Should the London Underground be considered an "essential service" which would ban all future worker strikes?

It should be an essential service but strikes should not be banned

While it and public transport in general is essential, banning strikes just makes exploiting the workers easier

Yes, it is an essential service but they should still have the right to strike if they feel unfairly treated.

No, if work conditions are poor, then employees should have the right to strike. Maybe it could be limited to a certain time or limit the number of strikes per year?

Should be considered "essential" but workers in essential services should have as much right to strike as any other worker.

the underground is an essential to people’s work and personal life however the act of striking is an act of voice to try and gain attention on the low income they receive for a ‘essential’ service to people

I think that trains are essential but workers should be allowed to stoke for better pay working, condition's etc

Yes, but allow strikes in the sense of refusing to charge for the service (therefore affecting the big pockets) rather than stopping services and affecting the public.

As an alternative to walk-out strikes, workers should not charfor the use of the underground as a form of striking. That way it gets their point across more effectively without disrupting the public

We should have the right to strike whatever the job but preferably wages and conditions should be consistent and in one with he job’s value.

Foreign workers and asylum seekers should be trained to operate all public transit, be payed minimum wage and treated fairly so that all public transit can be 24hr

Depends the situation.

It is essential for many people but shouldn’t ban strikes

Maybe if we paid them properly they wouldn’t need to strike

I agree with striking, but am uncomfortable with banishing them, no matter how much inconvenience they might cause.

Class as Essential but allow strikes if there needs to be one

It should be considered as an essential service but it shouldn’t mean people can’t protest if they feel something is unjust.

Yes it should be essential service No they should still be able to strike

it’s an essential service but people have the right to strike so fairs

I would say the London Underground is an essential service for those people who live in London and need an alternative way to get to work. I would put more funding into making sure the service can run in the best possible way to avoid worker strikes.

The pay should be increased by 5% And eventually invest to make automated and solar powered/hybrid trains. To remove workers slowly to remove strikes from ever happening. Trains are set on a time limit you get there on time or you miss it.

I think the public sector workers need to be able to evaluate what the real issue is and then there should be a solution that works for all involved.

I'd say they should be allowed to strike but only if the workers are members of a specific labour union. It should be a collective agreement and would not be allowed based on an individual request to strike. Non-union members must join the union in order to participate in a strike. They should have the right to bargain collectively. A strike could only be called if agreed upon by by the body of the organisation responsible for operating the London Underground service. There should also be consequences for people who go on strike such as having their contract terminated as well as not receiving their salary or any other benefits, such as pension contributions, paid leave, and unemployment and sickness benefits. The economic loss would be compensated by labour market organisations.

It should be considered an essential service, especially for those in London who rely on the London Underground to get to work