kenfoggo
yes very insulting to the 57% that wanted RP07 and to the 'no' voters who sought a better deal. We have another vote...same issues, same proposal. What damage has been done? The GC will abide by the vote. So if 34% don't want RP07 then you will be happy. If 67% do, then the MAJORITY will be happy. Would you have been so enraged and indignant if you had voted yes?
Harbour dweller
I don't think that every deal has to be win/lose. I think CX would like to have us 'onside'. There are no major rostering impediments within RP07 vs the fallback. We will get more lifestyle rostering and eventually contractual protection.
Mr Bloggs,
I understand your cyncism as I have seen 2 of the incidences you refer to at first hand. However, CX stick to the contract D+G 'technically'..ie they have already decided what will happen but will go through the motions. The difference is that a contravention of our contractual rostering rights would be defendible in court, a subjective viewpoint on a D+G is not defendible.
So yes the peanut thrower and the FOs had a D+G...I can guarantee that. But I agree it was a 'kangaroo court'.