02a Workers Right To Strike Print

West Coast Publishing Universal Child Care LD Mar-Apr 2021 File Page 1
West Coast Publishing
LD 2021-22
Right to Strike
Edited by Jim Hanson
Research Assistance by
Tyler Durbin
Thanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum Materials.
Please don’t share this material with anyone

outside of your school
including via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc.
We’re a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products.
Contact us at jim@wcdebate.com
www.wcdebate.com
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox,
google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
WEST COAST DEBATE
LD 2021-22
Right to Strike
Finding Arguments in this File
Use the table of contents on the next pages to find the evidence you need or the navigation bar on the left. We have tried
to make the table of contents as easy to use as possible.
Using the arguments in this File

We encourage you to be familiar with the evidence you use. Highlight (underline) the key lines you will use in the
evidence. Cut evidence from our files, incorporate your and others’ research and make new files. File the evidence so that
you can easily retrieve it when you need it in debate rounds. Practice reading the evidence out-loud; Practice applying the
arguments to your opponents’ positions; Practice defending your evidence in rebuttal speeches.
Use West Coast Evidence as a Beginning

We hope you enjoy our evidence files and find them useful. In saying this, we want to make a strong statement that we
make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to your success: DO NOT USE THIS EVIDENCE AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Instead, let it serve as a beginning. Let it inform you of important arguments, of
how to tag and organize your arguments, and to offer citations for further research. Don’t stagnate in these files--build
upon them by doing your own research for updates, new strategies, and arguments that specifically apply to your
opponents. In doing so, you’ll use our evidence to become a better debater.
Copying West Coast Evidence

Our policy gives you the freedom to use our evidence for educational purposes without violating our hard work.
 You may print and copy this evidence for those on your team.
 You may not electronically share nor distribute this evidence with anyone other than those on your team unless
you very substantially change each page of material that you share.
For unusual situations, you can e-mail us at jim@wcdebate.com and seek our consent.
Ordering West Coast Materials

1. Visit the West Coast Web Page at www.wcdebate.com
2. E-mail us at jim@wcdebate.com
3. Fax us at 877-781-5058
Copyright 2021. West Coast Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Visit our web page!

www.wcdebate.com
WEST COAST DEBATE....................................................................................................................................2

A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike..............................................4
Topic Overview.............................................................................................................................................5
Definitions....................................................................................................................................................7
Just Government............................................................................................................................................8
Ought...........................................................................................................................................................10
Recognize.....................................................................................................................................................11
Unconditional Right.....................................................................................................................................12
Workers.......................................................................................................................................................13
Strike............................................................................................................................................................14
Affirmative..................................................................................................................................................15
1AC...............................................................................................................................................................16
Extensions – Value.......................................................................................................................................20
Extensions – Criteria....................................................................................................................................21
Extensions – Right to Strike Not Protected..................................................................................................22
Extensions – Strikes Needed........................................................................................................................23
Extensions – Right to Strike More Important...............................................................................................24
Negative.....................................................................................................................................................25
1NC..............................................................................................................................................................26
Extensions – Value and Criteria....................................................................................................................30
Extensions – Shouldn’t be Unconditional.....................................................................................................31
Extensions – Other Rights Come Before......................................................................................................33
Extensions – Don’t Need Right to Strike to Solve.........................................................................................34
A just government ought to recognize an unconditional

