Opposing team - Rebuttal

Very honorable members of the opposition, dear readers, afflicted fellow team members, thank you. Obviously, the proposing team has made clear that strikes are, if not solely uncomfortable, sometimes critical to a country's economy and political stability. Striking is a blind regression over the "political contract" - enforced by the taxes we pay, they say - and is not a way to express oneself. Or is it ?

Let's take some time and remind us of the very nature of striking, its history and influence. Let's consider dwelling a few seconds on wiping our opposers' prejudices and dangerous ideas. They clearly exhibited the embarrassed feeling of the train passenger, waiting at the station, shouting his discomfort and mourning while secretly wishing that those lazy train operators were just doing the job they're paid for. Today, striking is legal (and even a constitutional right in France) - a century-and-a-half ago (before May 1864, in France), it was not. However, strikes can be traced back to Ancient Egypt - it wasn't legal either, workers even risked their lives. Even today, strikers risk their pay, if not their job or - in some countries - their lives.

Two points : strikers wouldn't wait for authorization, and they don't do this for fun. Let's not consider further the first argument, which would doom our opposers' stance as completely useless, as we agree on Law stating what should be, not what is. Focus on the second one : the proposing team already explained the many ways workers can try to make their voices heard - and believe us, they do. When you choose to engage in such an activity, you have good reasons, one of them being you don't trust - or can't afford - any other means. Our litterate opposers have certainly read Germinal, or newspapers, and their culture of History makes them aware that many breakthroughs have been fulfilled following massive popular refusal to work - among which paid vacations. Contestation stems not in the destructive and uneducated will to express oneself, rather in the despair-stricken masses whose voice is dimmed in the name of the value of their work.

On what grounds would the proposing team allow "non-essential" workers to speak, and mute the "essential" ones ? It shines clearly that strikes are part of Democracy, as deeply rooted in our rights as is Public service. Strikes should not leave us angry on the slothful, loud-speaking, not-doing-their-job people ; it should raise sympathy, reveal the painful condition of strikers and think about what's not right, at every level.

In the name of Democracy, wouldn't we rather die to let them speak, than see them gagged ? In the name of Democracy, shouldn't we be concerned about every citizen's well-being ? Shouldn't altruism take over comfort ?

Well, we think it does. Vote for us.