in essential, duty-bound, services be allowed to strike? The aforementioned case may be likened to the strike of the Young Doctors Association; YDA being the member of the Resistance and the Punjab government being the Gestapo officer. The chosen scenario fits here perfectly and matches the dilemmas faced by the YDA. In the YDA’s case, the government demanded – or rather, commanded – that the young doctors go on working despite the immense workload and the absence of any substantial salary or service structure. Society demanded that the rights of ordinary citizens be protected - so that they may pursue their lives unhindered – and maintain its overall ability to function.

Tantalized by the government for over thirty years with the promise of a service structure and mocked with nominal salaries, the only logical option left for the YDA was to go on strike. Hence began the government’s crackdown on the young doctors; resulting in late night raids, shackled doctors with broken limbs, and murder cases against doctors who refused to treat patients. In short, the government’s attitude towards the doctors can be condensed into a few words, “Thou shalt not… Come what may.”

Here, it would be wise to question where a doctors duties lie. Indeed, the rights of the ordinary citizen are being infringed and a doctor has a responsibility towards his patients. How do we draw the line when the freedom of some interferes unduly with the freedom of others? On the other hand, doctors have a responsibility towards their families and thus have a right to demand better pays which truly reflect their hard and honest work.

Consider another situation, one involving international stakeholders, where air traffic controllers go on strike. The function provided by an air traffic controller is vital in ensuring the safe transport of air travellers. The workers in this essential service, if provoked to go on strike, have the potential to place unwary travellers in unwarranted danger.

On August 3, 1981 PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization), seeking better working conditions and better pay, declared a strike. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a “peril to national safety” and ordered them back to work. Only 1300 of the 13000 controllers returned back to their positions. Subsequently, after their refusal to return to work after 48 hours, the air traffic controllers’ jobs were forfeited.

The above example shows us that even the Reagan administration adopts the, “Thou shalt not… Come what may,” attitude. Though air traffic controllers are not charged with the noble duty of upholding and protecting life as doctors are, their duties too are vital to the functioning of a nation as a part of a global village. Here are two very much diverse examples to consider. In both cases the dilemmas are common; some people’s rights are going to be infringed and the workers are faced with conflicting duties.

But before moving on to a solution, it is important to define what is meant by an “essential service.” Essential services refer to a class of occupations that have been legislated by a government to have special restrictions in regard to labor actions – such as not being able to strike. Essential services, in the strict sense of the term, are those services which are vital to the functioning of a society. It is a service the interruption of which endangers the life, personal safety or health of the whole or any part of the population.

When a worker is admitted into the office of an essential service, they willfully assume and agrees to the risks under the Essential Services Act of 1958. Though our hearts may warm to the appalling working conditions and plight of the YDA, it is undeniable that their abdication of responsibility towards patients infringes upon the rights of the common man.

If workers in essential services are to act in isolation and strike, concerned only with their own pleasure, interest and preservation, constantly in competition and war with one another, there is no possibility of trust and cooperation. With no basis of trust, there is no prospect of creating prosperity or enjoying the fruits of civilization. Therefore, workers in essential services should not be allowed to strike.

M.Waleed Abrar

11u0195

SecF