The question of whether America would be better off with more strikes is the wrong question as it makes the assumption that a strike will produce favorable results for the striking workers and this is simply not an absolute. The determining factor in this equation is not about which side is more powerful, has more leverage or how much each side is seeking. It is actually much less complicated. In its simplest form it is solely determined by whether the bargaining unit is negotiating from a position based upon what it believes is best for the bargaining members or for the strategic positioning and betterment of the union itself.
Yes I said it and it won’t be popular but before you say I represent the position of the corporate world and that I am the devil himself ask yourself this. If all unions cared about what was best for the members in all cases, why do they often get to decide whether the members get to see an offer presented by the company or even worse, whether the members will even be able to vote on a company presented offer? That is correct. Many unions don’t give their members these very basic rights. In fact, very often the current economic challenges facing the members and the long term economic impact of their demands on the company are not the primary considerations in negotiating — it is the long term strategic goals of the union itself that are put first.
I hear over and over again as we approach the November election that the Democrats are the only hope and the only ones that can save the middle class. I firmly disagree. The only thing that can save the middle class is the unions BUT only if they start acting less corporate and start representing the rights of the members as they were originally designed to do.