right of workers to strike
Topic Overview
A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike
What is a worker’s strike?
Ever since the rise of capitalism in the industrial period, when workplaces significantly shifted to agricultural
land to a factory floor, worker’s strikes have been a mechanism for worker’s to collectively protest against
unsafe and poor working conditions, and advocate for better conditions, by collectively abstaining from work.
In this way, strikes can be about many things – unsafe working conditions such as exposure to toxic substances
or structurally unsound equipment or buildings (unfair labor practice strike). Or too long of hours, too little
pay, or a lack of benefits (economic strike), for instance.
However, since worker’s strikes have the potential to be disruptive to business and economic production
(which can affect both capitalist producers and consumers) there has been historical compromises between
worker’s right to strike and producer/employer’s rights for their business. For example, depending on the type
of strike workers are engaging in (unfair labor practice and economic are just two examples), employers whose
workers just went on strike could potentially temporarily replace said workers, permanently replace said
workers, fire the striking workers, or cave into the demands of the striking workers to get them back to work.
Debaters on this resolution should get a general awareness of the depth of the right to strike both in the US,
and some other places around the world. For instance, everything I’ve said thus far is mostly applicable to the
US context with similarities to other Western countries such as those in Europe. But, countries in South
America and other places in the Global South have much more limited rights for workers to strike, and it is not
uncommon to hear about private sector or state violence against workers to break up strikes.
Moral foundations and arguments
The codification of various rights for working people has been something beneficial for humanity. Of some of
these rights includes the right to form or join a union and engage in collective bargaining, which stems from
worker’s freedom of association. Supporters of the right to strike for workers have multiple arguments in
moral support. First, they argue that all worker’s rights, including the right to strike, are necessary for a
democratic society that maintains international human rights law and standards. Secondly, they argue that the
right to strike is the vehicle for the realization of other worker’s rights: freedom of association and the right to
collective bargaining. For instance, as the International Trade Union Confederation (cited in this evidence file)
has stated in 2014, “a right to collective bargaining amounts to no more than a right to ‘collective begging.’” In
this way, worker’s right to strike is the check and balance that gives workers power over employers/producers
to advocate for better working conditions. This illuminates a broader moral support for the right to strike. In a
capitalist economy, workers are typically disenfranchised and exploited while producers/employers benefit
much more. You can think about wealth or income inequality to understand this – even in the workplace, the
rich get richer and the poor (workers) get poorer.
Moral challengers to an unconditional right of workers to strike point out the theories of reciprocity under a
system of rule of law. As the general idiom goes, your rights end where someone else’s begins. Under a true
liberal democratic society, or a just society, people have rights, but their exercising of their rights should not
impede on the rights of others – if they do, it is wrong and immoral because the result is the trampling of
another’s rights. Challengers to the right to strike don’t necessarily disagree with worker’s strikes in totality,
rather, they believe that strikes can be immoral if certain lines are crossed. For example, some tactics of strikes
(sit-ins at the workplace or blocking the entrance of the workplace) affects the rights of the
employer/producer to conduct their business and generate their product or service. Another instance could be
when strikers engage in tactics or acts of violence, such as assaults on picket-line crossers (employees who
leave the strike early to go back to work) or management, as well as destruction of property. As the last piece
of the evidence in the 1NC case suggests, there are some instances of worker’s exercising their right to strike
for immoral reasons: namely, historical “hate strikes” where white workers protested against the promotion of
black workers and advocated for segregated workplace facilities.
Debating the resolution
Both the affirmative and negative side of this debate have strong arguments and moral backing for their
respective sides. The development and advancement of worker’s right to strike has greatly improved working
conditions that exist today, and in the same token there has been added limits and clarification to the extent
of this right particularly for employers/producers who have their own rights in the instance of a strike.
Affirmative’s would be strategic to emphasize that currently in the US, and certainly in many places around the
world, the right of workers to strike is under attack and not fully exercisable (for example, because of the
decline in unions over the past decades). The affirmative has strong historical arguments in support of this side
as well. Strikes have been successful tools for workers to collectively bargain and improve working conditions,
such as safer workplaces and better pay. In this way, the right to strike is a mechanism of workers to resist
their own subordination and even domination in a liberal capitalist economy. Affirmative’s can emphasize the
rise of wealth and income inequality, and the impacts that stem from that development, to argue why the
right to strike is needed now more than ever.
Negative’s would be strategic to emphasize that all rights, no matter their importance, have their limits. For
example, in the US everyone has a right to free speech but that doesn’t mean people have the right to yell
“fire” in a movie theater or “bomb” on a plane. Those are examples of going beyond one’s rights and violating
the rights of others. The negative has strong arguments to support this position. Employers/producers, those
being striked against, also have rights such as to keep their business operational and for their property to be
safe and not used or occupied by people that the owner doesn’t allow to. Everyone in society has the right to
be free from harm to themselves or their property – so strikers that engage in disruptive and violent acts or
tactics violate the rights of others in their exercising of their right to strike. Lastly, historical examples
illuminate strikes that can be for wrong or immoral purposes, such as against advancements of equality and
diversity in the workplace.
Debate’s on this resolution may significantly involve a contention over resolutional wording. For example, the
negative side’s arguments are much stronger given the topic states “an unconditional right of workers to
strike.” Negative’s will likely emphasize that “unconditional” means without limitations or restrictions, and that
their arguments show there should be limitations and restrictions on all rights – when exercising a right
violates the rights of others. Affirmative’s will likely challenge this view of “unconditional” and divert the focus
away from the definition, and more towards the present context and circumstances that limit worker’s from
striking currently in the first place (the public sector employee ban, private sectors employers/producers
replacing striking workers, etc.), which makes the right to strike not unconditionally protected.
Definitions
Just Government
A just government is one that respects and maintains agency

J.J. Richardson, published author, 30 October 2020
“Role of Just Government,” J.J. Richardson Books, https://www.jjrlore.com/post/role-of-just-government
(accessed 7/7/21)
Books written on the proper role of government fill entire library shelves. One could study the wisdom of the world’s greatest political minds for a
lifetime and never settle on a single idea. But what if one
lens could be applied to all governments to judge whether they or
their laws are just or unjust? What if that same lens could be applied to state and local governments? And what if that lens could be applied to
businesses, clubs, and social gatherings all the way down to the smallest unit of society: a friendship between two individuals? Such a lens would be
unimaginably valuable. Yet, one
has always existed, and it has a name: Agency. Agency is the capacity of individuals to
act independently and to make their own choices. What is rarely understood is three conditions must exist for
there to be agency. These conditions apply equally to individuals as well as to entire societies. For agency to
exist, (1) There must be choices. (2) Choices must be known. (3) Consequences of choices must be known
before choices are made.
A just government must respect people’s right to freedom and right to be free from
harm against their person or property
R.A. Hill, paper presenter at the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, August 1998
“Government, Justice, and Human Rights,” The Paideia Archive, https://www.bu.edu/wcp/MainPoli.htm
(accessed 7/7/21)
This paper explores the relationship between justice and government, examining views on the subject expressed by traditional political philosophers
such as Rousseau and Locke, as well as those expressed by contemporary political theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick. According to Rawls,
justice is one of the fundamental concerns of a governing body; Locke and Rousseau agree that government and justice are essentially connected.
Nozick and Max Weber, however, claim that the essential characteristic of government is not justice, but power. This paper argues that
government, as an institution formed and controlled by human beings, is subject to the moral injunction to
treat human beings as entities accorded certain rights, and included among these rights is the right to just
treatment. Governments are therefore enjoined to be just because human beings, as rational agents, and
therefore persons, are owed the minimal respect due a person, such as the right to freedom and the right to
forbearance from harm by others to self and property.
In the context of the right to strike, a just government is one that upholds international
human rights standards for worker’s rights
Human Rights Watch, 1 August 2000
“Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States under International Human Rights
Standards,” Human Rights Watch, https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a87b4.html (accessed 7/7/21)
Without diminishing the seriousness of the obstacles and violations confronted by workers in the United States, a balanced perspective must be
maintained. U.S.
workers generally do not confront gross human rights violations where death squads assassinate
trade union organizers or collective bargaining and strikes are outlawed. But the absence of systematic
government repression does not mean that workers in the United States have effective exercise of the right to
freedom of association. On the contrary, workers' freedom of association is under sustained attack in the United States, and the
government is often failing its responsibility under international human rights standards to deter such attacks and
protect workers' rights.
A just government is responsible to protect international human rights of workers

International human rights law prohibits the use of state power to repress workers' exercise of their right to
freedom of association. Forming and joining unions, bargaining collectively, or exercising the right to strike may not be banned or rendered
impotent by force of law. Officially or unofficially, authorities may not harass workers, arrest them, imprison them, or physically abuse or kill them for
such activities. Moreover,
governments must take affirmative measures to protect workers' freedom of
association. Governments have a responsibility under international law to provide effective recourse and
remedies for workers whose rights have been violated by employers. Strong enforcement is required to deter employers from
violating workers' rights.
The first definition holds that a just government is one that allows choices to exist, along with information
about choices and the consequences of choices. The second definition views a just government as one that
protects people’s right to be free from harm against their person or property. The last two definitions are
legalistic definitions and find that a just government is one that upholds international human rights law
specifically around worker’s rights.
Ought
Ought implies can

