No I was using a smaller scale example to prove the point that the relationship between staff and employer isn't our business.
No I wouldn't be annoyed at The Warehouse because, well they don't provide an essential service for one, but even if they did, in your scenario they would still be operating. What you're saying is the equivalent of 1 train been cancelled due to a driver quitting
Our relationship is with the rail company and they aren't able to provide the service tomorrow because they failed to have enough staff available.
I'll use a different hypothetical then.
Let's say an it company starts up in Wellington taking on thousands of staff.
Among those thousands are all of the rail staff as they all apply and get jobs.
The rail company fails to hire any staff for 4 weeks and as a result, 1 day they have no trains available.
Would you begrudge people getting new jobs? Despite the loss of the essential service to You? Or would you begrudge the company tasked with providing the service you are paying for who failed to provide the service?
well no, but that isn't what's happening is it, and even for a hypothetical that is very far fetched
I'm all for standing up to management, heck I approached my boss 4 times and his boss twice, over a period of 2 years, to push for a pay review as I believed I wasn't getting a fair deal.
That whole time I kept working my hardest, I didn't attempt to cripple a city in the process, I didn't even interupt 1 client's day, I just kept trying to negotiate between my boss, his boss, and myself. Btw it eventually worked and I got a payrise without having to take drastic measures
But from an overview point, it is whats happening.
As paying customers it isnt our responsibility to care about how they manage their resources, just if they provide their services.
The company isnt providing their service because they are under resourced. They have had the chance to stop this happening, but chose to risk it, probably hoping the staff wouldn't strike because they didn't want to inconvenience people.
The company risked your convenience tomorrow to save themselves costs, and their gamble is costing you your service. be pissed off at the people who risked it. If the company was sufficiently resourced then maybe the strike would have little to no impact, but that's not what they have done.
They are letting you suffer so they can save money. They strike that doesn't impact the customers didn't work, so they are forced to do this.
I have struggled to find the details on why they are striking but it is because they are removing some of their current rights/benefits. So they aren't just inconveniencing you to get 20 cents extra an hour, its because they are losing what they currently have.
Frustration at employees for the inconvenience caused by them fighting for their rights, and the company saying sod it, the customers can suffer, is just inherently wrong in my opinion.