编者按：公共服务部门的员工罢工，给众多市民的生活、工作和学习带来巨大的影响。正因为此，才对政府和资方造成更大的压力。如此，公众利益、广大市民的正当权益便成为罢工成员为了达到个人目的用以要挟政府和资方的砝码，这令不少民众将他们的行动视为恐怖主义行为。本文作者对加拿大此起彼伏的罢工事件深有感触。考虑到能将自己的声音传达到主流社会和相关主管机构，作者采用英文写就这篇杂文。你对此类事件有何感想呢？请来稿来电。本报特别设立罢工讨论专版，将代表广大市民的权益向政府议员及相关机构呼吁。

After arriving in Canada, I am getting more and more reports on strikes–
Nurses walk out.
Caretakers block schools.
Public Servants are on strike.
TTC will end it service as it happened to Vancouver earlier.
…

Striker should not place too high premium on their skills. For these skills are certainly replaceable.

I understand that people have the right to strike in Canada. For, Canada is a democratic society and there is legal protection for this.

But what first struck me as odd is strikers are always the middle or high-income workers. They already have much more rights and benefits than those laborers belonging a lowest income level and under heavy duties. Even when during the strike, they are walking around their office, smiling and talking like attending a party. And the Union will pay for their efforts anyway.

For those low-level income workers, they rarely think of strike as a possible way of improving their situation, because they tend to feel thankful for having the job to keep the body and soul together in the first place. Besides, as most of middle or small firms normally do not unionize, who is going to subsidize them when they walk out?

Some people may argue by saying: “Unionized staff are skilled. Their jobs are professional. But those laborers are not.”

But think of the reality in Canada today. The skilled workers may not be unionized. The professionals might not get the jobs. Think of those non-unionized workers with Bachelors, Masters (even higher) degrees. Think of engineers, accountants, medical doctors, and so on from another country. They were well-educated. They have knowledge, diplomas and skills. They do have professional training. They should have been given important roles to play. Yet, no equal opportunities are there for them because they are newcomers. They would be much too happy to accept lower wages for the job their striking colleagues are holding right now.

So I’ll get my first point straight to you: Striker should not place too high premium on their skills. For these skills are certainly replaceable.

Strikes uses public fear or inconvenience as a bargaining chip in their negotiation. Their mission as public servants is dubious.

Let us come to union organizations.

I respect them in general because of the role they played historically. They helped masses of poor workers before. Their struggles helped improve justice and fairness in the society. Now there are lots of unions in many industries and big firms here.

My question is: “Why only those public service related unions are seen to be unusually active now?”

But their activities stopped the function of schools, hospitals, government departments, public transit and other facilities.

They affect public daily life.

They deprive the legal rights of countless others.

Have they realized that this goes against their mission to serve the public?

Maybe rich people don’t bother much because they rarely rely on these public systems.

But what about tens and thousands of less fortunate others?

-Parents have to return home to take care of their kids because of schools’ closure. They have to lose their daily wage.

-Commuters only can stay home.

-Imagine your heart is suddenly in pain at dawn but no any ambulance come to your place or no hospital service is offered.
…

So many people are scared but these unions are pleased. Your fear might be good for them in negotiation. That’s why every year you have to meet ample troubles one after another.

Now I’ll get my second point straight to you: Strikes uses public fear or inconvenience as a bargaining chip in their negotiation. Their mission as public servants is dubious.

When on strike, always think of the down-trodden colleagues and the fellow citizens you are called to serve.

Now who are real victims of these acts of strike? Let me first quote from a reader’s response in Toronto Star–

“Thank God! I’m a ‘teleworker’, so I don’t have to commute at all. TTC should be declared an essential service: for them to go on strike is tantamount to resorting to terrorist acts – it is terrorism (like all union actions).”
–W.G. Patels, Etobicoke, April 3

What the writer says there is certainly too sensational, because we are not hijacked and we are free to make many choices.

Many kids lost several weeks of studying last year. But why didn’t they go to private schools?

If next week some of you expect to lose jobs, you should be wise enough to buy cars!

You see, you don’t need to worry too much except when you are poor.

Actually, poor people are not too many in Toronto. For instance, only 690,000 passengers every day rely on TTC. Comparing to 8000 union members’ salary, of course passengers’ rights could be legitimately ignored. So, by all means forget them.

Here is my conclusion: “When on strike, always think of the down-trodden colleagues and the fellow citizens you are called to serve.”

■备注：文章由作者保留版权。