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.
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.
11u0195
SecF
