How did it come about that the GDL imposed a peace obligation for one month last month even though it was foreseeable that the railway would not meet its demands?
Last month there was a 5-day strike, and then, surprisingly, negotiations with a peace obligation came along.
It is less surprising that the GDL has broken off negotiations because the railway does not want to agree to the 35-hour week.
An admissible strike also develops in its sharpenings from the sharpest sharpenings in the course of the negotiations.
It is therefore quite legitimate and, above all, quite right, in the case of several already failed pre-negotiations before the introduction of the next sharper negotiation means to avoid the most sharp steps for all negotiating parties and customers, to offer a binding peace phase in order to plan further steps in a new period of time to continue negotiations.
Indefinite general strikes and inconsistencies as the most severe in each case as far as possible avoid in the negotiations, because the two sides, including the company’s customers, sustainably also contribute to the greatest damage in all interests.
This is not one of the negotiating parties involved, or their representations really involved in the minimisation of damage always offered to each other up to the extremes.