Final answer:
It is true that management can engage in practices that may indirectly lead to a strike, which could be beneficial to them in certain circumstances such as when there is excessive inventory. Strikes can significantly impact supply chains, especially under just-in-time systems. There is no clear pattern showing that a higher percentage of unionized workers leads to less productivity growth.
Step-by-step explanation:
It is true that management may not directly call for a strike, but certain management practices can indirectly lead to a strike. This can sometimes be to the management's advantage, such as when there are high inventories and customer demand is low. In this scenario, a strike can help the management reduce surplus stock without making significant layoffs or incurring the costs of storing excess goods. Additionally, the use of "company unions" can manipulate the perception of workers, undermining the efforts of independent unions and reducing the likelihood of strikes that could impact productivity.
In cases where just-in-time delivery systems are in place, workers can exert significant leverage by striking at critical parts of the supply chain, as was seen with the General Motors assembly plants in the mid-1990s. However, the relationship between unions, strikes, and productivity is complex, as indicated by the notion that no overall pattern exists correlating higher percentages of unionized workers with less growth in productivity due to strikes and disruptions.