Final answer:
No specific statement from Davey regarding the possibility of a strike for non-union members is provided. Contextual information indicates states have the power to mandate union membership and the president can enforce a cooling-off period during disruptive strikes. The formation of unions and the right to strike are regulated and can vary based on historical and regional practices.
Step-by-step explanation:
Based on the information provided, it appears that Davey did not explicitly discuss the possibility of a strike for non-union members. However, given the context of union formation and strike procedures, we can infer certain aspects. The provided information states that states can decide whether all workers at a firm are required to join a union as a condition of employment. Additionally, in the case of a disruptive union strike, the president may declare a "cooling-off period" during which workers must return to work.
During World War II, unionized workers agreed to keep production going by not striking which shows a historical precedent for union workers avoiding strikes during critical periods. The formation of a union itself notably differs between countries, such as the United States and Canada. In the U.S., an election is held for workers to vote on union formation, whereas in Canada, a union is formed when a sufficient proportion of workers sign an official card.
The Wagner Act is also mentioned, which provided federal support for unions and the workers' right to bargain collectively. However, no specific detail was provided about Davey's statement regarding non-union member's right to strike.