Navigante
I very much respect both your views as well as the effort you've taken to explain the situation.
In the press here it was reported that the strike was
1. called by the unions
2. due to dissatisfaction with both the recruiting process as well as the contracts of employment they had to sign
3. quite well endorsed by the staff
4. only the first strike and that other strikes are due
Whilst I understand what you wrote, can you enlighten me on the following:
Do these staff not feel they should either have refused to sign or put up if they did sign the new contract?
Do those staff not see the enormous damage they do to the restart by going on strike within a week of signing a contract of employment, and therefore to their own potential livelyhood?