Some Feel That Individuals Should Have the Right To Strike in All Jobs While Others Feel There Are Exceptions: IELTS Writing Task 2

The right to strike is often seen as a powerful means for employees to demand better working conditions. However, there is debate over whether this right should be granted to all workers, especially in critical fields. This essay will explore both sides before presenting my own opinion.

Supporters argue that the right to strike is a basic democratic right. Workers must have the ability to protest against unfair pay, long hours, or unsafe work environments. Without this tool, employees may remain powerless, and employers may take advantage of their silence. In history, many reforms have resulted from strikes, such as fair wages, reasonable hours, and safe conditions. Denying this right in any profession may reduce workers’ freedom.

Conversely, critics believe that some jobs must be exceptions. Healthcare, emergency services, and law enforcement are directly linked to public well-being. A strike in these fields could lead to loss of life, insecurity, or national disruption. Moreover, strikes can damage the economy by halting operations and causing public inconvenience.

In my opinion, while the right to strike is important, it should be regulated in essential services. Rather than banning strikes outright, governments should ensure emergency support is available during industrial actions. This approach balances workers’ rights with public safety.

In conclusion, while most workers should have the right to strike, exceptions in critical sectors are necessary to prevent serious consequences. A case-by-case system could ensure fairness and accountability in all industries.

The right to strike is a contentious issue that has long been debated by individuals and organisations worldwide. While some people believe that employees should be allowed to strike in all professions, others argue that there are certain jobs where the right to strike should not be permitted. This essay will explore both sides of the argument and provide my opinion that it should be allowed but with some limitations. 

On the one hand, those who support the right to strike in all jobs argue that it is a fundamental human right to express dissatisfaction with working conditions and demand better wages and benefits. They assert that a strike is an effective way to negotiate with an employer and make them aware of the workers’ grievances. 

On the other hand, opponents of the right to strike in all jobs argue that some professions, such as emergency services or public transportation, are essential services that cannot be disrupted without causing harm to society. Furthermore, some employers argue that allowing employees to strike in all professions would give too much power to the employees and harm the employer’s ability to run their businesses efficiently.

In my opinion, the right to strike should be permitted in most professions, except for those that provide essential services. In professions where a strike would cause significant harm to society, there should be limits on the right to strike. However, in most other professions, employees should have the right to strike as a means of expressing their grievances and negotiating with their employers.

In conclusion, the right to strike is a complex issue with arguments on both sides. While the right to strike is a fundamental human right, it must be balanced against the public’s right to access essential services.