For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costly mistake, because all its labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration, without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators. Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists.
The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?
(A) Where public-service workers are permitted to strike, contract negotiations with those workers are typically settled without a strike.
(B) Where strikes by all categories of pubic-sector workers are outlawed, no acceptable substitutes for the services provided by any of those workers are available.
(C) Binding arbitration tends to be more advantageous for public-service workers where it is the only available means of settling labor disputes with such workers.
(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector.
(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.
答案給C
題目看不是很懂
是不是說[對地方政府來說 使所有由員工造成的罷工在法律上無效是很昂貴的錯誤,因為所有的勞工爭議必須由有約束力的仲裁來解決,但沒有公家機關員工協商的解決方式來引導仲裁人,在法律上應使其無效的罷工,應該是那些服務沒有可接受的替代品存在的部門 ]
我照字面翻 感覺怪怪的 找不出主題在哪 也看不出關聯性
而答案C[有約束力的仲裁對於公眾服務部門的員工是有利的,因為那是唯一與其員工的勞工爭議可獲得的解決方式]
我翻的也很怪 看不出有支持題目所述的意思
煩請各位高手指點一下囉 小弟我閱讀實在不好