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, 2021
“Ought implies can,” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/ought-implies-can
Ought implies can, in ethics, the principle according to which an agent has a moral obligation to perform a
certain action only if it is possible for him or her to perform it . In other words, if a certain action is impossible
for an agent to perform, the agent cannot, according to the principle, have a moral obligation to do so . Attributed
to the German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, the principle of ought implies can has been regarded as a minimal condition on the
plausibility of any ethical theory: viz, no such theory is justifiable if it implies that agents have duties to perform actions that they are unable to perform.
Ought to means necessary or good

Cambridge Dictionary, 2021
“Ought to,” Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ought-to (accessed
7/7/21)
used to show when it is necessary or would be a good thing to perform the activity referred to by the following
verb.
Ought implies reasons to do something

Patricia Greenspan, professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland, 2007
“Practical Reasons and Moral 'Ought',” In Russell Schafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. II.
Clarendon Press. pp. 172-194 (2007), http://faculty.philosophy.umd.edu/PGreenspan/Res/ME.pdf (accessed
7/7/21)
We can even think of moral requirements as amounting to particularly strong or stringent reasons , in an effort to
demystify deontological views like Kant’s, with its insistence on inescapable or ‘binding’ moral requirements or ‘oughts.’1 When we say that
someone morally ought not to harm others, perhaps all we are saying is that he has a certain kind of reason
not to, one that wins out against any opposing reasons such as those touting benefits to him of ignoring
others’ concerns.
The most common debate around this word is whether it constitutes an obligation: must the affirmative
demonstrate that a just government is required to protect an unconditional right to strike? Or merely that they
have the morally defensible option of doing so? The first definition holds that ought means can, something
that can be done. The second definition views ought to mean necessary or good. The last one thinks that ought
implies reasons to do something.
Recognize
Recognize means acknowledgement of existence, validity, or legality of something

Lexico, 2021
“Recognize,” Lexico Powered by Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/recognize
(accessed 7/9/21)
Acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of.
Recognize means acceptance that something is legal, true, or important

Cambridge Dictionary, 2021
“Recognize,” Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/recognize
(accessed 7/9/21)
to accept that something is legal, true, or important:
To recognize is to accept or acknowledge. In the context of this topic, this would mean that just governments
would affirm an unconditional right to strike. This could theorieticaly be on the basis of it being a legally
protected right, or seen as something that merely exists or is true or important.
Unconditional Right
Unconditional means without conditions or restrictions; something absolute.

US Legal Definition, 2021
“Unconditional,” US Legal Dictionary, https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unconditional/ (accessed 7/9/21)
Unconditional means without conditions; without restrictions; or absolute.
Rights are entitlements to perform certain actions

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2021
“Rights,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ (accessed 7/9/21)
Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others
(not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.
Determining whether a right is unconditional requires consideration of all future

circumstances
Deloitte, 6 January 2011
“IAS 1 – Current/non-current classification of debt (rollover agreements),”
https://www.iasplus.com/en/meeting-notes/ifrs-ic/2011/agenda_ifric_1101/agenda1769 (accessed 7/9/21)
A request was received in October 2010 by the IFRS Interpretations Committee, to clarify the meaning of unconditional right to defer
settlement' in paragraph 69(d) of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements… Paper 11A of the Committee meeting in November 2010 discussed
whether the assessment of a right as unconditional (as contemplated in paragraph 69 of IAS 1) requires consideration of all possible
future circumstances, or only those that exist at reporting date . Specifically, whether there is any reason to believe that the
lender providing the long-term finance would not be able to honour facility if called upon.
The topic’s phrasing of an “unconditional right” can be looked at with the words together or separately. Alone,
we can summarize the meaning of the two conjoined. Unconditional typically means without conditions or
restrictions, and therefore something absolute. A right, in the legal and ethical sense, it typically understood as
an entitlement or protection to perform certain actions or be in a certain state. Together this implies an un-
conditioned and un-restricted entitlement for worker’s to be able to strike, a right that this would be absolute.
The last definition here could be used to explore the question of ‘if rights should be unconditional’ or whether
they should be. It offers the idea that consideration of only existing circumstances, or potentially future
circumstances, should be relevant to determining whether a right should be unconditional or not.
Workers
Workers are people who do a job to earn money

Merriam-Webster, 2021
“Worker,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worker (accessed
7/9/21)
a person who does a particular job to earn money.
Workers contribute effort to the production of goods and services

Market Business News, 2021
“What is a worker? Definition and examples,” Market Business News,
https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/worker/ (accessed 7/9/21)
Labor refers to the effort that people contribute to the production of goods and services. A worker is in this
category. Engineers, architects, drivers, or anybody who works are also in this category.
Both definitions offer the relatively accepted view of what worker means. The first suggests that workers are
people who do a job to earn, or in exchange for, money (i.e. the concept of labor). The second definition
specifies that a worker is someone who contributes to production of goods and services. These definitions
imply that many people, almost all adults for example, are workers.
Strike
A strike is an act as employee(s) to collectively bargain, or promote mutual aid or

protection
National Labor Relations Board, 2021
“The Right to Strike,” National Labor Relations Board, https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes (accessed 7/7/21)
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act states in part, “Employees

shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Strikes are included
among the concerted activities protected for employees by this section. Section 13 also concerns the right to strike.
A strike is a temporary and collective withholding of labor

