Should Hospital employees have the right to strike?

i say yes and no, first off i say yes because if they where to strike it would be more noticeble the some of the other compannies, if peple notice they'ill try o help. and no because we depend oon them on helping us when the time is need and if they strike who will? and by saying that the presure we put on them can aslo effect them.

People's lives depend on them.

Striking threatens the lives of their patients. It is unconscionable. I also agree with President Roosevelt who believed government workers should not be able to unionize nor strike.

many states are trying to pass laws about this very subject. If your skill is need to save a patient's life and you stand on the strike line. The Hospital want the right to deflect the malpractice law suit to the Dr whom refused treat do to striking.

Most folks who work in hospitals are amazing people, which gives them every right to demand that they are not being taken advantage of.

When conditions get bad anywhere, a person should have the right to protest.

Yes, they should. Like other companies, there are many reasons to strike- to get better wages, there are bad working conditons, benefit cutting, etc.

But people dying? The hospitals can go outside for workers where they're needed.

I've never seen hospital employees let it go that far. Nurses, etc. usually care too much and are too professional to let that happen! Besides, they are in a liberal union where people care about other Americans.

In a civil society where the unions were not allowed to get away with stopping others who would happily replace them at a lesser price I would say yes, let them strike. In this society where union members are allowed to get away with acting like common thugs and hoodlums, NO!

There are other mechanisms in order to avert a strike. Binding arbitration by the NLRB is one of them.

While a strike should be the last resort, if employees' right to fight to protect their rights and to maintain decent working conditions cannot be backed up with some sort of leverage then they will wind up with nothing. It's a very tough question. I would have chosen "undecided" given the option.

And they have the right to be fired for job abandonment.

How about if we use "People could die" as in medical decisions by private insurance companies; "Denied: too costly", "Denied: unproven", "Denied: too old", "Denied: exceeds coverage", "Denied: pre-existing condition"...

The hospital employees are not government employees and have the right to strike.


The argument that people may die is weak.

pay attention to history, they have throughout time, and death rates do not increase during those periods.

Everyone has the right to strike, but hospital employees are care-oriented so you don't see it happen very often.

If people don't like the pay, hours, or conditions, there are plenty of other jobs in the health care industry. Move on!

That's the way you lose the best nurses that deserve the best pay! Shortsightedness seems to be epidemic on the right.

That means that companies that pay well and treat their employees well, will get the best employees. Companies that don't, will give lesser service and lose market share. That's the way a free market works. The only shortsightedness is on the part of a company that does not promote good service by taking care of good employees. There is no need for a 3rd party to be involved.

"No need for a third party.." Since trade unions have gone down, middle class wages have followed, or rather stagnated while the CEO's and other capitalistic crooks have skyrocketed in wealth. "that's the way the free market works!"
From the 40's to the 70's America got stronger because the middle class was supported by unions. America got stronger, the rich still got richer, the economy had quick recessions and recoveries. Today, the middle class is missing the jobs that the economy could easily recover with, the jobs that were "SOLD" to China and elsewhere by the "shortsighted" free market that was given huge tax breaks, are still raking in record profits, are sitting on the billions that could bring their country back, but it just feels sooo good as a WHOOPEE cushion! That's the way the free market works when unregulated and untaxed! That's the way America is thanked for allowing these "patriots" to get rich.

How does that "free market" expect to HAVE a market if the biggest market, America, has no money to buy their wares?? Now, that "free market" says they don't want to hire people who have been out of work too long? THEY are the "market"! Shortsightedness, anyone??

I can see you have a real passion for unions. That's fine, but I think you are wrong. Union membership at it's highest was only about 27% of the workforce and is now around 11%. Since it's highest level there have been a multitude of federal laws passed that eliminate the need for unions. Wages are set by what the market will bare. If employees are paid beyond what is reasonable, the product prices itself out of the market. What is the difference if you make 30% more money and everything you buy costs 30% more? For most corporations, a CEO's pay is not even 1% of their total profits. That being said, if you take their pay away, you don't add much to the bottom line. I have no problem with companies bringing CEO pay into a more reasonable line, but that's not going to fix the issue.

This is a tricky question. On one hand, you have valid points, though I firmly believe there are always people willing to cross the picket line. On the other hand, shouldn't any employee have the right to strike and ask for better pay and working conditions?

I think the solution would be for the administration and the employees to come to a compromise before it gets to that point.

If they didn't have the right to strike then the hospital would walk all over them... more then they already do.