Striking by government employees was made illegal with good reason. If you're willing to strike you must be willing to do so under the real risk of being fired. It's a scorched earth tactic entirely equivalent to your employer withholding your pay without you having broken the contract.
Let me fix that for you: If you're willing to strike, you must be willing to do so under the real risk of being murdered [0]. If you're new to this history, the Coal Wars [1] are a good starting point.
Don't you have the concept of legal and illegal strikes? In most European countries striking is alive and well, but not for willy-nilly reasons. There exist a specific framework for strikes.
Right, the strike mentioned by the post above mine was illegal. But additionally striking is ultimately a negotiation tactic. Scheduled legal strikes are like demonstrations in which workers make a show of their bargaining power to the employer, but prolonged strikes which cause massive losses of revenue for the business are a scorched earth negotiation tactic and those engaging it should expect a proportionate response.
I mean, you will probably have to FORCE the employer to do something, so yeah, surprise - people do actual strikes that hurt the employers' profits,and that's the only reason anything gets done. "Scheduled legal strikes that are like demonstrations of bargaining power" only hold their meaning if you are ready to follow with a real strike if not taken seriously. Else, it's just begging the employer to show a kind heart.
Convenience of delivery is a big point of improvement though, which the restaurants never used to compete on before. It's become commonplace to complain about the middle-men like Uber and seamless now, but before they came around the analog services that existed (taxis and restaurant delivery) were so much worse.
