dissenting:
The majority holds that the General Assembly in 1915 abolished the common law rule prohibiting public employee strikes by adoption of the Industrial Relations Act of 1915 (the Act).1 Because I am not convinced that the General Assembly abolished the common law prohibition on public employee strikes in 1915 nor that wise judi*255cial discretion and constraint advise abolition of this rule by judicial action, I dissent.
The majority finds that public employees enjoy a qualified right to strike on the basis of language found in the Act; the provision therein setting forth the authority and jurisdiction vested in the director of the division of labor; and limitations on the right to strike provided in the Act. I do not deny the fact that the terms “employer” and “employee” as used in the Act encompass public school teachers and indeed, all nonelective public officials.2 Nor do I deny that the Act seeks to regulate the manner in which these employees may strike. I am not convinced, however, that these facts taken together lead inevitably to the conclusion that the General Assembly intended to create the right to strike in public sector employees.
The school teachers argue that the General Assembly abolished the common law rule in Colorado with the passage of Title 8, articles 1 and 2.3 In the alternative the teachers argue that if the General Assembly did not abolish the common law rule in 1915, then this court should do so because the rationales commonly offered in support of the rule have been rendered obsolete.
The majority finds, in short, that given the definitions of employee and employer found in the Act and the substantive provisions of that title regulating the ability and manner in which those employees may strike, that the General Assembly intended to create the right to strike in public employees. The central provisions of the Act that the majority relies on for its holding4 provide that:
The director shall do all in his power to promote the voluntary arbitration, mediation, and conciliation of disputes arising under an existing written agreement between employers and employees and to avoid the necessity of resorting to strikes, lockouts, boycotts, blacklists, dis-criminations, and legal proceedings in matters of employment....
§ 8-1-128, 3B C.R.S. (1986).
The director has jurisdiction of every dispute between employer and employee affecting conditions of employment, or with respect to wages or hours.... The relation of the employer and employee shall continue uninterrupted by the dispute or anything arising out of the dispute until the final determination thereof by said director; and neither the employer nor any of the employees affected by any such dispute shall alter the conditions of employment with respect to wages or hours or any other condition of said employment; neither shall they, on account of such dispute, do or be concerned in doing directly or indirectly anything in the nature of a lockout or strike or suspension or discontinuance of work or employment.
§ 8-1-125, 3B C.R.S. (1986).
It is unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a lockout, or for any employee to go on strike, on account of any dispute prior to or during an investigation, hearing, or arbitration of such dispute by the director ... under the provisions of this article.... Nothing in this article shall be held to restrain any employer from declaring a lockout, or any employee from going on strike in respect to any dispute after the same has been *256duly investigated, heard, or arbitrated, under the provisions of this article.
§ 8-1-126, 3B C.R.S. (1986).
After consideration of these and other provisions of the Act, as well as some of the history of Colorado labor relations, the majority concludes that “the language of the act speaks for itself. By its definitions, the Industrial Relations Act grants the right to strike to all employees, private and public, and concurrently places conditions on the exercise of that right.” Maj. op. at 246, 247.
A
The majority’s conclusion that the Act places conditions on the right to strike is undoubtedly correct. So too is the conclusion that the definitions found in the Act encompass public school teachers. I, however, do not think that these two findings taken together lead to the conclusion that the “act speaks for itself” — clearly answering the question of whether or not public employees have a right to strike. Indeed, I would find not only that the Act does not answer this question but further, that so holding requires us to ignore well-settled precedent.
At common law public employees did not enjoy the right to strike. (See James Duff, Jr., Annotation, Labor Law: Right of Public Employees to Strike or Engage in Work Stoppage, 37 A.L.R.3d 1147, 1156 (1971) (listing cases in which the common law rule denying public employees the right to strike has been recognized). It is similarly well recognized that, absent judicial or legislative action to the contrary, the common law rule is still binding. See Anchorage Educ. Ass’n v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 648 P.2d 993, 995-96 (Alaska 1982) (cataloguing decisions prohibiting public employees from striking under the common law absent explicit statutory consent).
