This strike is only effective when the public or business owners can be convinced its worth giving the employees more fund.
Lets see the public angel.
Public: My fairfax paper seems pretty thin, and there are increasing errors. Perhaps Ill try a different paper/website tomorrow. Where is my coffee?
Result: You have less business, less funds and less positions (Failure)
Owners angel
Owner: I cant get the work done, guess ill hire some temp/casuals as I dont have the funds to pay them what they want. In the meantime lets rehash stories.
Result: More job cuts may occur in the future as quality declines. (Failure)
A strike is far more likely to work in the public sector where (lets say RTA)
Public: I had to wait THIRTY minutes for a simple thing. Why the hell arnt there more staff. Gov FIX it
So it goes to the Government to find a solution as there is no regulatory alternative to compete for business.
Gov options:
Option 1, automate the process leading to increased risks of fraud and potential loss that way later (strike failure).
Option 2, move staff around temporarily in the hope it will blow over (normally first option taken)
Option 3, convince your party its worth finding more funds to keep the public happy (success but may invite more strikes and political issues later)
Option 4, ban striking. (Very risky strategy as arbitration may be forced and voters may be p*ssed off at what they see as a workers right)
Option 5, restructure the department. (costly, may increase wait times, may increase strikes)
These journalists are meant to include people that understand business. Which one is seeing what reaction that leads to strike success?
Unless the public has no other choice, they will just make another choice. Alternatively the business must see it as in their interest to cave in to demands which means the business must be making profits to have the ability to do so. The pay rise must be seen as less than business damage in what is a highly risky game for all.
