1. Because of the public employer and the work performed by the public employee, a dispute in this area often places the public in the position of a third party who suffers injury from the actions of the other two parties. Why did the court not find the public a third-party beneficiary to this contract even without an expressed intent to give such third-party rights?
2. The timing of the strike on a Labor Day weekend was obviously not without recognition by the union as to its effect on tourism in this particular case. Could the court not have found that the timing showed intent on the part of the union to interfere with the business relationship of the public adversely affected by the strike?
3. Would finding a new tort action by the public against a union when injuries result from illegal strikes be a better deterrent to such public employee strikes than statutory prohibitions that are only enforceable through contempt of court proceedings?