There is a long standing aversion to finding that existing common law principles have been implicitly altered by legislative action. This precept is reflected in past decisions of this court when we have held that “[t]he interplay of common law and a subsequent statute on the same subject is governed by well-defined principles. Legislative acts in derogation of the common law will be strictly construed to restrict the provisions to the clear intent of the legislature.” Pigford v. People, 197 Colo. 358, 360, 593 P.2d 354, 356 (1979) (citing Board of County Comm ’rs of Pitkin County v. Pfeifer, 190 Colo. 275, 546 P.2d 946 (1976); Stowell v. People, 104 Colo. 255, 90 P.2d 520 (1939)). Similarly, we have said that “[i]n the passage of an act it is presumed the legislature is acquainted with the laws of its state which apply to or affect the subject upon which it legislates. It is also presumed that the legislature does not intend to make any change in the existing law beyond what it expressly declares.” Uzzell v. Lunney, 46 Colo. 403, 418, 104 P. 945, 950 (1909) (citing 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 499 (2d ed.)). This rule of statutory construction is echoed in the holdings of many other jurisdictions: “Statutes are not to be understood as effecting any change in the common law beyond that which is clearly indicated.” 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 363 (1953) (citing cases from 17 jurisdictions in support of this proposition). “Where [a] statute is subject to either construction, construction in conformity with common law, rather than in derogation of common law, should be adopted.” Id.
In the present case, the majority does not contend that the General Assembly, in passing the 1915 Act, expressly changed the common law rule prohibiting public employee strikes. Rather, to the extent that the grant of such a right can be found in the Act, the majority concedes that it can only be found by implication. Reading the Act in such a manner is clearly in derogation of the principles of statutory construction set forth above. Thus, I would hold that based on these well recognized principles, we should decline to find that the Act implicitly abolished the common law prohibition on public employee strikes.
Further, I remain unpersuaded by the majority’s conclusion that “the act speaks for itself” — even if implicitly — with respect *257to the abolition of the common law rule. The majority contends that the Act is clear on this point given the broad definition of employee and employer found in the Act and the provisions regulating the manner in which employees, as defined, may strike. Again, however, I do not think that these facts taken together support the conclusion that the General Assembly unequivocally intended to grant public employees the right to strike. Rather, I think that the question of whether public employees were granted such a right can only be answered by reference to a more fundamental question.
That question is this: Does the fact that the Industrial Relations Act regulates the ability of employees to strike lead necessarily to the conclusion that the Act concurrently grants public employees such a right? If the answer to this question is yes, then clearly the Act would have implicitly created the right in public employees to strike. If, however, the answer is no, then the Act’s application to public employees becomes much more ambiguous.
I can find no precedent to support the conclusion that, in regulating a right which does not exist, the legislature thereby creates that right. It is clear that at common law public employees did not enjoy the right to strike. It is similarly clear that the common law rule had not been abolished either judicially or legislatively prior to 1915. I am unable to see how, in regulating the right of public employees to strike, the legislature implicitly created that right. Rather, I am inclined to think that if the legislature intended to grant such a right to public employees, it would have done so explicitly.5 Consequently, I cannot agree with the majority that the Act manifests an intent to grant public employees the right to strike.
B
The teachers next urge that, if the Act did not grant public employees the right to strike, then this court should do so in recognition that the common law rule is no longer justifiable. I would similarly reject this argument, finding that wise judicial discretion dictates that abolition of the common law rule, if indeed warranted, is properly left to the legislative sphere. In so holding, I would approach the question of whether public employees have the right to strike in the same manner as has every other jurisdiction but one, that has addressed this issue.
