The Impact and Constitutionality of the Right to Strike with Regards to Essential Services – A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article critically considers the application of and necessity for the right to strike, especially regarding employees that are employed in an essential service. The South African position is examined and compared to other countries around the world, but the focus is mainly on the United Kingdom. The article shows that South Africa's current labour legislation (especially regarding essential services) is in theory good, but that it is applied and enforced poorly in spite of the provisions contained in the Labour Relations Act and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996. This became evident in the 2007 public workers' strike in which many essential services employees took part. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, France and Kenya all have different ways of dealing with strikes and essential services. Some of these countries' approaches are similar to South Africa's, but in each there is some difference that could be useful in the South African situation. Through these comparisons it becomes clear that the right to strike is important in many countries around the world, but that each country's essential services (or services that can be classified as essential) are equally important. Every country places at the very least some limitation on the right of essential services employees to strike. In conclusion this article states that the South African Labour Law is not perfect and can be improved by means of comparison. This improvement is of vital importance to the lives, health and personal safety of every individual in the country.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".