The right to strike is a contentious issue, with few contrasting that individuals should have the unrestricted right to strike in all jobs, while others contend that there should be exceptions. Both the views have compelling arguments yet I believe the right to strike should generally be protected while considering certain exceptions.
On one hand, proponents for the right to strike in all jobs emphasize the importance of protecting workers’ rights and ensuring their collective bargaining power. To brief, it upholds the principles of freedom of association and expression, enabling workers to collectively exercise their democratic rights. The successful strikes of factory workers in Bangladesh in 2013, for instance, led to improved safety regulations and working conditions in the garment industry, profiting numerous workers.
On the other hand, opponents argue that strike in certain jobs should be exempted due to their critical nature. Elaborating on this, public safety and essential services, such as healthcare, emergency services, and transportation, require uninterrupted operation for the well-being and security of society. For example, a strike by air traffic controllers could lead to flight cancellations, stranded passengers, or even compromising emergency response in case of an incident.
In my opinion, granting all workers the right to strike fosters a more equitable and inclusive society. With appropriate safeguards and regulations in place, such as requiring advance notice or alternative arrangements for critical services, the potential risks and disruptions can be mitigated.
In conclusion, despite the right to strike in all work fields is justifiable, a few critical fields should be taken into account; however, I concur constructing a common ground for both approaches is valid while negotiating or adopting alternative dispute resolution methods to help reconcile the right to strike with the critical needs of certain fields.