[gruez]

>that is a major negative impact to people's lives.

I fully acknowledge the hardship that the union members are going through, and that the impact is likely disproportionate. However, that's a negative impact brought on by themselves by choosing to engage in said strikes. The union might still be in the "right" in terms of what they're demanding, but they're still the proximate cause of their own hardship.

[schlauerfox]

This is a very cruel take, lacking such empathy that you blame the least powerful people in an industry for demanding a living allocation of the vast wealth the industry creates from those in power that decide the allocations? Walk away from your career and surrender if your partners decide to take all the income from you? What an odd way to live your life. What an impossible way to live a life.

[gruez]

>This is a very cruel take, lacking such empathy that you blame the least powerful people in an industry ...

See my previous comment: "The union might still be in the "right" in terms of what they're demanding, "

My only point was that the union and its members was presented with two choices: accepting a "bad" offer, or striking in hopes of getting a better offer. If they chose the latter and lost out, it was entirely their decision that led to their predicament.