Why I don't agree with Thursday's demonstration

Transport will stop on Thursday, June 14 - railways, public transport in Prague and other cities. Why? Because it "strikes" against government reforms. However, the trade unions do not strike for me.

They don't strike for me.
They don't strike for me.

I do not agree with this action, and quite fundamentally.

First: it is not a strike. Strikers are not strikers. It is a political action.

The strike is an expression of dissatisfaction in customer-supplier relations - here between the employee and the employer, when the employee stops supplying his labor. He wants some compensation for the "resumption" of supplies.

What trade unionists are showing, however, is not a strike. The government and its policy are not an "employer". It is a demonstration - a political act. O a demonstration where trade unions are misusing foreign property to push their political agenda.

It is not about the content of that political agenda - let everyone think and promote what they want. We may or may not agree with those views. But imagine that someone came to your house, took your apartment, and then said that he was demonstrating against government reforms in this way. Just as you have the right to expel these people from your apartment, employers have the right to expel "demonstrators" from their own premises.

They have the right to resign working contract, have the right to sue demonstrators for damages, have the right to ask the police to intervene against the arbitrariness of the demonstrators. Let them demonstrate - but on their own, not on someone else's. I repeat: this is not a strike, but a demonstration in which foreign property is misused. The employer is taken hostage here in the political struggle.

Another reason why I cannot agree with this demonstration is its political flair.

The unions are trying to enforce their political program of governing the country without gaining any mandate in the elections and the like pressure group it seeks only to control government policy regardless of the will of the electorate. They take passengers and employers hostage.

Democratic elections as "institutions" are also often dubious - the point is to choose your slave, who will enslave me the least at the expense of others. Two wolves and a sheep vote on what will be for dinner.

However, the unions are not concerned with reducing the redistributive machinery, but, on the contrary, with increasing it - in their favor. They act like a regular political party, but without political responsibility. They want to decide about us ("we strike for you too") without us (they don't strike for me). They want to push their interests without having to answer to the voters, the citizens of this country, without having to convince anyone of their truth. And all with the help of abuse of foreign property and extortion of passengers and employers.

A similar "strike" is justifiable where there is strong state repression against the opposition, where there is only state ownership, where everyone is an employee of the state, where the state is the sole property authority. Stop supplying him with his labor force is then, in fact, a strong revolt against the regime.

Thursday's strike is only political events self-proclaimed would-be rulers of this country who want decide on others without others.

They don't strike for me.

Let the trade unions form a political party and speak and act on behalf of the political party that gives their agenda, so that it is clear to everyone that this is a political party. action. Let hold regular demonstrations on behalf of this party on their own or "public" property.

Those from the CMKOS could immediately join the CSSD.

0 comments

  1. Dear Jakub Hájek, the Charter is an integral part of the constitutional order - so if the word constitution is used, you might guess. However, if you want to show how much you are intellectually above others - and I will satisfy you. You are right, this is an inaccurate statement and, especially for you, according to your diction, gross ignorance. Everything would be nice if you didn't do the same. In your last sentence, you talk about laws, although we talk about the constitution (constitutional order). It's not over to make fun of the board quite alone, that.
    laughing smiley

  2. Alexandr Špáta: There is not a word about the strike in the Constitution of the Czech Republic. You probably mean the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. It's just the next time you tell someone something about ignorance of the law.