To date, California is the only state to abolish the common law rule by judicial decision.6 Courts of other jurisdictions who have been called on to resolve this question have unanimously declined to grant public employees the right to strike absent explicit legislative authorization. See City of San Diego v. American Fed’n of State, County & Mun. Employees, 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 87 Cal.Rptr. 258, 260 (1970) (citing cases from 24 jurisdictions declining to grant public employees the right to strike); James Duff, Jr., Annotation, Labor Law: Right of Public Employees to Strike or Engage in Work Stoppage, 37 A.L.R.3d 1147, 1156-57 (1971) (listing cases from 21 jurisdictions following this approach). Given the important public policy consideration implicated in granting public employees the right to strike, and the myriad approaches by which such a right could be granted and conditioned, the legislature is undoubtedly the preferred forum for making such determinations.
A survey of the manner in which other jurisdictions have abolished or amended the common law rule by legislative action clearly indicates that this issue is not amenable to judicial resolution. At least 10 states have enacted statutory exceptions to the *258common law rule.7 The manner in which this has been done, however, varies widely among these jurisdictions — reflecting the wide range of interests and public policy considerations that must be appraised in fashioning such legislation. For example, most statutes prohibit strikes by employees such as police and fire fighters, while others also prohibit security personnel, state retirement system personnel, paramedics, managerial or other “essential” employees whose absence could endanger, the public health, safety, and welfare from striking.8 Some statutes prohibit a public employee union from striking during the term of a valid collective bargaining agreement.9 Some statutes require that employees be represented by a certified bargaining representative.10 The statutes differ with respect to when, and according to what standard, an injunction may be sought to proscribe strikes that imperil the public welfare.11 Other statutes require that the employees engage in a period of mediation and/or arbitration with their employer before a strike is permitted.12 More generally, the different statutes vary in the extent to which they regulate the collective bargaining process.13 The differences reflected in these statutes, and the alternatives they represent, clearly indicate that numerous interests and approaches must be evaluated and assessed before any one scheme can responsibly be adopted.
It is my opinion that the record before us is simply too limited to undertake such a task — assuming, that is, that we would otherwise be inclined to change the common law rule. The legislature is better equipped to entertain and investigate the full range of interests involved in addressing the question of whether or not public *259employees ought to be granted the right to strike and if so, on what terms.
Resolution of the differences between my views and those of the majority can easily be reached. If the General Assembly is of the view that the majority opinion faithfully interprets the legislative intent of the Act, then no action need be taken and public employee strikes subject to certain restrictions will be permissible. On the other hand, if the General Assembly does not agree with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion, appropriate legislation will remedy the matter.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to say that Justice LOHR joins in this dissent.
. Ch. 180, 1915 Colo.Sess.Laws 562. The Act is now codified as Title 8, Article 1, 3B C.R.S. (1986).
. The statute, as written in 1915, defined “employees” as “[e]very person in the service of the state or of any county, city, town, irrigation or school district therein, or of any public institution or administrative board thereof ... under any contract of hire, express or implied.... ” Ch. 180, sec. 4, 1915 Colo.Sess.Laws 562, 563. The statute defined an "employer” as ”[t]he state, and each county, city, town, irrigation and school district therein, and all public institutions and administrative boards thereof.” Id.
. §§ 8-1-101 to 8-2-113, 3B C.R.S. (1986). The teachers argue that both article 2 of Title 8, passed in 1889, and article 1 of that title created the right in public employees to strike. The majority does not rely on the provisions of article 2 in rendering its decision. I would similarly reject the teachers’ contention that article 2 created the right to strike in public sector employees, in part, on the same basis that I find article 1 not to have created such a right. See infra pp. 260-261 (established common law principles should not be found to implicitly be abolished by statute).
.For the full range of provisions set out by the majority, see maj. op. at 243-245.
. This is particularly true in light of the fact that in 1915, no other state in the Union had abolished the common law prohibition on public employee strikes. See infra note 7 (first legislative action in this area did not occur until the 1970’s). It strains the imagination that the General Assembly would have charted such a novel course for Colorado, as far back as 1915, by implication.
