This debate rehearses many of the points from the previous debate, but I don't really feel that I've progressed in my understanding of the issues. I agree with the proposers that their opponents rely too heavily on a ready-made romantic rhetoric, but equally I find very unrealistic the proposers' contention that negotiation can always continue. If the ultimate weapon of strike action is removed from one side's armoury, they really will be in a very weak position against a particularly uncompromising management. (This point was already made in the previous debate.)
Ultimately, I think we needed a more precise definition of "essential" (is the RER really essential if it's disrupted for a day? what about striking university lecturers? or nuclear power-plant operators?) and of the type of action to be outlawed (doctors have been frequently on strike in recent times, but I don't think any "non-essential" operations have been cancelled as a result).
I've seen a lot of public-sector strikes since I've been in France. They're often inconvenient, incomprehensible and seemingly gratuitous, but I don't think society's ever been in danger of actually falling apart in consequence. The proposers didn't convince me enough that my feelings of frustration are a sufficient basis for legislation, so I'm voting "Nay".
Both teams did a really good jobs, and we can see the arguments quite clearly. But the examples chosen by the Opposing team convinced me, so my vote would be Nay.
Umm Nay!
ReplyDeleteThis debate rehearses many of the points from the previous debate, but I don't really feel that I've progressed in my understanding of the issues. I agree with the proposers that their opponents rely too heavily on a ready-made romantic rhetoric, but equally I find very unrealistic the proposers' contention that negotiation can always continue. If the ultimate weapon of strike action is removed from one side's armoury, they really will be in a very weak position against a particularly uncompromising management. (This point was already made in the previous debate.)
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I think we needed a more precise definition of "essential" (is the RER really essential if it's disrupted for a day? what about striking university lecturers? or nuclear power-plant operators?) and of the type of action to be outlawed (doctors have been frequently on strike in recent times, but I don't think any "non-essential" operations have been cancelled as a result).
I've seen a lot of public-sector strikes since I've been in France. They're often inconvenient, incomprehensible and seemingly gratuitous, but I don't think society's ever been in danger of actually falling apart in consequence. The proposers didn't convince me enough that my feelings of frustration are a sufficient basis for legislation, so I'm voting "Nay".
Nay...
ReplyDeleteNay !
ReplyDeleteBoth teams did a really good jobs, and we can see the arguments quite clearly. But the examples chosen by the Opposing team convinced me, so my vote would be Nay.
ReplyDeletecanlı sex hattı
ReplyDeletelikit
puff bar
https://www.vandili.com/
73B