Marley Weiss, professor of law at University of Maryland, 2000
“The Right to Strike in Essential Services Under United States Labor Law,” Digital Commons University of
Maryland School of Law, https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://
www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2189&context=fac_pubs (accessed 7/7/21)
The right to strike, that is, to collectively, temporarily, withhold one’s labor, should not be confused with the
individual’s right to quit working for an employer, that is, to permanently, individually, withhold one’s labor.
There are multiple categories of strikes, such as economic and unfair labor practice
Celine McNicholas, the Economic Policy Institute’s director of government affairs and labor counsel, 22 June
2020
“Workers are striking during the coronavirus,” Economic Policy Institute, https://www.epi.org/blog/thousands-
of-workers-have-gone-on-strike-during-the-coronavirus-labor-law-must-be-reformed-to-strengthen-this-
fundamental-right/ (accessed 7/7/21)
In general, there are two types of strikes: economic strikes and unfair labor practice strikes. In
an economic strike, workers withhold
their labor as leverage when bargaining for better pay and working conditions. While workers in economic
strikes retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, their employer has the right to permanently
replace them. In an unfair labor practice strike, workers withhold their labor to protest their employer
engaging in activities that they regard as a violation of labor law. Workers in an unfair labor practice strike
cannot legally be discharged or permanently replaced .
Strike is the main word of the topic and the central subject of the debate. The first definition explains the
purpose of a strike: for employee(s), typically collectively and not individually, to bargain, promote mutual aid,
or promote protection for workers. The second definition specifies the means to achieve this purpose: that
workers temporarily and collectively withhold their labor and don’t work. This shouldn’t be mistaken for
quitting a job however (one of the evidence authors in this file, Alex Gourevitch, states “Strikers refuse to work
but they claim a right to the job”). The last definition expands an understanding of strikes, with the fact that
they can be for different reasons or purposes and therefore not a universal action.
Affirmative
1AC
Worker’s right to strike is a necessary element of a democratic society, as an

expression of worker’s freedom of association and therefore power to collectively
bargain. Because of this, I stand resolved that: A just government ought to recognize an
unconditional right of workers to strike.
Observation 1: Resolutional Analysis
A. Definitions
1. In the context of the right to strike, a just government is one that upholds
international human rights standards for worker’s rights
Without diminishing the seriousness of the obstacles and violations confronted by workers in the United States, a balanced perspective must be
maintained. U.S.
workers generally do not confront gross human rights violations where death squads assassinate
trade union organizers or collective bargaining and strikes are outlawed. But the absence of systematic
government repression does not mean that workers in the United States have effective exercise of the right to
freedom of association. On the contrary, workers' freedom of association is under sustained attack in the United States, and the
government is often failing its responsibility under international human rights standards to deter such attacks and
protect workers' rights.
2. A strike is an act as employee(s) to collectively bargain, or promote mutual aid or

protection
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act states in part, “Employees

shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Strikes are included
among the concerted activities protected for employees by this section. Section 13 also concerns the right to strike.
B. Value: Democracy. Worker’s power to act collectively is necessary to the viability

of democracy
Sharon Block and Benjamin Sachs, professors at Harvard Law School, January 2020
“Clean Slate for Worker Power: Building a Just Economy and Democracy,” a project of the Labor and Worklife
Program, Harvard Law School,
https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5fa42ded15984eaa002a7ef2/5fa42ded15984ea6a72a806b_CleanSlate_Singl
ePages_ForWeb_noemptyspace.pdf (accessed 7/7/21)
Since the founding of the country, concentration of power in the hands of a small minority has been
recognized as a threat—perhaps the primary threat—to the viability of American democracy. Today, the
struggle to preserve democracy in the face of extreme wealth concentration is acute because we live in a
historical moment when vast disparities of economic power have been translated into equally shocking
disparities in political power. With this Clean Slate report, we offer an intervention that promises to help stop the vicious, self-reinforcing
cycle of economic and political inequality. By proposing a fundamental redesign of labor law, we aspire to enable working
people to create the collective economic and political power necessary to build an equitable economy and
politics.
C. Criteria: Freedom of association. The right to strike is the vehicle for worker’s
freedom of association and right to collectively bargain
Freedom of association is the bedrock workers' right under international law on which all other labor rights
rest. In the workplace, freedom of association takes shape in the right of workers to organize to defend their
interests in employment. Most often, workers organize by forming and joining trade unions. Protection of their right to organize is an
affirmative responsibility of governments to ensure workers' freedom of association. As one scholar notes, " States are ... obligated [under
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , ratified by the United States] to protect the formation or
activities of association against interference by private parties ." But the right to organize does not exist in a
vacuum. Workers organize for a purpose: to give unified voice to their need for just and favorable terms and
conditions of employment when they have freely decided that collective representation is preferable to
individual bargaining or management's unilateral power . The right to bargain collectively stems unbroken from
the principle of freedom of association and the right to organize . Protecting the right to bargain collectively guarantees that
workers can engage their employer in exchange of information, proposals and dialogue to establish terms and conditions of employment. It is the
means by which fundamental rights of association move into the real and enduring life of workers and
employers. The right to bargain collectively is "real" implementation in the economic and social setting of the
"ideal" civil and political rights of association and organizing .
Observation 2: Worker’s right to strike must be an unconditional democratic right to

allow worker’s freedom of association and collective action
A. The right of workers to strike is not unconditionally protected

On the other hand, the right to bargain collectively and to strike in the private sector has a checkered history . Some
courts have found either constitutional or common law support for such workers, rights, while other have held
them to be wholly dependent on statutory provisions . The judicial suggestions of a common law or less clearly, a constitutional basis
for a right to strike occur only in the context of construction of legislation establishing or curtailing the right to strike ,
and until a handful of relatively recent state court cases, only as to private sector employees. Flat bans on striking by public employees
have been upheld against a variety of constitutional challenges in several cases. Consequently, employees who
are excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act, particularly public
sector employees at all levels of government, are generally regarded as having no constitutional right to
collective bargaining or to strike, although their right to form or join a union is protected by the federal constitution.
B. Strikes are the tool to empower workers to collectively bargain

