Who says "official" CC is blown while it is happening ? And that extended time in CC WHILE negotiating won't have effects that worsen down the road ? We've blown enough time already and what do we have to show for it ? The GFBA was largely a stall.
There are many facets of work to rule which can be implemented in stages at times and places of our choosing. In the US it took being in work to rule to start negotiations in earnest.
The only thing that would detract from entering CC while negotiating is if WE are unsure it would work or WE believe it to be a bluff.
CC IMHO isn't a "trump card" -- it's a process which well may take time and pave the way for follow on activities would they become appropriate. It can be turned off at any time when an acceptable deal or deals are reached. Or portions can be scaled back if there is definite progress (things like NO discretion becomes limited discretion). If the coalition can be held together (and here is the sticking point) it becomes more effective with time--and can serve as a great adjunct to force real negotiations in earnest.
In many insurgency wars, a force with limited resources meets a much larger force and prevails through a war of attrition--effectively attriting the other side's will to protract a conflict over time--fighting the conflict ends up costing too much. Although CC isn't the be all end all we would all agree straight up work-to-rule IS limited in its assets and scope. While these are significant, and costly over time, they aren't massive. They decrease productivity; not end it altogether.
A key point being while in CC WE become the ones driving the fight--not reacting to some 'offer.'
Last edited by Shep69; 14th Sep 2014 at 23:50.