Pointless to include as that is surely the main/only driver of a business.
A strike is going to inconvenience people regardless, Paul. I was really, I suppose, referring to deliberately targetting max. inconvenience re. special events like the Marathon, e.g.
No idea, Enfield Boy, as I've always accepted the terms of my employment in a lifetime of different jobs. If I was dissatisfied, I left. Just cannot understand the union mentality, or so it seems, to confront employers, modernisation and changing needs for greater efficiency.
Nope! I don't, as I've had little experience of even belonging to a union let alone understanding the rational reasons for this country, currently in the grip of so many economic and domestic pressures, having strikes compound things and potentially or actually degrade the chances of us all benefitting from climbing out of this mess.
In retrospect I thought I might have been stirring up a hornets' nest.
I have to say, though, as a possible explanation, that in the early sixties, I was interviewed and employed by an agricultural union in the City. Six weeks later they asked me to join the union, which hadn't been discussed at the interview. They said that this was mandatory for an employee. I left. Even in my naive early twenties I must have had an innate rejection of the herd instinct of unions.
Much later, in the late seventies and after about 6 years of teaching, I was eventually forced (more or less) by the N.A.S./U.W.T. rep. (deputy head) to join. In protest (I guess), I joined the N.U.T. instead. Within a year or so, there was a call to go on strike. I resigned from the union. Whereas I wasn't exactly happy with my terms of employment or my job, I accepted the situation, and thought that teaching continuity was priority.. Thereby, hopefully, you can see where I'm coming from, as they say. I can only see the overall picture from an economic and non political standpoint. No axes to grind except in my own hassles !