While I respect your opinion;
I can't help but be faintly offended. In our case, we certainly *could* have done more, but *should* we have done more?

The extent of the unethical conduct was both limited and clearly defined, and I believe we reacted appropriately to something we had the ability to fix. Should we have gone out on strike until senior management (who don't work weekends) agreed to our demands for a right we don't have? Taken up a petition? Called the papers? Dragged the branch manager out of his office as a scapegoat and given him wedgies?

Yes, there was plenty more wrong with that place, but this was something we could make right; even for just one day of one year.

It was a little victory for decency; I'm not pretending it was an epic win against evil. I'm well aware we didn't radically change the world for the better, or act in a dramatic fashion. Nor did we definitively stop it from happpening again, but we did create a history of having done it; and once there's a history of something it becomes harder to suppress. Perhaps it gave a couple of a traditionally exploited workforce a little bit of spirit to stand up for right in their lives; we will never know.

I believe that grand gestures from outstanding individuals are all well and good. However they achive little unless a load of other people, perform a load of good acts in support. Would universal suffrage be in place now, if the limits of the campaigners collective efforts had started and finished with Emily Pankhurst?

Edit: And of course, I reckon people are not going to be too willing to confess publically about criminal acts, no matter how well justified.
(The Incredible Sulk Finally remembered his password on, Fri 18 Jun 2010, 17:21, Reply)