[WS:] Good question, indeed. Direct action, even if effective, is only temporary. It is not possible to keep people out in the streets all the time, but even if it were, the "marginal utility" of this sustained protest would diminish if not altogether disappear. That is why institutional support is essential. The pro-business side obviously has it and that explains why they are so successful, but for the pro-labor side, it is a bit different story.
If I were to name institutions that are actually pro-labor, the list would be awfully short: the unions (which are an endangered species), a few minor think tanks, and a few marginal media outlets. Add to it a few other that are potentially pro-labor, such as a few progressive churches or nonprofits and that is about it. The common trait of these institutions is that they do not generate any income to sustain its operations, but rather depend on outside sources, such as membership dues and donations, which are essentially a form of philanthropy - no match against the well oiled money machine maintained by business interests.
>From that point of view, is the "pressure" is to be sustained, it
requires expanding institutional base. This entails two things -
building a network of pro-labor organizations (e.g. something along
the lines of Progressive Maryland
http://www.progressivemaryland.org/page.php?id=268) and generating
sustainable financial support that does not rely on philanthropy. The
literature on Third World NGOs and development provide a range of
solutions (just Google self sustaining NGOs). Most of it has been
poo-poohed by self-styled radicals as a "bandaid solution" to poverty
and economic development. Th epoint however, is that while this may
indeed be a drop in bucket vis a vis what is needed for economic
development, it may be enough to finance efforts designed to
"leverage" government support of pro-labor initiatives.
Wojtek