cxorcist, I agree with you on one point, and that is:
No point in having a false notion of numerical strength anyways.
Not only that but, sadly, numerical strength doesn't always translate into the ability to achieve results.
As far as naming G day workers goes there are a few issues to consider:
Firstly, those who work on G days are hardly likely to care if their names are published as many of them are probably non-members anyway.
Secondly, the only way that anything could come of this from a collective sense would be if there were to be a motion put, seconded, voted on and then carried that made working on G days punishable by some form of sanction.
Thirdly, any sanction resulting from the second point would, as you say, probably have an effect on membership, both from those deemed to be "guilty" and those who see this sort of vindictive unionism perhaps a step too far.
Fourthly, our contract allows us to work G days for reward and the Association preventing (arguably) members from complying with their contracts (even the voluntary bits) might be (would be) seen as industrial action.
Fifthly, even though CokeZero gave us all a bit of a laugh with some bits of his post, he did have a point, albeit tenuous, with respect to legal action for claims of defamation.
So, I suppose that's a rather long-winded way of saying what I said in my previous post - what would "naming and shaming" G day workers achieve? In my opinion, the negative impact of such a strategy would far outweigh any positive (apart, perhaps, from settling a few personal vendettas).
I wonder if they're all A scalers?
