But it does. Strikes are already difficult. Workers need their salaries; that's why they work. Unions usually provide aid, but every dollar out of their coffers reduces their ability to support workers long enough for the strike to mean something.
Companies are more likely to have money. They can afford to spend time pursuing a lawsuit that the union can't afford to defend against.
A lot hinges on how people read "affirmative steps to endanger ... property". The company is claiming that the damage includes work that they couldn't do. The whole point of the strike is to disable the company's ability to work. If that's included, then strikes might as well not exist.
I can't speak to whether the wet concrete thing is reasonable or not. I don't know the situation, or construction. But it sounds as if they're giving companies a tool for breaking strikes, by searching around for anything they can call "damage" and forcing them to spend money defending that suit.
The impact of the concrete strikes here in Seattle has been awful tho, it caused multiple clients of mine to give up leases due to half complete projects impeding their ability to do business.
Hopefully in the future it won't take repeated protests over 5 years to reach a compromise contract. The concrete industry's management needs to be treated much more severely than what they got away with this past go around.