International Trade Union Confederation , March 2014
“The Right to Strike and the ILO: Legal Foundations,” International Trade Union Confederation,
https://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/ituc_final_brief_on_the_right_to_strike.pdf (accessed 7/9/21)
The unquestioned (and unquestionable) international right to collective bargaining gives further support to the
existence of the right to strike as a derivative right of freedom of association . Whilst the right to strike is not to be confined
to the advancement or defense of collective bargaining, the right to collective bargaining is, on the workers’ side, without
practical effect in the absence of a right to strike. Without the latter right, a right to collective bargaining
amounts to no more than a right to “collective begging.” As legal scholar Eric Tucker has noted, that notion has
a very long history, which he traces back as far as 1921, being popularised in the 1940s. Given the palpable
threats of dismissal and relocation which could be presented by an employer, the corresponding threat of
temporary withdrawal of labour was all that most workers could offer in return . Certainly, as early as 1924, the ILO “Nicod”
Report considered freedom of association in tandem with industrial action, self-evidently seeing the two as linked. And, the stated view of the
International Labour Office by 1927 was that there was an “intimate relationship between the right to combine for trade union purposes and the right to
strike” with a strong case being made for international legislation relating to both.
C. The lack of worker’s collective rights results in income inequality

Hiba Hafiz, professor of law at Boston College, 2021
“Structural Labor Rights,” Michigan Law Review, Volume 119, Issue 4 (2021),
http://michiganlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/119MichLRev651_Hafiz.pdf (accessed 7/9/21)
American labor law was designed to ensure equal bargaining power between workers and employers. But
workers’ collective power against increasingly dominant employers has disintegrated. With union density at an abysmal
6.2 percent in the private sector—a level unequaled since the Great Depression— the vast majority of workers depend only on
individual negotiations with employers to lift stagnant wages and ensure upward economic mobility. But
decentralized, individual bargaining is not enough. Economists and legal scholars increasingly agree that,
absent regulation to protect workers’ collective rights, labor markets naturally strengthen employers’
bargaining power over workers. Existing labor and antitrust law have failed to step in, leaving employers free to coordinate and consolidate
labor-market power while con- straining workers’ ability to do the same. The dissolution of workers’ collective rights has resulted
in spiking income inequality: workers have suffered economy-wide wage stagnation and a declining share of
the national income for decades. To resolve this crisis, some scholars have advocated for ambitious labor law reforms, like sector-wide
bargaining, while others have turned to antitrust law to tackle employer power. While these proposals are vital, they overlook an existing opportunity
already contained in the labor law that would avoid the political and doctrinal obstacles to such large-scale reforms.
D. The right to strike is a justifiable method of resisting oppression

Alex Gourevitch, professor of political science at Brown University, 21 June 2018
“The Right to Strike: A Radical View,” American Political Science Review , Volume 112 , Issue 4 , November
2018 , pp. 905 – 917, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000321 (accessed 7/7/21)
The right to strike is everywhere recognized but appears unjustifiable. Strikers refuse to work but they claim a right to the job . This
sounds like illiberal privilege, or at least it cannot be a coercively enforceable claim. I argue, however, that the right to strike is justified as a
way of resisting intertwined forms of structural and personal domination associated with the modern labor
market. Workers are structurally dominated insofar as being forced to make a contract with some employer or
another leaves them vulnerable to exploitation. They are personally dominated insofar as they are required to
submit to the arbitrary authority of managers in the workplace, which deepens their potential exploitation.
Strikes contest this domination by reversing the relationship of power. Workers can formally quit the job but
they can’t quit work, so strikers quit working but don’t quit the job.
Extensions – Value
Worker’s rights, such as the right to strike, are necessary democratic human rights
Many Americans think of workers' organizing, collective bargaining, and strikes solely as union-versus-
management disputes that do not raise human rights concerns . This report approaches workers' use of these tools as
an exercise of basic rights where workers are autonomous actors, not objects of unions' or employers'
institutional interests. Both historical experience and a review of current conditions around the world indicate that strong, independent,
democratic trade unions are vital for societies where human rights are respected. Human rights cannot flourish
where workers' rights are not enforced. Researching workers' exercise of these rights in different industries, occupations, and regions of
the United States to prepare this report, Human Rights Watch found that freedom of association is a right under severe, often buckling pressure when
workers in the United States try to exercise it.
Democracy is key to liberty, economic advancement, and security

Sean Lynn-Jones, an International Security Program Associate at Harvard University, March 1998
“Why the United States Should Spread Democracy,” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
Harvard Kennedy School, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-should-spread-
democracy (accessed 7/9/21)
After the Cold War ended, promoting the international spread of democracy seemed poised to replace containment as the guiding principle of
U.S. foreign policy. Scholars, policymakers, and commentators embraced the idea that democratization could become
America's next mission. In recent years, however, critics have argued that spreading democracy may be unwise or even harmful. This paper addresses
this debate. It argues that the United States should promote democracy and refutes some of the most important arguments against U.S. efforts to
spread democracy. After a brief discussion of definitions of democracy and liberalism, the paper summarizes the reasons why the spread of
democracy— especially liberal democracy— benefits the citizens of new democracies, promotes international
peace, and serves U.S. interests. Because the case for democratization is rarely made comprehensively, the paper explicates the arguments for why
democracy promotes liberty, prevents famines, and fosters economic development . The logic and evidence of a
democratic peace are also summarized, as are the ways in which U.S. security and economic interests would be advanced in a
world of democracies. These benefits to U.S. interests include a reduction in threats to the United States, fewer refugees attempting to enter
the United States, and better economic partners for American trade and investment.
Extensions – Criteria
The right to strike is rooted in the freedom of speech, assembly, and association.
Freedom of association, both positive and negative, has been held to have a constitutional basis in the United States,
and the be applicable to public as well as private sector employees. The courts have considered it to be a part
of the broader right to political and social freedom of speech, assembly and association provided by the First
Amendment to the Constitution.
The right to strike is a manifestation of freedom of association

International Labor Organization, 2013
“Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining: training guide and materials for military, police
and security forces in the Philippines,” ILO Country Office for the Philippines,
http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/inwork/cb-policy-guide/policeandsecurityphilippines.pdf (accessed 7/9/21)
In a free society, the normal exercise of freedom of association is a democratic right and is not tantamount to treason or
revolution. Treason and violent revolution are not protected by international standards on freedom of association . Respect for
the line between these, and equally energetic efforts to protect society in both instances – support for lawful freedom of association and protection
from unlawful activities – is an absolutely critical point in this training. The
lawful activities and programmes of both employers’ and workers’
organizations, consistent with international standards, should not be subjected to intervention or interference,
either by the State or by each other. This includes lawful political activities including the holding of rallies, undertaking of
marches, and the strike.
Extensions – Right to Strike Not Protected
Existing laws do not protect the right to strike

