the public sector is presently engaged in industrial action. the state is offering 6% wage increase and the unions are demanding 12%. the whole thing is interesting on many levels.
firstly, having worked in the state sector recently (and still being very involved) i do feel that they are paid too little and something closer to 12% is more acceptable than 6%. but, having said this, i find it difficult to justify the nurses striking and the fact that the entire state health care has been crippled. the unions have actually said they want to close all hospitals and clinics to force the government to relent.
the question i ask is who suffers? all state employees are required to have medical aid, so all the strikers can get medical help during the strike if they need it. the people who suffer are those who don't have jobs or medical aid and rely on the state hospitals for help. the true lower class. i was at the state hospital here in nelspruit on tuesday. the normal lists were cancelled (including a mastectomy for cancer) and only emergencies were being done. wards were empty and even locked. only skeleton staff were working to handle emergencies. the strikers were toiytoiying outside the main hospital gates.
i read somewhere that 30 people have died as a result of the strike in our hospital so far. how many in the entire country?
on one of my posts a commentator spoke about dying for a cause. everyone likes to believe they are willing to die for a cause if it is good enough. but are you willing to kill for a cause. some causes maybe do need killing for. kill the enemy or kill the suppressor etc. but to cause the death of the poorest eschelons of society for 12%??? i just don't know if it's worth it.
life is cheap in africa, but it is always someone else's life that hangs in the ballance. the pawns are thrown onto the bayonettes so the kings can have a better raise in salary.