请教：大全-5-20

edwinwos

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

The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?


(A) Where public-service workers are permitted to strike, contract negotiations with those workers are typically settled without a strike.

(B) Where strikes by all categories of pubic-sector workers are outlawed, no acceptable substitutes for the services provided by any of those workers are available.

(C) Binding arbitration tends to be more advantageous for public-service workers where it is the only available means of settling labor disputes with such workers.

(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector.（C）

(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.


这道题在说的什么呀？我怎么一点出摸不着头脑。

finnlijing

I hope this is helpful:


政府把所有的工人罢工视为非法是一种代价高昂的错误，因为这样所有的劳动纠纷都必须通过仲裁来解决，而仲裁员们得不到任何已商定的公共部门劳动纠纷和解方案的指引。 只有当涉及到服务无法被替代的公共部门的工人时，罢工才应该被定为非法。

tkcamfan

First of all, you'd better adjust the size of fonts. The words is too small to be recognized.


arbitrition->increase in cost, therefore the arbitrition should be adopted only if there is no alternative.

a514116402c

explains that the arbitrition will favor the public-sector side, therefore prove that arbitrition brings about increase in cost.

edwinwos

谢谢楼上两位，在你们的帮助下我弄清了题目的大致意思，是不是说public sector的工人工作很重要，又无其它人可以代替他们，因此地方政府宁愿让他们采用仲裁的方式（虽然costly)解决劳资纠纷，也不愿意他们罢工（因为这样损失更大）。而工人们也愿意如此。请指教。