Final answer:
A union worker may consider the lost wages during a strike, negative public opinion, the long-term impact on domestic jobs, and a decline in union membership as prominent negative impacts resulting from strike actions.
Step-by-step explanation:
From a union worker's perspective, a strike could have several negative impacts. While strikes are a powerful tool for securing better wages and working conditions, they also come with the risk of lost income during the strike period, particularly burdensome for workers living paycheck to paycheck. Additionally, public perception of unions can be negatively affected, especially if strikes are prolonged or perceived as opposing technological innovation and efficiency, as was the case with the 1959 Steel Strike. This notion was further compounded during the postwar era as some Americans adopted the view that an individual work ethic, not collective action through unions, would be the most rewarding route. Moreover, businesses sometimes seek alternatives, such as overseas labor, resulting in long-term ramifications for domestic industries and jobs, showcased by the decline in domestic steel production after the 1959 strike.
Furthermore, the decline in union membership might be attributed to legislative advancements in worker protections, inadvertently reducing the perceived necessity for union representation. Workers may feel a lesser need to strike or even maintain union membership, believing that such laws protect their interests. Consequently, this perceived redundancy of unions can lead to a waning influence and declining membership, thus diminishing the collective bargaining power of workers during negotiations, which is a potentially far-reaching negative consequence of a strike from a union worker's perspective.