Moreover, some provisions of U.S. law openly conflict with international norms and create formidable legal
obstacles to the exercise of freedom of association . Millions of workers are expressly barred from the law's
protection of the right to organize. U.S. legal doctrine allowing employers to permanently replace workers who
exercise the right to strike effectively nullifies the right. Mutual support among workers and unions recognized
in most of the world as legitimate expressions of solidarity is harshly proscribed under U.S. law as illegal
secondary boycotts. Labor laws have failed to keep pace with changes in the economy and new forms of employment relationships creating
millions of part-time, temporary, subcontracted, and otherwise "atypical" or "contingent" workers whose exercise of the right to freedom of association
is frustrated by the law's inadequacy.
Extensions – Strikes Needed
Worker’s right to strike gives the labor movement economic leverage to make society
fair and progressive
Howard Metzenbaum, former member of the US Senate from Ohio, 11 July 1994
“National Labor Relations Act nd Railway Labor Act Amednments,” Congressional Record Volume 140, Number
88 (Monday, July 11, 1994), govinfo.gov, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-1994-07-11/html/CREC-
1994-07-11-pt1-PgH17.htm (accessed 7/7/21)
The Workplace Fairness Act is not just about restoring the

right to strike—it is about the very survival of the American labor
movement. For decades, American workers have helped make this country a great and progressive nation . But
the growing practice of hiring permanent striker replacements has stripped workers of the economic leverage
they once had, and crippled the American labor movement . Today, we are at a critical juncture. I would say to my
colleagues, you have two choices: You can restore the right to strike, or you can turn your backs on the working
men and women of this great nation . The American people are watching, and they want to know: which side are you on?
Worker’s strikes increasing now due to poor and unfair working conditions
Celine McNicholas, the Economic Policy Institute’s director of government affairs and labor counsel, 22 June
2020
“Workers are striking during the coronavirus,” Economic Policy Institute, https://www.epi.org/blog/thousands-
of-workers-have-gone-on-strike-during-the-coronavirus-labor-law-must-be-reformed-to-strengthen-this-
fundamental-right/ (accessed 7/7/21)
The coronavirus pandemic has revealed much about work in the United States: There have been countless
examples of workers speaking out against unsafe work conditions and demanding personal protective equipment (PPE) to try
and stay healthy and safe on the job. We also have seen that essential workers are often not paid commensurate with
the critical nature of their work. Few U.S. workers have access to paid sick time or paid leave of any kind. And,
when workers have advocated for health and safety protections or wage increase, they have often been
retaliated against, and even fired for doing so. As a result, many workers have decided to strike in an effort to
have their voices heard. Even before the pandemic, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed an
upsurge in major strike activity in 2018 and 2019, marking a 35-year high for the number of workers involved
in a major work stoppage over a two-year period .
Extensions – Right to Strike More Important
The right to strike should supersede other liberties, principles, and laws
Workers face a common dilemma when exercising their right to strike. For
the worst-off workers to go on strike with some
reasonable chance of success, they must use coercive strike tactics like mass pickets and sit-downs. These
tactics violate some basic liberties, such as contract, association, and private property, and the laws that
protect those liberties. Which has priority, the right to strike or the basic liberties strikers might violate? The
answer depends on why the right to strike is justified . In contrast to liberal and social democratic arguments, on the radical view
defended here, the right to strike is a right to resist oppression. This oppression is partly a product of the legal
protection of basic economic liberties, which explains why the right to strike has priority over these liberties.
The radical view thus best explains why workers may use some coercive, even lawbreaking, strike tactics.
The strike is the only check and balance for workers in a capitalist democracy
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, 8 May 2012
“'Up w/Chris Hayes' for Sunday, April 29, 2012,” NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna47345549
(accessed 7/9/21)
WEINGARTEN: But it`s

more than simply the mobilization or having strike or having a demonstration. What it really
is, is the check and balance. In a capitalist democracy, the only check and balance for workers is to collectively
organize so that they can say to the boss, this is what we need to live . And ultimately, when the bosses basically say, we`re
going to do everything we can to stop you from organizing and we see clear as day by Chris` chart, that the, the fewer people who are in unions, the
more income inequality.
Negative
1NC
It isn’t known who first said it but it was once said, “The right to swing my fist ends
where the other man's nose begins.” Balancing reciprocity in the rule of law means
your rights are protected up to the point where you infringe on someone else's rights.
Because of this, I oppose the proposition that: A just government ought to recognize an
unconditional right of workers to strike.
Observation 1: Resolutional Analysis
A. Definitions
1. A just government must respect people’s right to freedom and right to be free
from harm against their person or property
R.A. Hill, paper presenter at the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, August 1998
“Government, Justice, and Human Rights,” The Paideia Archive, https://www.bu.edu/wcp/MainPoli.htm
(accessed 7/7/21)
This paper explores the relationship between justice and government, examining views on the subject expressed by traditional political philosophers
such as Rousseau and Locke, as well as those expressed by contemporary political theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick. According to Rawls,
justice is one of the fundamental concerns of a governing body; Locke and Rousseau agree that government and justice are essentially connected.
Nozick and Max Weber, however, claim that the essential characteristic of government is not justice, but power. This paper argues that
government, as an institution formed and controlled by human beings, is subject to the moral injunction to
treat human beings as entities accorded certain rights, and included among these rights is the right to just
treatment. Governments are therefore enjoined to be just because human beings, as rational agents, and
therefore persons, are owed the minimal respect due a person, such as the right to freedom and the right to
forbearance from harm by others to self and property.
2. Unconditional means without conditions or restrictions; something absolute.