. See County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. Los Angeles County Employees Ass’n, Local 660, 38 Cal.3d 564, 214 Cal.Rptr. 424, 699 P.2d 835 (1985).
. See Alaska Stat. § 23.40.200 (1990); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 89-12 (1985); Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 48, para. 1617 (Smith-Hurd 1986 & 1992 Supp.); Minn.Stat.Ann. § 179A.18 (West 1990); Mont.Code Ann. § 39-31-201 (1991); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 4117.14(D) (Page 1991); Or.Rev.Stat. § 243.-726 (1991); Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 43, § 1101.1001 (1991); Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 1730 (1987); Wis.Stat.Ann. § 111.70(4)(cm)(6)(c) (West 1988).
. See Alaska Stat. § 23.40.200(b) (1990) (prohibiting police, fire, correctional facility and hospital facility employees from striking); Haw.Rev. Stat. § 89-12(a)(3) (1985) (prohibiting "essential” employees from striking); Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 48, para. 1617(a) (Smith Hurd 1986 & 1992 Supp.) (prohibiting security employees, state peace officers, fire fighters and paramedics from striking); Minn.Stat.Ann. § 179A.18, subd. 1 (West 1990) (prohibiting "confidential, essential, and managerial” employees from striking); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 4117.14(D)(1) (Page 1991) (prohibiting police, fire, emergency or medical personnel, employees of the state schools for the deaf and blind, employees of the state retirement system, correctional officials, and penal or mental institution employees from striking); Or.Rev.Stat. § 243.736 (1991) (prohibiting police officers, fire fighters, guards at correctional or mental institutions, and emergency telephone workers from striking); Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 43, §§ 1101.1001 & 1101.301(2) (1991) (prohibiting prison and mental hospital guards, court employees, elected officials, Governor’s appointees, clergy, police officers and fire fighters from striking); Wis.Stat.Ann. § 111.-70(l)(nm) (West 1988) (prohibiting fire fighters and law enforcement personnel from striking).
. See Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 48, para. 1617(a)(2) (Smith-Hurd 1986 & 1992 Supp.); Minn.Stat. Ann. § 179A.18, subd. 1(1)(a) (West 1990).
. See Haw.Rev.Stat. § 89-12(a)(1) (1985); III. Stat. ch. 48, para. 1617(a)(1) (Smith-Hurd 1986 & 1992 Supp.); Minn.Stat.Ann. § 179A.18 subd. 1(1)(b) (West 1990); Or.Rev.Stat. § 243.726(1) (1991).
. See Haw.Rev.Stat. § 89-12(c)(l) (1985) (proscribing strikes in the case of an "imminent or present danger to health or safety of the public" that "is about to occur or is in progress”); Ill. Ann.Stat. ch. 48, para. 1713 (Smith-Hurd 1986 & 1992 Supp.) (relief if a clear and present danger to health or safety); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 4117.16(A) (Page 1991) (clear and present danger); Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 43, § 1101.1003 (1991) (clear and present danger); Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 1730 (1987) (prohibiting strikes that would endanger the public, health, safety, or welfare).
. See Alaska Stat. § 23.40.200(c) (1990) (requiring mediation for employees whose services may be interrupted for a limited time); Haw. Rev.Stat. § 89-12(b) (1985) (requiring mediation, factfinding, arbitration, and notice of intent to strike); Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 48, para. 1617(a)(4) (Smith-Hurd Supp.1986) (requiring mediation or conciliation); Minn.Stat.Ann. § 179A.18 subd. l(l)(b) (West 1990) (requiring mediation for at least 45 days); Or.Rev.Stat. § 243.726(2)(a) (1991) (requiring mediation and factfinding); Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 43, § 1101.1003 (1991) (requiring mediation); Wis.Stat.Ann. § 111.70(4)(cm)(6)(c) (West 1988) (requiring mediation and arbitration).
. See generally supra note 7.