big relative clauses problem

[Szymon]

There are two sentences:
1) The workers, who went on strike, were dismissed.
2) The workers who went on strike were dismissed.

For me the 2nd sentence is more logical, that is: only those who went on strike were dismissed, as for the 1st sentence: all workers were dismissed and 'who went on strike' is just additional information, am I right?

It would be easier with such an example:
1) The workers, who wear pink socks, were dismissed.
it means that all workers wear such socks, it doesn't have anything to do with their being dismissed, yes?
2) The workers who wear pink socks were dismissed.
Due to these pink socks they were dismissed, am I right?

And something else: how many children could be in the family?
1)They have two children who are still at school.
2)They have two children, who are still at school.

[MrPedantic]

Hello Szymon

1) The workers, who went on strike, were dismissed.] All the workers were dismissed. Additional info: they went on strike. But the reader is likely to infer that the cause of the dismissal was the fact that they went on strike.

2) The workers who went on strike were dismissed. ] Only the striking workers were dismissed. (There may be other workers.)

3) The workers, who wear pink socks, were dismissed. ] All the workers wear pink socks. All were dismissed. The two facts are not necessarily related.

4) The workers who wear pink socks were dismissed. ] Only those who wear pink socks were dismissed. It seems likely that there was a connection; but it might be a coincidence.

5)They have two children who are still at school.] They might have more than two children.

6)They have two children, who are still at school. ] They only have two children.

See you,
MrP

[Szymon]

thank you very much for explanation