大全5-20

nymphl · 发表于 2010-4-3 20:19:43

大全-5-20. For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is acostly mistake, because all its labor disputes must then be settled by bindingarbitration, without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding thearbitrators. Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sectorworkers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists.
Thestatements above best support which of the following conclusions?
(A) Where public-service workersare permitted to strike, contract negotiations with those workers are typicallysettled without a strike.
(B) Where strikes by allcategories of pubic-sector workers are outlawed, no acceptable substitutes forthe services provided by any of those workers are available.
(C) Binding arbitration tends tobe more advantageous for public-service workers where it is the only availablemeans of settling labor disputes with such workers.
(D) Most categories ofpublic-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector.（C）
(E) A strike by workers in a localgovernment is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.
请教，为什么C。怎么看不懂原题啊?请解释一下吧。谢谢。

bonnie0715 · 发表于 2010-5-7 19:48:45

我想了好久哦这个题目。。。。累死我了。发表一点看法吧。
题目说不能把所有罢工都列为非法，因为这样他们就会去找仲裁，而仲裁又不会听取public-sector的意见，潜台词就是罢工的话会听取他们的意见来negotiate。因此就会造成costly。到这里为止说的就是costly主要是因为不听取public-sector的意见。因此作者提议，应该只禁止public-sector labor的罢工。(因为本来如果不禁止他们吧，他们罢工了以没法听取他们自己的意见。其实也就是禁不禁止对于cost来说是一样的。这里也就解释了他们的工作没有替代品的原因，因为他们的意见无法替代）
C的结论就是说靠仲裁解决对public-sector更有利，因为这是他们唯一的解决办法。

一点拙见

大全5-20

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()