[awhitty]

Depends on the nature of the relationship with the workers.

If I’m employing them directly, I doubt there would be reason for a strike - what are they striking against? I don’t have a construction company. They’re either doing the work as contractors, and I’ll pay for it, or they aren’t doing the work, and they don’t get paid. IANAL, but I doubt it’s considered a strike if contractors skip a job or abandon a job midway through. Also, it’s important to foster a good relationship with your contractors and to make sure both parties agree they’re benefiting from the business relationship. That’s just simple good business.

If they are under someone else’s employ, the comparison doesn’t add up - the cement-in-truck didn’t cause substantial damages to the customer. (Maybe delayed schedule? I don’t know the details of the case.) What you are describing harms the customer directly. Talk to folks that are striking, and they will almost unanimously say they don’t want to inconvenience the customer. Rather more often than not they’re seeking to change the terms of their employment to benefit the customer, whether that’s more staffing, more safety, or more manageable hours to provide better service. These are folks working closest to the customer touchpoints, and I’m inclined to trust their knowledge of customer service more than management’s.

Does that make sense?

[josephcsible]

> Talk to folks that are striking, and they will almost unanimously say they don’t want to inconvenience the customer.

While they might say that, actions speak louder than words, and I as a customer have been inconvenienced a lot by strikes, e.g., when my car sat in the shop for over 2 months because it needed a part that ran out of stock and a UAW strike delayed any more of from getting made.