[kethinov]

It's not reasonable to assume the hypothetical retaliation you mentioned is likely because there's no evidence that it is. It's certainly understandable why someone would fall for that argument, because it is persuasive on an emotional level, but it's not a good argument in the same way that logical fallacies can often be persuasive even though they shouldn't be.

[carmen_sandiego]

Walmart is famous for doing exactly that. I'm not sure what else I can tell you if you (a) claim that a certain outcome never happens, when a cursory search shows it does, and (b) actually think that your political opinions are the result of some kind of pure logic chain. They're not.

It's not a 'logical fallacy' to not want to risk disruption of your livelihood, and that's the only relevant question to this thread: is there any set of facts that would reasonably lead the workers to vote against unionization? I think clearly there is, and there's no point arguing over subjective prioritizations. The workers are not 'irrational' for prioritizing their own jobs over the 'national action' that you seem to want. They may even consider that harmful. Not all workers have the same political opinions.

[kethinov]

Well to be clear, I would agree with you if I agreed that closing up shop was actually likely. If we assume that just the very act of forming a union, regardless of its demands, would inevitably lead to closing up shop, then of course I agree that forming the union is counterproductive. Where we disagree is on whether or not that hypothetical is very likely.