That's the gist of what I want to say. If you want to read the same point with loads of fluorish, read on.
- Striking work for a pay-hike is plain robbery. It is a blatant violation of the industry-owner's right to use his/their own money. If pay is less, employee should quit the job. If quitting job is not easy due to economic scenario, accept the fact that employer is doing a favour to the employee. One accepting favour is in no position to strike, morally speaking.
- If employer has embezzled money or defaulted on salaries, take recourse to legal route. If judiciary/police does not work, fix those. Do not strike.
- May be working class has won the right to strike after a long struggle. So what? Assume I start a long struggle for right-to-murder from this day on?
- Strikes happen in developed world too. That does not lend any legality to strikes. Developed world people are wrong when they 'strike'.
- Mahatma Gandhi called a general strike. He was wrong. I do not buy the argument that striking against foreign rule was okay. Every body joining the strike should have rather resigned from their job. Keeping the job and resorting to strike is opportunism of the worst kind. I respect Gandhi very much and I plan to dig into his autobiography to see how he could have rationalized such an action. Respecting Gandhi does not mean that I should agree with him.
- I have seen elaborate articles in favour of strike. I could not find a single reasoning which can refute the argument I cited above. If you (the reader) have a reason for 'strikes', let me know. I have tried reading a pamphlet by W.R.Varadarajan at www.cpim.org. Its a lengthy article and I am still going through it. It is an article written with loads of conviction and lots of effort. It impresses me but does not convince, at least not yet. If you have gone through the same article and found something convincing for right-to-strike, let me know.