If a union was not allowed to strike, would it lose all its leverage?

A union should be allowed to strike, but the company should also be allowed to bargain with others to replace them. Sadly, in many states, they cannot. This leads to unions having too much leverage. Taking away their ability to strike doesn't completely eliminate their bargaining power, but it certainly reduces it beyond a "fair" level.

However, there are some govt jobs where unions should not exist at all. Police, teachers, firemen, etc. The govt is not equipped to make long term decisions. It is hard enough for a business to make good long term decisions with unions, for a politician who is probably getting money from them to make a decision in the ebst interest of the taxpayer in such a situation is a fairy tale.

I support unions, but not the ones who abuse their power during a bad economy. Take for example the recent teacher's strike in Chicago. Their schools are among the worst in the country and their pay is among the best, yet they still wanted a raise.

I once belonged to union in the Federal Government, and we were not allowed to strike, by federal regulations. We still had a bit of power to negotiate conditions, and to file grievances.

pay more to the national leaders of their union.

you stupid ***, google union.com research the bakers, confectioners and tobacco union.

see how much the 52 national leaders were taking home each year.

you could even eliminate the 20or 22 "EARNERS" that made less than $50,000.00 per year.

if you can do the math, that still leaves 30 or 32 "workers" who made between $51,000.00 and $262,000.00 per year.

how many of the rank and file democrats made this amount?

TOO BAD FOR YINZ, SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!