I contend that a company's profits and its balance sheet are not the business of its employees, period. A highly profitable company owes nothing more to its employees than what it already has agreed to pay them. If the owner of a company decides to take all of his profits in cash, and go out in the back yard and burn it, that's not the concern of his employees.
Employees offer skill sets to an employer, who reimburses them for use of those skill sets. Employees work for a compensation package they agree to upon being hired - their decision whether to accept that offer of unemployement under those terms. If the company makes twice as much money as it intended in a year, that's its money to keep - or share among investors, whatever. Employees aren't owed any part of excess profits. They've already been compensated for their work. They may unionize, and then attempt to coerce an employer to give them more of the employer's profits on threat of strike. But if they in fact do strike, I believe the employer should be able to fire them at will, and replace them with employees who will accept the current compensation package.
An employer should be free to cut hours, wages, or contributions to a retirement plan for any reason. If an employee finds that unacceptable, he can leave and seek other employment. He is owed nothing more than what he has been paid for his skill sets. He didn't start the company. He didn't make that investment or take that risk. And he has no claim to excess profits and if employment conditions change, he has the option to take his skill sets elsewhere.
I heard my father, a machinist, curse the union he was forced to join when it went on strike. All he wanted to do was work and feed his family and he was content with what he was paid. But that strike, and a subsequent one, where the union demanded more and more and more, finally prompted the company to fold, which left him out of a job.