Final answer:
The correct answer is False. The use of permanent strike replacements during an economic strike often leads to increased tensions and prolongs the duration of the strike, contradicting the notion that it eases conflicts and shortens strikes. Postwar labor strikes were complex and reflected deeper issues of workplace rights; while temp workers have helped to reduce unemployment rates by providing a pathway to permanent jobs.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that the use of strike replacements, particularly permanent ones, during an economic strike reduces tensions between parties and often shortens the length of a strike is false. Utilizing replacement workers can exacerbate tensions between management and employees, as it reflects an attempt by the employer to undermine the strikers' bargaining power and can potentially lead to a longer dispute. The increasing frustrations that arise from these tense situations often stem from workers' demands for improvements in working conditions, income inequality, and wages.
During postwar America, labor unions resorted to strikes as a means to pressure employers for better conditions and wages. Businesses resisted these demands, fueling conflict and, in some cases, leading to the involvement of state and federal agencies to suppress strikes. This harsh stance against organized labor, combined with union-busting tactics, contributed to prolonged periods of economic strife.
The use of temporary workers, on the other hand, has been shown to potentially reduce the natural rate of unemployment, as they provide a bridge for workers seeking permanent employment. Unlike the replacement workers during strikes, temp agencies facilitate job searching and can lead to opportunities that would otherwise be inaccessible to job seekers.