Trade unions are expecting a lot from the three-day seminar aimed at ratifying the 1987 Convention of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). They expect that this conference on ?workers? freedom of association and protection of the right to organise? will lead to the inclusion of ?the right to strike? in the new legislation that is expected to replace the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) of 1973.

Of course, there are negative sides to such a right and they cannot be underestimated. In France, while the legislation on the right to strike was already partially adopted in 1864, this law remains controversial. A sort of ?amendment? concerning the implementation of a ?minimum service? during strikes ? for transport especially ? is under study.

However, some French citizens fight against this eventual ?minimum service?. They consider that it questions the very foundation of the right to strike. It is undeniable that strike brings along a few problems : it has repercussions on people who have nothing to do with the conflict that opposes a company and its employees and it is unfair that they should bear the consequences. It is also true that strike is a show of strength. It is a sort of blackmail after all: if employers do not give in, the employees will not resume work and this is bound to penalise both the company and the country.

Strike should thus be used as a last resort. It has too many negative implications to be implemented anyhow and by anyone. If this right is misused, the production and the financial profits of the industry will suffer. A country like Mauritius relies on foreign investment. Delays will not send positive signals to foreign investors and will not attract new ones.

However, all these reasons cannot be used as an excuse to refuse the right to strike to workers. The present version of the IRA is obsolete. Since 1982, successive governments have promised to amend it but, after more than twenty years, nothing has been done. Jayen Cuttaree, the acting prime minister, declared at the opening of the workshop that the right to strike is a ?fundamental right? but that it should be only used as a last resort. Will this time be the right one? The presence of the director of ILO?s International Labour Standards Department, Jean-Claude Javillier, at the conference may be a way, for the government, to show the trade unions that there is a risk in introducing the right to strike without having a real debate on the issue.

The ILO expert has already made it clear that a ?new dynamic? should be set up to look for solutions. Both employers and unions should listen eagerly to what Jean-Claude Javillier, in view of his experience in other countries, has to say about the excesses that a strike can lead to. What Mauritius needs is a law that gives the right to strike but does not encourage people to use it haphazardly. If the government fears that some trade unionists might prove irresponsible, if ever the right is granted, the law should contain reservations. For instance, advanced notice notifying all the details ? reason, time extent - of the strike is essential. And only when all forms of negotiation have failed?

In a nutshell, workers should not feel they have license to do whatever they want without being bothered. It is one thing to fight for the rights of the many responsibly; it is another to fight only for a few while jeopardizing the economic stability of the country.