Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL
why is it naive ? they are threatening society for there own personal gain, you dont think they should be punished ?
|
It's not about whether I think they should be punished.
You post shows that you are totally naive when it comes to matters involving industrial action - whether legal or not.
I'll explain it for you.
You said that you felt that
"anybody that strikers (sic)
(call me harsh) should be fired there are 3 million on job seekers just waiting for a job".
Read my post again if it helps.
I am pointing out to you the fact that people may strike because their employer wants to cut their jobs based on their (the employer) having arrived at the conclusion that a reduced work force is an absolute necessity.
You, somewhat bizarrely, are suggesting that the best way for employers to punish them for striking (whether legally or not) to try and save their jobs is to sack them and
employ someone else to do a job that they (the employer) were trying to do away with.
Are you with me yet?
Your assertion is preposterous in that it defeats the very premise you are trying to put forward as a viable means to address industrial action. It is naive in the extreme.