I understand that you support the right to strike in principle, and I’m not suggesting you’ve denied that. The point I’m making is about what being
pro-union truly entails when it comes to the specifics of their demands, particularly in contentious situations like this one around automation.
When you say you disagree with banning automation, you’re not just disagreeing with one policy detail—you’re questioning the union’s core function, which is to protect jobs even when the broader economic context pushes for technological progress. Unions draw a hard line on these issues because, from their perspective, any concession on something like automation opens the door to undermining workers' rights and security long-term, which if given must have something of equal worth exchanged. Supporting unions means recognizing that sometimes their stance will be uncompromising when it comes to preserving jobs, even if it is economically inconvenient or outdated.
As for compromise, yes, negotiation is part of the process, and unions do make concessions. But at the same time, there’s a reason why they take strong positions initially—to ensure they have leverage and to protect their members' jobs to the fullest extent possible. Suggesting that there must be a compromise on automation puts you in a position of advocating for a middle ground that the union may see as fundamentally compromising its mission.
So, while you say you support the right to strike and hope for the pay increase, your stance on automation implies a conditional form of support that’s more aligned with the mainstream neoliberal economic view than with labor’s mission. That’s the core of the issue here—not whether you support striking in general, but whether you fully back the union’s approach when it’s at odds with broader economic concerns. If that’s not something you’re comfortable with, it’s worth reflecting on where your support for unions actually begins and ends.