|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Posts: 262
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]
 26 Sep 2003, 07:23
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costly mistake, because all its labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration, without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators. Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists.
The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?
(A) Where public-service workers are permitted to strike, contract negotiations with those workers are typically settled without a strike.
(B) Where strikes by all categories of pubic-sector workers are outlawed, no acceptable substitutes for the services provided by any of those workers are available.
(C) Binding arbitration tends to be more advantageous for public-service workers where it is the only available means of settling labor disputes with such workers.
(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector.
(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.
Kindly explain your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 100
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
C
Author's point is if you outlaw a strike by a category of workers where there exists a substitute, local goverment may lose on settling the arbitration. Since Public sector workers can not be substituted, arbitration is only the way.
_________________
Brainless
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1683
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
A hard one...
B is temptive, but I agree with C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3550
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
626
[0], given: 781
|
C is best ...First line...outlawing strikes are a "costly mistake".... This suggests that arbritration will go the workers way.
A ... goes too far..
B ... is directly mentioned in the passage..nothing to conclude
D... The argument never mentions private workers..nothing to do with private workers
E.... We cant say that , because we dont know if strikes are actually outlawed or not... Depends on what the local government decides to implement.
thanks
praetorian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Posts: 262
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
C is correct.
nice explaination praet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5289
Followers: 17
Kudos [?]:
90
[0], given: 0
|
Agreed, arbitration is prohibitively expensive, thus the government would incur huge deficits were it to outlaw strikes for all public workers.
(C)
2:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
