One thing I noticed about how PacBell manages union strikes: their is a significant payroll savings for the company during the strike. The strike is always prolonged such that the payroll savings offsets any "concessions" made to the union contract negotiators. The fat cat union bosses never feel the pain. The union members suck up a loss that is never offset by strike "benefits" from the union.
In the years preceding employment with my current employer, my personal property was vandalized by IBEW union thugs to get a $60 "initiation fee". The SawzAll they used to extract my new AM/FM/8-track from the dashboard of my car caused $1200 damage. My insurance company would have totaled the car. Later at PacBell, the shop steward for CWA was sitting on fixing the 212A modem options on my dialup at work. I walked into the machine room and fixed it myself after waiting a month. 10 seconds. Just 30 minutes later, my HOME PHONE main line was disconnected at the central office. I called my wife on the unlisted ISDN phone. I knew exactly who ordered the service cut. When I called in a trouble report, the union scum "fixed it" by reconnecting with tip/line reversed so the power to my TouchTone dial pads wasn't working. I called again and offered to press criminal charges. The tip/line was fixed. What the dumb shit shop steward forgot is that the central office serving my home was one of MY central offices as a central office equipment engineer.
Suffice to say, my relationships with unions has been nothing but bad. When they lose in court for damage inflicted on a company where they work, I'm pleased to see justice done.
USSC Justice Jackson dissenting . . . writes that "arguably-protected conduct" by strikers, is the province of the NLRA (National Labor Relations Administration) regulations. That regulating, she writes, was "entrusted" to the NLRA by the Congress.
And in general, prior to the Glacier Northwest Inc v IBT case decided today, June 1, 2023, a maze of state level proceedings plus the NLRA regulations, suffice at cornering matters of "strike conduct" prior to such matters being elevated to the US Supreme Court.
In my view, Justice Jackson asserts that the NLRA regulations are sufficiently complex to exhaustively filter and trap strike conduct matters - and that ministry should not be opened to juducial examination of specific strike conduct matters. J. Jackson writes:
"The court evaluates the existing evidence and the law for a specific reason: to determine whether the lawsuit attacks arguably-protected conduct such that entertaining the legal action will interfere with the Board’s prerogative to develop the facts and adjudicate the merits of the dispute as part of the Board’s broader authority to develop national labor law."
(pg. 9 of J. Jackson's dissent, among the decisions)
“Reagan had a plan for Russia and it worked, probably a plan he had been working on almost his entire life, from his economics degree in 1932, his 6 terms as Union president after the war and during the early Cold War days, and testifying before Congress on Communism as a union president, actions resulting in him carrying a gun, and leading California during the height of the 60s.”