Source: earthtimes.org
A debate was rolling in Spain on Thursday on whether an unprecedented strike planned by the country's judges was legal. Such a way for judges to press their demands was "inadequate" and "disturbing," the prosecutors' association UPF said, while the association Judges for Democracy stressed that the law did not prohibit judges from staging a work stoppage.
Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government is engaged in a power struggle with the judges, who regard its plans for judicial reform as insufficient.
Four judges' associations are planning a day of protest for February 18 and a strike in June to press demands for higher salaries and better working conditions.
The judges say they struggle under huge workloads.
The increase of court cases has clogged courts which still had 2.5 million cases left to resolve in the end of 2008.
The government says the judiciary is a power of state which cannot go on strike.
Experts on constitutional law disagree on the matter, with some saying the constitution does not directly prohibit such a protest, while others say it would be like the government or parliament going on strike.
The government is seeking negotiations with the judges' associations, and the Socialist Party wants them to appear in parliament.
Judges first started protesting in solidarity with a colleague, Rafael Tirado, who came under criticism for not having jailed a paedophile who then killed 5-year-old Mari Luz Cortes a year ago.
Do judges have the right to strike? Would this ever happen in the USA? I would like to hear your opinions and comments.
6 comments:
The 2.5 million cases left unresolved at the close of 2008 just serves to show that man’s nature, or what it has become, simply can never be curbed by law. The role of government—to decide what should and should not be accepted in civilization, and to create and execute laws according to the general consensus of morals—cannot adequately define and determine the conduct of man. In the library at my home school, I walked down an aisle filled with three-inch thick books of laws and minutes written at every Congress of every year in American history. I turned and walked the next aisle, and the next—thousands of little laws that try and set standards for how man should be. And just to think how each of these laws can be overturned, or how a newly elected Congress can change mind on so many of these standards… it’s all just elected perception, and so fragile to time and stage. It seems there’s only two extremes available: anarchy, or intricately constructed law that tightens as time goes on.
This article states the purpose of the judges’ strikes is “to press demands for higher salaries and better working conditions.” As if higher pay will make the pain go away.
I went to my homestay family’s son’s house (his name’s Tony) for lunch one day, and in his family’s living room there’s a painting. The artist is a judge, who gave it to Tony as a gift for body guarding him years back (Tony is a cop). And when Tony brought the painting home on the bus, a girl studying Art History pointed out that the painter is famous, that the painting would be worth a lot. Tony had no clue, but now it hangs as a centerpiece of their living room. Tony told me that the judge often paints behind his podium during hearings and court cases, that he sneaks in his art supplies and keeps them under his judge’s table. Though I’m not accusing all judges of being such multi-taskers. The painting itself is of a bull charging towards its matador, who is leaping out of the ring and into the stands for safety. The humans around him are in a panic, and are in absolutely no position to control the situation. And “the judges say they struggle under huge workloads.”
What I find most intriguing about this is the question of what it means for judges to go on strike? Not so much the issue of being a government employee but what it means in terms of the larger concept that the judges represent. Judges are put into positions of power not only for practical reasons, such as providing oversight or deliberating court cases, but also to represent the more grand, and less tangible, idea of justice. And while obviously flawed like other man-made constructs in terms of actual effectiveness, judges play an important role by their mere existences.
It seems that most societies have created institutions to embody some particular ideal that they consider important, whether it be justice, freedom, equality etc. If these Spanish judges, the men and women responsible for doling out ´justice´ in the country, are able to simply stop, albeit briefly, it begs the question of what´s next? Our conceptions of the enduring permanence of some of our most important institutions are bound to change. I feel like most people have accepted a lot of the failures of our institutions. We know that election processes are flawed, we know that governments are crippled by bureaucracy, so on and so forth. It is much rarer, however, for people to seriously consider what might happen if these institutions, instead of continuously functioning at a low level of effectiveness, were simply to stop. If they were to for a considerable length of time, the result most likely would be one of the two extremes that Shay mentioned—pure anarchy. If only for a day? It reminds me of the question we considered in class the other day: if a tree falls in a forest and no one knows, does it make a difference? Well, if an institution of goverment, already flawed enough that it fails to live up to its purpose on any given day, stops for one day, does it make a difference?
I'd be interested to see what the everyday citizens of Spain think about the issue. Many branches of the government often seem to be considered a distant entity that operate in ways which most people don't even understand or think about on a daily basis. Maybe I'm a unique example but I find the government structure in the U.S to be quite complex and hate to even try to think about it sometimes. On the other hand, the judiciary branch of government is very pertinent to people's lives. Though it sounds stupid judges represent the hand of justice and law that rule over the hand with a heavy wooden mallet. If the judges who oversee court cases and supposedly carry out the law feel the need to strike then what does this say about the government as a whole. Is the government acting lawlessly in and of itself?
I've never heard of something like this happening in the united states but I believe that any branch of the government has the right to strike granted that their appeals are reasonable and in this case it seems to be true. It's interesting to think about what society would be like without a judicial system. Maybe Spain will find out. I guess this may be a good test of the character of Spain's government.
As I sit here contemplating the outcome of such a controversial topic I come to question…. Will this so-called strike really solve the problem? I believe the judges feelings of constraint, inadequate wages and an enormous workload are all common feelings facing a majority of working people (at least in the United States). To me, it is unfortunate that their problem has risen to this level. Society is quickly evolving; no longer do 8 hour days exist. Instead, it has became common in practice to see 8 hour work days plus overtime, and for some this may include working on the weekends as well. So as I try to answer the ultimate question: whether or not the judge’s strike will work to their benefit, I say no. With an overload of 2.5 million cases left to be resolved, it seems like the entire structure of the system needs to be rethought, which in my opinion won’t be changed any time soon.
Personally, I think strikes are a waste of time. In this case, I think the strike is apublicity stunt for the judges to direct attention away from themselves and onto the bureaucracy as a whole. As far as being overworked, the judges have no right to complain. Being an administrator of the justice system is a huge responsibility that should only be undertaken with a strong and comitted attitude. However, for the betterment of the Spanish government, I feel that it´d be apporpriate to increase the justice systems funds and personnel accordingly.
I agree with what Shay said in the beginning of this discussion, "as if more money would make the pain (of an huge workload) go away". So if these judges go on strike... for higher wages, their case load doesn't decrease. If anything it increases due to the lack of activity in the court rooms. Are higher wages going to make the process go along quicker, more efficiently? I don't think it will. They want to strike for "better working conditions"? What does this even mean? Like nicer chairs, or air conditioning, or as in more personnel to help manage the workload? I just have a hard time justifying judges going on strike because of huge workloads... so many other professions have enormous workloads and it's just a fact of life. There is a nurse shortage in the United States, where in trauma units across the country one nurse will have to care for almost three, four + critically injured patients. There are instances where patients are neglected not by choice but because there literally aren't enough people to care for them. People in medical professions are so overworked sometimes people die. You don't see them going on strike every day. It sounds harsh but I say you choose this professions, either deal with it or if the pressure is too much, get another job so it isn't your problem anymore.
Post a Comment