Final answer:
Strikebreaking is a last-resort measure as it does great damage to the relationship between management and labor, fails to address the underlying issues leading to a strike, and can result in negative legal and PR consequences.
Step-by-step explanation:
Strikebreaking, or the process of management countering a strike by hiring non-union workers or taking legal action to end a strike, is generally considered a last-resort measure for several reasons. The most compelling reason is that it does great damage to the relationship between management and labor. Such actions can lead to a deterioration of trust, a decrease in employee morale, and potentially long-term hostility between management and employees. Furthermore, strikebreaking can have negative public relations consequences, as it often results in bad press and can be seen as a company valuing profits over employee well-being.
Another reason strikebreaking is a last resort is because it does not address the underlying issues that led to the strike. Instead of resolving the conflict through negotiation and compromise, it forcefully suppresses the workers' actions without rectifying their concerns, which could lead to future disputes and unrest. Additionally, engaging in strikebreaking can prompt legal challenges and attention from labor unions and federal mediators, as seen in the historical use of the Taft-Hartley Act to impose a cooling-off period during heated labor disputes.
In conclusion, while strikebreaking might provide a short-term solution to work stoppages, it often exacerbates the situation in the long term by damaging employee relations, ignoring the root problems, and leading to potential legal and public relations issues.