Work to Rule and Other Forms of Action Short of Actual Strikes?

Unions are engaged in a narrative struggle to direct dissatisfaction away from them and their members towards the employers or the government. It sometimes suggested that unions should take action short of strikes, which disrupt management and employers without impacting the public so directly. Do you think there's anything to the argument that it's a better form of action because it causes less disruption for the public? I think just as a kind of note of caution, recently when Mick Lynch was asked, is he worried about draining public support? You know, he said, my members are the public.