Yes:
* During the strike, show solidarity by not crossing picket lines. Don't use the service, and don't patron the business for the duration of the strike. This is because during the strike, the workers that are filling in for the strikers are scabs and crossing the picket line.
* Spread the news, their demands, and encourage solidarity with these workers.
Strength is in numbers and solidarity. When that breaks down, the movement breaks down. It's why many States and companies do everything in their power to prevent the wage-earners from organizing effectively.
This skips a step. Who gave the strikers the right to choose this for the entire workforce? If my coworker says "I strike" and I stay at my desk, does that make me a "scab"? The article gives no information about who the workers are, how many of their fellow workers they represent, how long they've been doing the job. I'm not sure what would qualify them to speak for everybody, but it's got to be more than giving a quote to NPR, and surely it depends how many of them there are, relative to their coworkers.
Yes. Call it scab, strikebreaker, whatever; you are undermining your coworkers' demands and weakening the strike. Of course it's not easy to strike, but it's necessary if you support their demands. You show solidarity and support by striking with your coworkers. It's most powerful when done as a whole block.
You assume the striker always has the moral high ground, why?
That's a big assumption. I've lived this. When I worked in a union job, I was forced to hand over a part of my paycheck to my union who did absolutely nothing for me when management went hostile without cause. As far as I could tell, the union was a gigantic executive/manager pyramid which was supporting its lifestyle on our backs. No bathroom break, no breaks at all- literally law breaking- no protection from management abuse of any form.
This is the case in a lot of jobs. The facts on the ground as I lived them are- unions do nothing for workers. They run campaigns for Democrats. Democrats empower unions. The worker still gets screwed.
Give me a right to work state and enforcement against past jobs badmouthing former employees - which is something no one ever enforces or in any way patrols for employers doing and which is ruinous to working people's prospects- and I'll be fine.
What's the ultimate goal- to serve and support unions or make life better for the working person? Because they aren't the same thing.
That's good odds on average.