US Legal Definition, 2021
“Unconditional,” US Legal Dictionary, https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unconditional/ (accessed 7/9/21)
Unconditional means without conditions; without restrictions; or absolute.
B. Value: Rule of Law. The right to strike can harm the principle of reciprocity in
liberal society: respect for the rights and rule of law for everyone
But what is the actual dilemma? It is the following. A

basic principle of political morality in any liberal capitalist society is that
all persons enjoy basic liberties on the condition that they extend the same basic liberties to everyone else and
that these liberties should be enshrined in law. You are free to exercise your basic liberties so long as you do
not coercively interfere with others in the enjoyment of their same liberties . But the aforementioned coercive strike
tactics violate a number of these basic liberties as they are commonly understood, both in law and political
culture. They violate the property rights of owners and their managers, the freedom of contract and
association of replacement workers, and they threaten the everyday, background sense of public order of a
liberal capitalist society— in-sofar as law and order is commonly identified with obedience to the law and uninterrupted flow of commerce. The
dilemma is that the right to strike, when exercised by the majority of worst-off workers, seems to conflict directly
with the basic economic and civil liberties of large numbers of other people and with the background legal order that
secures those liberties.
C. Criteria: Balancing of Interests. Balancing of interests is the mechanism to

determine when a right ends
Legal Information Institute, 2021
“Freedom of Expression – Speech and Press,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/freedom-of-expression-speech-and-press
(accessed 7/7/21)
The test, rather, must be one of balancing of interests. “When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of
public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgement of speech, the duty of
the courts is to determine which of these two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the
particular circumstances presented.”508 As the interest in the restriction, the government’s right to prevent
political strikes and the disruption of commerce, was much more substantial than the limited interest on the
other side in view of the relative handful of persons affected in only a partial manner , the Court perceived no difficulty
upholding the statute.509
Observation 2: An unconditional right to strike violates others rights and therefore

must have limits
A. The debate’s not on whether the right to strike should be allowed, but whether
it should be unconditional
One might also object that it sounds like I am saying there are no restraints on what strikers may do. I am not saying that either. I am explaining why a
specific set of coercive strike tactics, which have been the centerpiece of the strike repertoire whenever the majority
of workers have had it in their mind to strike, are not limited by the requirement to respect those legally protected
economic liberties that they violate. There are, nonetheless, all kinds of things strikers are not justified in doing
to win a strike. But that is a complex and separate problem of political ethics, which we can only tackle once
we have taken the first step of understanding why some of the conventional restraints of liberal political
morality do not apply to these kinds of labor disputes .
B. International human rights treaties and labor organizations believe in limitations

on the right to strike
The right to bargain collectively is compromised without the right to strike . This right, too, must be protected because
without it there cannot be genuine collective bargaining. There can only be collective entreaty. Here, too, a greater level of regulation is
contemplated under international norms since strikes can affect not just the parties to a dispute, but others as
well. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights proclaims "[t]he right to strike,
provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country." The International Labor
Organization (ILO) has long maintained that the right to strike is an essential element of the right to freedom of
association, but recognizes that strikes may be restricted by law where public safety is concerned, as long as
adequate alternatives such as mediation, conciliation, and arbitration provide a solution for workers who are
affected.
C. Hate strikes prove not all strikes are good or should be unconditionally protected
Andrew Robert McCloskey, graduate student at West Virginian University, 2020
“Seasons Past: Wildcat Strikes and the Smith-Connally Act During World War II,” graduate thesis submitted to
the College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University,
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8670&context=etd (accessed 7/9/21)
Hate strikes over the promotions of black workers was a reoccurring theme across multiple industries. Large
strikes in 1943 spread across the nation like a bloodstain as Mobile’s dry docks and shipbuilding installations, Sparrow’s Point
shipyards in Baltimore, Bethlehem steel mills, Aliquippa, Point Breeze Western Electrical plants stopped work due to protests over the
promotion of black workers or demands for segregated facilities. Some of these racialized work stoppages had
a violent and brutal dimension.
Extensions – Value and Criteria
An unconditional right to strike is illiberal as it violates other liberal values and

freedoms
Every liberal democracy recognizes that workers have a right to strike. That right is protected in law,
sometimes in the constitution itself. Yet strikes pose serious problems for liberal societies. They involve
violence and coercion, they often violate some basic liberal liberties, they appear to involve group rights having
priority over individual ones, and they can threaten public order itself. Strikes are also one of the most
common forms of disruptive collective protest in modern history . Even given the dramatic decline in strike activity since its peak
in the 1970s, they can play significant roles in our lives. For instance, just over the past few years in the United States , large illegal strikes by
teachers paralyzed major school districts in Chicago and Seattle, as well as statewide in West Virginia,
Oklahoma, Arizona, and Colorado; a strike by taxi drivers played a major role in debates and court decisions
regarding immigration; and strikes by retail and food- service workers were instrumental in getting new
minimum wage and other legislation passed in states like California, New York, and North Carolina.
Extensions – Shouldn’t be Unconditional
The right to strike ought not be unconditional

It is clear from a reading of these two provisions that: the law not only guarantees the right of employees to strike, but also
places limitations and qualifications on the exercise of that right . See for example, restrictions on strikes in health care
institutions (set forth below). Lawful and unlawful strikes. The lawfulness of a strike may depend on the object, or purpose, of
the strike, on its timing, or on the conduct of the strikers . The object, or objects, of a strike and whether the objects are lawful are
matters that are not always easy to determine.
Strikers over-extend their right when they resort to violence

Charles Kimmett, trial attorney in business law, 1996
“Permanent Replacements, Presidential Power, and Politics: Judicial Overreaching in Chamber of Commerce v.
Reich,” Yale Law Journal, Volume 106, 1996, https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=7727&context=ylj (accessed 7/7/21)
One of the most contentious decisions an employer can make during a labor dispute is to replace striking
workers permanently. When striking Greyhound workers were permanently replaced by their employer,
replacement bus drivers and bus riders became the targets of sniper fire .' As expected, customer use of Greyhound buses
significantly declined in those areas in which buses had been targeted, and Greyhound quickly discovered that replacements were unwilling to drive
those routes. Similarly,
the Hormel Company's decision to hire permanent striker replacements was accompanied
by such violence that Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich called in the National Guard to quell the unrest. Strikers'
willingness to resort to violence is due largely to the fact that permanent replacements represent an
immediate, long-term threat to their future livelihood. Such violence cannot be condoned , but the tangible effect on
those who contract with the firm employing the replacements must be recognized.
Strikes can be disruptive, disastrous, and violent

