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。

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。

a514116402c

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

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.

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。