  3. You're right, he didn't understand. As for your semi-patism, there was no need. It must be clear to everyone that you are not interpreting the court's statement that you are not interpreting the constitution, however I have written it. We misunderstood that. Obviously, just publish your opinion on the strike. However, you interpret the constitution whether you like it or not. The key is hidden in your second paragraph. From here, but also from that personal opinion, it must logically be concluded that you are somehow critical of the constitution because you actually claim that your point of view based on logic, respect for private property and respect for democracy as if your view or your logic or view through the prism of What you stated was a different logic than the logic of the constitution.
    Neither logic nor respect for private property is in conflict with the constitution in our country, in France or in Germany. On the contrary.
    It can also be seen in your "although I criticize deocracy". Democracy either is or is not. As much as possible, you can argue with anyone about what democracy is and what is not. To criticism, if he has really used the word adequately, there is not much in the notion of democracy.
    From this statement of yours, logically, at least for me, it follows that you have avoided criticism of the constitution. Which would be more logical from your position. Don't you think?
    And that strike is in line not only with the constitution, but also with the notion of democracy, including respect for private property.
    In time, logically, you have to do it yourself, anyway.
    Why? see similar discussions taking place elsewhere. On one private website, a lawyer got involved - in addition to the listed articles of the constitution or directly sections of laws, which some seem to have forgotten, he said one simple and understandable thing. There is nothing to worry about today's rulers and their declarations amending the legislation for this type of strike - it will have to comply with international treaties and conventions, and we are also part of a community that has committed itself to the same values. That is, they could somehow influence or change this - it is basically not possible.
    Bye.

  4. @ Spata - You did not understand Dominika, so I will say it in a shovel: I do not interpret the verdict of the court. He cares for me. I don't interpret the institute. I am not trying to interpret any law.

    I just point out my point of view based on logic, respect for private property and respect for democracy (although I otherwise criticize it, I still have respect for it in my own way).

  5. Petr Hlinomaz
    You are magical. No doubt the trade unionists would sit on their backs. Like in the same way in front of manipulated bullshit, which do not have enough information and write one blog after another, that trade unions do not strike for them. The funny thing is, most of them are actually striking. It is and will be about their pensions.
    And as for the law on this type of strike announced by Kalousek or Nečas, it's exactly the same. None of the trade unionists will fall for it. For one reason only - international treaties, the European Community, etc. So Kalouse or Nečas can only write a law that will be in line with this. So both from Mr. Kubec and from you only barren speech based on a minimum of information.

  6. There are a lot of articles about the strike and I'm slowly not noticing it anymore. But this one has something in it. I agree. Well written.
    In principle, no one should properly sell any goods, no food and no service to trade unionists tomorrow. I think the reason is clear.

  7. AŠ: Disagreeing with the strike is despite the fact that it is according to the law and even though the government may have been unfair.

    Ad absurdum, if there were constitutionally or otherwise legally enshrined persecution of a certain group of people (and such moments in history have been countless times), Luke would write an article - I do not agree with killing people from this group! Under this article, would you write a comment to Luke in which you would accuse him of not knowing the laws and that he would have to study them in order to express his opinion?

    Such a strike is legal, but not legitimate. If I want more money, I have to work more or better. The civil servant has the opposite. If he wants more, he will stop working. Doesn't that sound weird to you? Only a monopoly established by the state can have such a position; and such situations are textbook legal, though utterly illegitimate.

  8. You do not have the necessary knowledge - nothing more can be written about it. How do you deal with the fact that in the court decision initiated by Kalousek it stands in black and white, that it is not a political strike, and so is the one with a similar statement by Martin Komárek, who claims that it would be political if the goal was to overthrow the regime. In doing so, if you want a political course it is, because it touches on politics as otherwise. However, these unions thus express their opinion on measures that, according to them, will affect them despite a tolerable level - that is why it is not a political strike in your sense, and they have a right to this strike from the constitution. If you can't deduce it, whether from the court decision, which conditions the strike only 3 days in advance or by obvious manipulations and annoyance against the unions by others from Nečas, Kalousek, etc. You will probably be surprised that in such France Kalouska would cost his act immediately post in the government. This is simply the case when you cook from water. in order to be able to comment on this in a relevant way, you would need to study the institute in particular, and not as you interpret it yourself, but as to its actual interpretation. Try to get some damage somewhere, which the strike actually caused you - you have no chance, unless there is an excess of the outgoing senormal. Still holt same trouble.

  9. I agree with you. It is a political action. From my point of view, it is more or less an abuse of the strike. I believe that most of us do not want his health to be dealt with, nor does corruption. Unfortunately, a strike will not solve these problems. It will only bring further losses to the state (us).

Comments are off.