Monday, June 20, 2011
Should teachers be allowed to strike?
Pittsburgh Business Times is asking readers this question. I was curious how that would be answered here, so I am asking you. The poll will be up for one week. I will compare the results with how PBT readers voted. I realize it won't be a scientific sampling, but I thought it would be something different. Depending on the interest, I may do this every so often.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The Post-Gazette reported this a few weeks ago, sparking a lively discussion on their facebook page. See http://www.facebook.com/pittsburghpostgazette/posts/209956905706538
http://www.facebook.com/pittsburghpostgazette/posts/209956905706538
Hopefully, the rest showed up this time.
Well, that didn't work. Try adding this after pittsburghpostgazette
posts/209956905706538
http://www.facebook.com/pittsburghpostgazette/posts/209956905706538
Matthew is sending the complete link, but when I try to publish it, Blogger chops off part of it. Thanks for trying, Matthew.
Elaine
When people ask whether teachers (or other public servants) should be allowed to strike, the question invariably starts discussions about pay, taxes, fairness, economics, the “value” of what’s being provided, and so on. But the most-important issue, which lies at the very foundation of our society, is usually overlooked: When public servants strike, are they not violating the principles upon which democracy is built?
A surprisingly forceful answer to that question, believe it or not, comes from Franklin D. Roosevelt. In a letter sent to the National Federation of Federal Employees on August 16, 1937, Roosevelt first congratulates the union on its 20th anniversary and then writes the following:
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government." (Emphasis mine)
Source: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service (American Presidency Project)
Although Roosevelt was writing on behalf of the federal government, his arguments apply equally well to state and local government and, indeed, anywhere else democratic principles are expected to prevail.
Cheers,
Tom
Post a Comment