Although unfair labor practices are prohibited and bargaining in good faith is required, both unions and employers manipulate circumstances to gain an advantage in the collective‐bargaining process. For example, when labor shortages exist, or when inventories are in short supply, a threatened union strike could have serious financial consequences for the company. Likewise, when economic conditions create a surplus of labor and the employer has surplus inventories of finished goods, management might welcome a few weeks with no labor costs and could easily lock out the union to achieve its negotiation goals.

Timing of a contract ’ s expiration also influences how motivated parties are to reach an agreement. For example, a Midwest farm equipment manufacturer found that contract negotiations always broke down in November and resulted in a short strike that coincided with deer‐hunting season.

In any strike situation, management has the right to keep its doors open and to keep producing what it sells, whether that means using supervisory personnel in place of striking workers, or bringing in replacements. Organizations including Firestone, Caterpillar, and John Deere have used replacement workers to their advantage. The union members either came back to work on management ’ s terms or they lost their jobs—period. It doesn’t always end well. The NFL tried the same strategy and it backfired badly.

Ethical questions: 

Does a law that permits replacement workers undermine the intent of national labor law? Does it create an unfair advantage for organizations that play hardball just to break the union? Should a striker‐replacement bill (which would prevent permanent replacement workers from being hired) be passed? Should striking workers ’ jobs be protected while they exercise their rights under the Wagner Act? What’s your opinion?