On one hand, that is epic. On the other hand, it means the union has leached a monumental amount of capital out of the workers and industries they are involved with. A union should not have that much cash in the bank.
We should use this term more often against the corporations exploiting the workers.
I am somewhat ambivalent towards unions - they can sometimes be a blessing or a curse to the workers. It really needs some regulation to ensure they serve the workers rather than serving the ones willing to play union politics.
But I am not at all ambivalent on corporations. Their only mandate is profit, and they will exploit (i.e.: leech from) workers as much as they can. It's their mandate, the very thing they exist to do.
I've worked for companies whose CEO had wealth that was way higher than 500x my yearly salary.
And even still, that was a misinterpretation on your part. It is a partial strike, only against Tesla. The dockworkers are still servicing other companies.
Why not? They've clearly been able to leverage it to negotiate better terms for their members. Their members are better off for the union having the warchest.
That isn't a monumental amount of capital to ensure worker protections when needed, how do you think the union could keep a strike if it doesn't have money in the piggybank to cover members salaries if required?
Please, don't be a corporation apologist.
Because if so, we clearly need to deal with the individual billionaires long, long before we work our way down to any unions.