An “essential service” classification prevents employees of a government service from staging full-scale strikes and walkouts. Services with the classification are required by law to provide minimum services during periods of industrial action. Proponents of the proposal argue that strikes by underground workers cause significant disruption to the country’s economy and people’s lives. Opponents argue that the proposal would prevent workers from exercising their rights.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Constituency:
No, the London Underground should not be considered an "essential service" that bans all future worker strikes. Instead, ensure robust contingency plans and alternative transportation options during strikes, while respecting workers' rights to strike under appropriate conditions.
It is definitely an essential service. Transport Workers should be paid well. If strikes are to be prohibited then pay and conditions must be protected by a national workforces rights watchdog through regular and fair renegotiations.
@9PQ6W26Liberal Democrat10mos10MO
It is an essential service but if people are striking then there’s a different issue at hand, e.g. if they’re not being paid properly then they should be because they’re essential
Yes, it is an essential service. However strikes should still be allowed as the conditions that people work under do not reflect the pay they recieve
@9NQV5K510mos10MO
No it shouldn’t be an essential service but they should be paid accordingly and their rights protected. Limits on strikes too
@9M3BSJN12mos12MO
I believe that it is an essential service but I don't believe banning future worker strikes will solve anything. In fact, it just allows the government to continue ignoring these problems rather than listening and fixing them.
@9DCCYJM2yrs2Y
Yes, and the workers should get paid fairly
it should be seen as an essential service however should not ban workers from striking as it removes a persons rights
@999CD6K2yrs2Y
I feel like the underground is an essential service, however I feel like the worker strikes are important if the workers do not have good working conditions or high enough wages for the work they do.
@95FFQVN3yrs3Y
Yes, but allowed the fair opportunity and time by a non bias comittee to bring forward ideas
@92NX5QR3yrs3Y
Striking is acceptable for legitimate reasoning
@tiffanyccharrisonLabour3yrs3Y
Yes, but increase worker salaries by 25%
@92LW3Y33yrs3Y
Yes, but raise their salaries by 25%
@8ZZQ9QX3yrs3Y
should be considered essential but should still be allowed to strike
@8Z5XK7M3yrs3Y
Strikes should not be banned.
@8YQWT3Y3yrs3Y
@8Y553N33yrs3Y
It shouldn’t ban strikes but should be considered an essential service.
@8SHB7XF4yrs4Y
No, not necessarily, though I agree it to be essential, I feel strikes being banned is totally inappropriate
Yes, the London Underground should be considered as "Essential Service" however the workers should be able to strike when it is related to their working environment; health, safety and income.
@8S76FK3Liberal Democrat4yrs4Y
Yes, but pay the workers more so they won't want to strike.
@8PYNDQS4yrs4Y
Yes, but do not ban worker strikes
@8PV4HSP4yrs4Y
The London Underground should have its strike periods limited to non-peak times
@8NL3DYQ4yrs4Y
No and it should be nationaised
@9BRSSFD2yrs2Y
Yes, but they should raise the wage of the workers
Yes, it's an essential service, but strikes should not be banned. They are crucial to the function of democracy between elections.
@99KX7GC2yrs2Y
It should be considered an essential service, but workers must be allowed to strike in circumstances like the cost-of-living crisis today.
@97YTD7W2yrs2Y
Yes, but workers conditions need to be improved
@8SXR8W84yrs4Y
It is an essential service, however workers should always retain the right to strike if need be.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
