Has anyone ever heard of a Prime Minister going on strike

[Skycaptain]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67195224

 

Surely if people in one of the world's most egalitarian societies are driven to do this, how long before women in prominent roles in other countries do the same 

[Monke Jimmy]

Women in prominent roles? That doesn't exist where I live. 

[Snao Cone]

Nobody wants to work these days!

[Fraggle Underdark]

1 hour ago, Skycaptain said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67195224

 

Surely if people in one of the world's most egalitarian societies are driven to do this, how long before women in prominent roles in other countries do the same 

I'm not sure the timing matters of when they do it, but more power to them

[Still]

Has anyone ever heard of a prime minister doing anything useful?

[Hurta]

When I read: "Fields in which women are the majority of workers, such as healthcare and education, will be especially affected."

 

My sad immediate thought was, no they won't. Women wouldn't risk getting fired for this (where I'm from, they definitely would be)

[Anomaly Q3Xr]

10 minutes ago, Still said:

Has anyone ever heard of a prime minister doing anything useful?

That wasn't in the job description.

[Snao Cone]

11 minutes ago, Still said:

Has anyone ever heard of a prime minister doing anything useful?

He wasn't Prime Minister at the time, but

[Olallieberry]

19 minutes ago, Still said:

Has anyone ever heard of a prime minister doing anything useful?

Should women get paid less for doing nothing than men?

[Sister Mercurial]

I believe in equal pay for equal work, but I'm not sure that's helped by a prime minister going on strike (not least as a country only ever has one prime minister at a time, so there isn't a pay gap between the PM and someone in a similar role).  Politicians have the power to pass laws that they believe will do something about the problem of pay gaps.  Wouldn't it be better for a PM who cares about the issue to spend the day at work proposing such a law?  

[PathosBathosEthos]

1 minute ago, Sister Mercurial said:

I believe in equal pay for equal work, but I'm not sure that's helped by a prime minister going on strike (not least as a country only ever has one prime minister at a time, so there isn't a pay gap between the PM and someone in a similar role).  Politicians have the power to pass laws that they believe will do something about the problem of pay gaps.  Wouldn't it be better for a PM who cares about the issue to spend the day at work proposing such a law?  

Sometimes you have to be spectacular to get people's attention. 

[Sister Mercurial]

@PathosBathosEthos Passing a law would get businesses' attention - because they could be fined or shut down if they ignored it.  

[PathosBathosEthos]

But do they have support? If not then it makes sense to go out and let people know what's up.

[JimmyJazz]

I'm not an expert on Icelandic politics so it seems entirely pointless having an opinion on this.

[daveb]

I say good for the PM and the other women in Iceland.

[Sister Mercurial]

4 hours ago, PathosBathosEthos said:

But do they have support? If not then it makes sense to go out and let people know what's up.

Now thinking about how a PM would know if enough of their colleagues would support a measure in advance of a vote.  Usually they have someone to canvass opinion within the parliamentary party (in the UK, this job would fall to what's known as the whips' office, but I assume other jurisdictions have adopted terms less likely to raise eyebrows). 

 

However, would a PM choose to "go out and let people know" that their colleagues didn't back them?  I doubt it.  A backbencher might, and might even defect to another party if they felt strongly enough about the issue.  For the leader to do so would be publicising their failure to take their colleagues with them.  And the logical consequence of a PM shaming MPs from their own party over their stance on an issue would be to encourage voters to back other parties - leading to a drop in support for the governing party, maybe even a change in government and the end of the erstwhile PM's political career.  

 

Therefore it's highly unlikely that the Icelandic PM is taking such a course of action to shame her colleagues for not backing her.  Which means if they support her efforts to promote equal pay for equal work, then she and they could make better use of the day by taking action on the issue in parliament.  

[PathosBathosEthos]

8 minutes ago, Sister Mercurial said:

publicising their failure to take their colleagues with them

Not necessarily. There is always opposition parties who take it upon themselves to go against the ruling party and sometimes they may also have a mixed chamber like we do in the States right now, where one party controls the House of Representatives and the other party controls the Senate. It makes it hard to get bills passed. So by striking the PM is showing that hey me and my party want this, the other guys aren't listening so vote them out. 

[Olallieberry]

I think people are reading way more into it than simple "solidarity."

 

She's striking because all the women are striking. She's not protesting her own personal salary.