[Billy_bob_bob]

"They should have been honest in their tactics and struck taking any and all consequences (including replacement) if they thought that it wasn't worth doing 100% of the work for 100% of the pay."

That I will agree with. I'm not fond of people using deceptive tactics. They should have simply struck, IMHO.

[steveegg]

Now that that's settled, let's go back to the beginning of #35 (with the offensive part edited out):

The key difference is that companies can struggle on with a new CEO when the old one decides he wants more money than the company is willing/able to pay. With the power of the union to prevent any replacement of them outside of an actual strike (and no permanent replacements in the event of a strike),..., most companies can't long survive when their union decides it wants more money than the company is willing/able to pay.