Opposition team - Closing

Dear readers,

How can you possibly read the arguments of the proposition team without reacting at all?!
They are saying that the need for strikes has disappeared. Oh really? Ask some Northe Korean workers about it. In communist countries, strikes are banned, since they injure the fatherland by stopping production. But in these countries workers haven't any rights.

The right to join a trade union and the right to strike are as fundamental as freedom of speech. If you don't have them, you are not an employee but a serf, and a society that outlaws strikes isn't free. Then if you agree on the fact that we must protect the freedom of speech and the right to express your disagreement with the people making decisions for you, then you will agree that we cannot ban strikes at all.

Let's now recap the proposing team's arguments from the beginning. They believe that "strikes without guarateeing a minimum service should be banned". Well i have to thank you because that's proving our point. Damages caused by strikes could be decreased by creating a minimum service. We need to use this idea so that we will ensure the right of going on strike and people can arrive at work on time.

Then they said that striking is an extreme way of protesting. But when injustices made are extreme, when decisions such a delocalization are taken, don't you think that extreme measures are necessary? "To protect the sheep you gotta catch the wolf. And you gotta be a wolf to catch a wolf." (Training day)

Now let's see our arguments. We, in the opposition team, think that striking is only the ultimate means of expression when nothing else has worked out. Once talks with the executives failed, once union's negotiations aborted, once seething masses feel abandoned and doomed, striking is the last resort. If you do not offer the possibility to workers to be heard and understood, we all might encounter greater damage than being late at work! If you are beeing bullied by the government or your boss, you need to have th ability to fight back. And strikes are that power. The only mighty one that they have and can use in extreme cases.

I would like to conclude by saying that we believe that there always is a way to prevent strikes. That is to bargain a settlement. A legislative ban on strikes in all essential services or all public services simply doesn't work. It is unnecessary and inefective. It can only create more frustration and disillusion. Bargaining on the contrary is the only way that ever works.

And I'm being realistic here!

Thank you everyone for your attention. Now you can use your freedom of opinion by voting to defend another freedom : the strike freedom.

So VOTE FOR US!

Jean-Baptiste D.