Chaithra Hanasoge, writer for Supply Wisdom, 2021
“The Union Strikes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” Supply Wisdom, no date,
https://www.supplywisdom.com/resources/the-union-strikes-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ (accessed
7/9/21)
As long as the concept of labor exists and employees feel that they are not receiving their fair share of dues, unions will exist and thrive. Union
protests in most cases cause work stoppages, and in certain cases, disruption of law and order . Like in March
2016, public servants at Federal Government departments across Australia went on a series of strikes over
failed pay negotiations, disrupting operations of many government departments for a few days. Besides such
direct effects, there are many indirect effects as well such as strained employee relations, slower work
processes, lesser productivity and unnecessary legal hassles. Also, union strikes can never be taken too lightly as they have
prompted major overturn of decisions, on a few occasions. Besides the Verizon incident that was a crucial example of this, nationwide strikes
were witnessed in India in March and April this year when the national government introduced reforms related to
the withdrawal regulations and interest rate of employee provident fund, terming it as ‘anti-working class’. This compelled the government
to withhold the reform for further review. In France, strike against labor law reforms in May turned violent,
resulting in riots and significant damage to property . The incident prompted the government to consider modifications to the
proposed reforms.
Police should be able to intervene on strikes that disrupt the public order or break the
law
International Labor Organization, 2013
“Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining: training guide and materials for military, police
and security forces in the Philippines,” ILO Country Office for the Philippines,
http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/inwork/cb-policy-guide/policeandsecurityphilippines.pdf (accessed 7/9/21)
As mentioned earlier, the right to strike is an exercise of freedom of association rights . The same goes for lockouts. The role
of police and security personnel during strikes and lockouts are to keep public order, to respect the rights of the
parties, and to promote the parties’ finding the accommodation they see fit to resolving the dispute that gave
rise to the industrial action in the first place . You do this – particularly the last – by helping maintain as best as possible essential peace
and calm during the dispute. As regards the intervention of the police during a strike , the CFA has stated the opinion that: while
workers and their organizations have an obligation to respect the law of the land; the intervention by security
forces in strike situations should be limited strictly to the maintenance of public order, and; resort to the use of
force only in grave situations where law and order is seriously threatened.
Extensions – Other Rights Come Before
Liberal economic and civil liberties come before the right to strike
To resolve this dilemma, we

need to know what has moral priority: the basic economic and civil liberties, as they are
enforced in law, or the right to strike. If the former, then the right to strike must be limited by the requirement
to respect the legally protected basic liberties of owners, managers, and replacements . That would mean that, in the
typical case, the majority of easily replaced workers cannot exercise their right to strike with a reasonable chance of success.
Extensions – Don’t Need Right to Strike to Solve
Workers can shut down production without the right to strike

Marina Sitrin, member of the Occupy Wall Street Legal Working Group, 8 May 2012
“'Up w/Chris Hayes' for Sunday, April 29, 2012,” NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna47345549
(accessed 7/9/21)
SITRIN: But so -- I mean, I want to say something here that`s really important. On the one hand, yes, we must fight for and insist on our right to strike,
and strike. But becausewe don`t have a legal right to strike doesn`t mean we can`t shut down production. People
do it all over the world, all the time and that`s part of what Occupy is arguing for, including on May Day and it`s
happened even very recently on the West Coast, where if workers can`t go out on strike, we can -- we, whoever we
are, deciding in relationship with workers and whatever that workplace is, helped shut down production .

02a Workers Right To Strike Print

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

02a Workers Right To Strike Print

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02a Workers Right To Strike Print

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

West Coast Publishing Universal Child Care LD Mar-Apr 2021 File Page 1

West Coast Publishing

Thanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum Materials.

Please don’t share this material with anyone

WEST COAST DEBATE

Using the arguments in this File

Use West Coast Evidence as a Beginning

Copying West Coast Evidence

Ordering West Coast Materials

Visit our web page!

WEST COAST DEBATE....................................................................................................................................2

A just government ought to recognize an unconditional

A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike

What is a worker’s strike?

Moral foundations and arguments

Debating the resolution

A just government is one that respects and maintains agency

A just government is responsible to protect international human rights of workers

Ought implies can

Ought to means necessary or good

Ought implies reasons to do something

Recognize means acknowledgement of existence, validity, or legality of something

Acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of.

Recognize means acceptance that something is legal, true, or important

to accept that something is legal, true, or important:

Unconditional means without conditions or restrictions; something absolute.

Unconditional means without conditions; without restrictions; or absolute.

Rights are entitlements to perform certain actions

Determining whether a right is unconditional requires consideration of all future

Workers are people who do a job to earn money

a person who does a particular job to earn money.

Workers contribute effort to the production of goods and services

A strike is an act as employee(s) to collectively bargain, or promote mutual aid or

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act states in part, “Employees

A strike is a temporary and collective withholding of labor

Worker’s right to strike is a necessary element of a democratic society, as an

Observation 1: Resolutional Analysis

2. A strike is an act as employee(s) to collectively bargain, or promote mutual aid or

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act states in part, “Employees

B. Value: Democracy. Worker’s power to act collectively is necessary to the viability

Observation 2: Worker’s right to strike must be an unconditional democratic right to

A. The right of workers to strike is not unconditionally protected

B. Strikes are the tool to empower workers to collectively bargain

C. The lack of worker’s collective rights results in income inequality

D. The right to strike is a justifiable method of resisting oppression

Democracy is key to liberty, economic advancement, and security

The right to strike is a manifestation of freedom of association

Extensions – Right to Strike Not Protected

Existing laws do not protect the right to strike

Extensions – Strikes Needed

The Workplace Fairness Act is not just about restoring the

Extensions – Right to Strike More Important

WEINGARTEN: But it`s

Observation 1: Resolutional Analysis

2. Unconditional means without conditions or restrictions; something absolute.

Unconditional means without conditions; without restrictions; or absolute.

But what is the actual dilemma? It is the following. A

C. Criteria: Balancing of Interests. Balancing of interests is the mechanism to