Presentation+summary

Morgane V.
 * THE RIGHT OF STRIKE**

**__Julien__** : There is a lot of pressure in governments and companies. We are living an industrial révolution. But where is the line between expressing the right of strike and affect the society ? The right of strike is a fundamental right but can people go on strike without dommaging society ? **__Steve__** : The right to strike is a fundamental achievement. There were historical changes that are due to the right of strike. In history from 1791 to nowadays there were big changes. In 1791 there was the Chapellier’s law. In 1906, for the first time in history, a strike happened during 8 hours. Then in 1936 there was a worker’s demonstration. In 1946 the right of strike was recognized by the constitution. In 1968 France has to face a general strike by students and workers. And in 2006 there was the strike against the CPE. **__Acyl__** : The reasons why the group is for the right of strike are the following one : first it is a tool of counterbalance. In fact, it can lead people to be against the decisions. So people can express themselves. Then it is a means of acting and it exists several ways of acting. And finally it can be a tool of freedom of speech. In some countries there is no right to strike and it is the différence between the developped countries and undevelopped countries. The right of strike is a guarantee of freedom of speech. **__Beya__** : In certain sectors the right of strike can lead to disturbance. These sectors are sensitive. The police is the first one : because if the police strikes and there are no policemen in the street there is no control, security and protection. In the hospitals also it is really dangerous to strike. There is a problem of public health especially in these days with the illness « Grippe A ». And the ultimate sector is the mail delivery system. When there is a strike in this sector the whole country is paralized and there is a big problem of communication. The economic sector will be the most affected if there is a strike. **__Sihem__** : Unfortunately there are abuses linked to the right of strike. For example in the public system there is a strike reflex because they do not have the fear to lose their jobs. Whattever happens they will keep their jobs. Tgen there is a confusion between the strike and the revolution (see the example of Caterpillar and Sony). And a new way to be heard is now the bossnapping. It is the sequestration of the CEO in the companies. The problem is that in some cases this kind of strike can work. So it leads people to practice the bossnapping. **__Julien__** : So in conclusion in one hand the right of strike is an achievement in history but in an other hand the strikers can paralize the whole country. So people have to limit the strikes.

**QUESTIONS**

**__Audrey__** : I think sequestration of employees or CEOs in the companies is not a good way to obtain what you want. **__Thomas__** : The strike is a good way to defend the rights of the people. **__Shona__** : I think the point of view that strike is just a way to express is a limited point of view. If I want to speek I can go on blogs. But strike is more than that. When I strike I want that something happens, I want a response. It is more thant just a way of express itself. **__Beya__** : But whan people strike nowadays sometimes they do not know exactly why. And I pointed sectors chere strike can be délicate and can paralize the country. **__Sihem__** : It is difficult to strike in sensitive sectors because the country is really affected.