It is my opinion that the Labour Relations Act is fundamentally flawed as it puts the relationship between employer and employee in an unnatural, unsustainable balance.

I was going to say that the Act has failed to achieve its stated objectives which for some wierd reason I took as improving the relationship between employer and employee, trying to reduce strikes, workplace disruption etc., but reading the actual purpose and aims... well, that certainly isn't one of the stated objectives.

Unless you count "the effective resolution of labour disputes" as aiming to improve the employer-employee relationship, in which case every strike probably should be scored as a failure of the Act to achieve this particular objective.

I think if this legislation remains unchallenged, it is only a matter of time before this skewed relationship is going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I also have to concede that my view on this might be skewed by the fact that I'm an employer. So to try to challenge my own paradigm, I'd appreciate a few opinions on the following holy cows:

1. Is the right to strike by an employee equally balanced by the right to lockout by an employer?

2. Is the ability of an employee to resign in equal balance with the employer's ability to dismiss?

3. Is it reasonable that if 50% + 1 of a sector wishes to engage in collective bargaining and use all the powers assigned to them in terms of the Act, they can override the individual rights of the remainder who are not interested in collective bargaining and central agreements?

All views on this most welcome.