Some Feel that Individuals Should Have the Right to Strike in All Jobs

Some feel that individuals should have the right to strike in all jobs, while others feel there are exceptions. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Sample 1: Some Feel that Individuals Should Have the Right to Strike in All Jobs

Should people have the prerogative to protest in several workplaces? Although few masses think it will help to get approval of their demands, I find it to be harmful due to loss of lives and property as well as disturbance for other employees.

On the one hand, those who support the right to bash in all jobs argue that they have fundamental rights to express their dissatisfaction with work conditions and demand better benefits. To clarify, a strike is an effective way to negotiate with an employer or government to make them aware of the worker’s grievances. For instance, the five unions from Punjab were an integral unit of the Sanyukt Kisan Morcha-led farm agitation against farm laws, held at the Delhi borders beginning in 2020.

Despite this, some people agree that there are few exceptional jobs that should not have the right to strike. The reason behind this is that it would not be fair for others to go to work while on strike. For example, in a metro or train strike, employees stop working, and transportation is disrupted. Due to this, the jobs that affect others should not have the right to protest.


Moving ahead, despite a law against the destruction of property, incidents of rioting, vandalism, and arson have been common during protests across the country. Some leaders of organizations or political parties do it. Whose members have indulged in the destruction of public or private properties?

In conclusion, in comparison to the upside of people’s right to strike having being less effective, I believe that it is disadvantageous as it causes not only disruption but also harmless to individual and public property.

Sample 2: Some Feel that Individuals Should Have the Right to Strike in All Jobs

It is an irrefutable fact that unnecessary strikes are a noticeable problem that everyone should recognize. Many individuals believe that it is a practical way for all individuals in all sorts of occupations to show dissatisfaction and demand their rights, while others reject this notion, arguing that some professional professions should not be allowed to do this. However, in my opinion, I strongly agree with the latter statement. This essay will analyze my views by taking instances to demonstrate points and prove arguments.

On the one hand, strikes can benefit workers seeking to improve their working conditions and quality of life. Companies often prioritize profits over the well-being of their employees, and strikes can be a powerful tool for expressing grievances and holding employers accountable. For example, in India, when the pilots of an airline abandoned their jobs owing to their low salaries and shut down for a while, the ones who were in charge had to accept their requests.

On the other hand, some occupations, such as police officers, firefighters, or professions related to health care, are considered not to be given the right to quit working, even for a short time. To explain, One reason is that they have heavy responsibilities and play a significant role in people’s lives. Therefore, they should quit their jobs; it will have critical consequences and can put their folks in high potential danger. For instance, if surgeons leave their jobs, they can claim lots of lives.

Follow Us On IELTSfever Instagram

In conclusion, although striking can be highly helpful and provide a way to meet demands, it is not appropriate for all professions. I believe governments should pay attention and fulfil their desires so they do not think of this.

Pages Content

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top