The Communication Workers of America strike by 35,000 US West employees in 13 Western states is over depressingly familiar issues: at a time of record profits, workers are being asked to take cutbacks--rather than, say, share in the company's good times--because the company needs to "stay competitive."

Such "competitiveness" here is a code word for abusive mandatory overtime practices (up to 70 hours per week, with time and a half only after 49 hours), cutbacks in health benefits, and a proposed "pay for performance" plan. US West's contract offer includes annual salary increases on the order of 3%--but those increases are more than offset by concessions that, for example, would cost a Seattle employee an extra $3,800 a year for health coverage.

The familiarity of these issues can only help the strikers. In more and more strikes of late--GM and UPS being the most visible examples--public sympathies, which in the past might have been with the employer (due to the inconvenience), have tended to side with the workers. It's a common-sense proposition: if the economy is so great, and business is good, employees should be rewarded, not squeezed even harder.

Eventually, that sentiment needs to translate into a broader movement than a strike-by-strike struggle for marginally better contracts. Profitable corporations should be obligated to pay livable wages. Health care should be accessible to all, and not even tied to employment in the first place.

Public sentiment is rallying to the side of unions, and to workers that tend to be far more militant than their union leadership. Unions were political pariahs not too long ago; surely, given such a shift, there's the numbers and the will to demand sweeping reforms that are in the direct self-interest of a majority of Americans. In the meantime, the outreach, public education, and (hopefully) redistribution of corporate wealth continues--one union contract at a time.