> It should be illegal to post articles about strikes without including details on current deal, current offer, and union demands.
Getting 96% to vote to go on strike pretty much says that company offer is complete garbage. You probably can't get 96 out of 100 people to agree that the sky is blue.
And while I wish that things were a bit more fact heavy, sometimes the sticking point is something really arcane and non-obvious to outsiders (on-call requirements, for example).
> Getting 96% to vote to go on strike pretty much says that company offer is complete garbage. You probably can't get 96 out of 100 people to agree that the sky is blue.
People can vote the same way without agreeing with each other. Some of them could think it's a bad offer, the others could think the company has bankruptcy immunity because the government will bail them out so they might as well hold out for more even when the company makes a reasonable offer.
> And while I wish that things were a bit more fact heavy, sometimes the sticking point is something really arcane and non-obvious to outsiders (on-call requirements, for example).
This isn't an excuse for not providing the explanation. What should happen in this case is that you get a longer article because there is more context to unpack.
Getting 96% to vote to go on strike pretty much says that company offer is complete garbage. You probably can't get 96 out of 100 people to agree that the sky is blue.
And while I wish that things were a bit more fact heavy, sometimes the sticking point is something really arcane and non-obvious to outsiders (on-call requirements, for example).