大全-5-20

笨笨可可

以下是引用rpch2004在2008-5-9 22:40:00的发言：

你的解释最完美！！

我终于明白了这个题目：

首先我们要知道仲裁是发生在罢工被定义为非法的时候，我们就会求助仲裁，而不是同一个等级的工会来解决。

非法的定义是当员工服务的工作不能替代的情况下的罢工是非法（就是说他们的工作独一无二），那么他们的罢工是非法，只能去求助仲裁，那么他们可以漫天要价（因为他们的服务无人能代替）

sausau

看看

allenhb

以下是引用wwwhahchn在2005-4-26 17:52:00的发言：

说一下我的想法：

题目：对一个地方政府来说，将工人的所有罢工统统列为违法是一个代价很高的错误，因为这样一来，所有的劳动纠纷就必须通过仲裁来解决，但是又没有已经协商好的解决办法来指导仲裁者。所以只有那些所做的工作无法被别人替代的工人所提出的罢工应该被视为违法。

题目的最后一句就比较难理解。我的理解是：因为这些工人所提供的服务无法替代，所以，一旦他们举行罢工，就没有人提供这种服务，即需求不能得到满足。所以，只有这种罢工使被禁止的。

C翻译出来是：在仲裁是唯一可行的解决劳动纠纷的办法的场合下，仲裁对工人更有利。

首先，“仲裁是唯一可行的办法的场合”，这种场合指的就是罢工违法的场合，即针对提供无法替代的服务的工人的劳动纠纷进行仲裁的场合，因为这时罢工是违法的，所以只能仲裁。

其次，在这种情况下的仲裁是对工人有利的。我的理解：因为这些工人提供的服务是无法替代的，所以仲裁的时候他们的讨价还价能力就比较强，相当于这是一个卖方市场，仲裁者自然会考虑到过于伤害工人的利益可能带来的负面影响比较大，所以说仲裁对工人有利。

个人意见，请多指教

这个解释最容易理解，赞！！

liuliuliuliu

晕，不做逻辑题，不知道自己没逻辑头脑

wildmantomba

For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costly mistake
the meaning of outlaw is "to completely stop something by making it illegal", so if a government to outlaw all strikes implies that all strikes are stopped

, because all its labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration, without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators.
whenever all strikes are stopped（outlaw）, the only（imply by then） way to settle the dispute is binding arbitration（without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators）

Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists.
the workers for whose service no acceptable substitute exists implies that they（the workers） can't stop their service, that is, they should not strike and that's why strikes should be outlawed for them.

C) should be right. (we can interpret advantageous as "appropriate for achieving a particular end")

Premise1：For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costly mistake, because all its labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration, without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators.

Premise 2：Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists.

Conclusion：Binding arbitration tends to be more advantageous for public-service workers where it is the only availavle means of settling labor disputes with such workers.