cxorcist
I am actually having a hard time understanding your post.
Ouch, a barbed retort - hardly appropriate as I thought the post was pretty self-explanatory. By way of riposte, I'm having a hard time understanding
your post when you say, should we ever try to "shut down the airline", the G day workers (and presumably non-members) would turn up en masse. If, by your own admission, there are pilots to fly the aircraft, isn't your argument somewhat compromised?
You speak of conciliation (I'm not sure you actually meant that process but let's assume for the sake of argument that you did) as though it's a dirty word. The conciliation process has its place in disputes and doesn't necessarily imply weakness on the part of either party.
I think PW and his teams played this quite well in the last round.
Wasn't the
conciliatory housing agreement you seem to be disparaging negotiated under their watch? I might be wrong and I'm happy to have my chronology corrected if that's the case.
If this little debate is a fair reflection (and I think it probably is) of the difference of opinion that exists in relation to something as (arguably) insignificant as whether or not those who choose to work on their G days should be "named and shamed" then I would suggest that your somewhat idealistic notion of "shutting down the airline " is sadly misguided.
Finally, the idealist/pragmatist comparison was meant to be a play on the optimist/pessimist joke (hence the smiley) but I was rather hoping I wouldn't have to explain that.
STP