[jaekwon]

Ah, yes, you're right. My understanding of unions is indeed limited in the ways that you pointed out.

Not sure I agree with your last statement. It depends... I don't think unions should be able to forcefully close down a shop if the owner can actually resume operations by firing all of the union members. On the other hand I'm completely alright with unions organizing and deciding to go on strike, in order to push for a bargain. I suppose I'm more comfortable with these boundaries because it "naturally" follows from ownership (the union can't shut down a factory because they don't own it) and respect for volition (the employer can't prevent people from willfully organizing).

I also understand that sometimes large corporations prefer to shut down a factory rather than sell the factory to the workers, in order to prevent competition. In this case I'm willing to concede that the workers should be able to purchase the factory from the corporation, as a judgement call that the livelihood of the factory workers are more important than whatever benefit the corporation sees.

But I am not willing to extend the liberties of a labor union to stifle the growth of another company that is winning in the free market. I believe there is more at stake in lost opportunity that way, and so I call such practice "backwards".

I'm probably missing a lot of subtlety here; like if the factory owner can fire all of the union workers during a strike, isn't that akin to the factory worker banning unions outright? I really don't know the answer.

[dalke]

"I am not willing to extend the liberties of a labor union to stifle the growth of another company that is winning in the free market."

That's the key point. Unions are constrained on what they can do. I can threaten to stop working unless my employer stops purchasing from a company with a horrible safety record, where the employees of the other company are on strike as protest. We're both agreed on that, right?

But do it collectively - say, 90% of my fellow 4,000 employees threaten to stop working in support of the workers of the other company - and suddenly it's labeled a union and our actions considered an illegal sympathy strike.

I can't help but conclude that the legal constraints on what a union can do mean that it can't fully participate in a free market. Instead, the 'free market' you're talking about is actually 'the market where collective action freedoms have been deliberately handicapped.'

(Personally I think there must be constraints on a free market, but that's a different conversation.)

"if the factory owner can fire all of the union workers during a strike"

Why can the factory owner do that? Surely the union contract would prohibit mass firing during a strike. Otherwise, as you say, what's the point of having a union?

In the context of US law, there are certain things that an employer is prohibited from doing. Mass firing of legally striking employees is one of them. Even non-union ones. (See http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/10/15/walmart-striking-wor... for a nice summary.

[rmc]

if the factory owner can fire all of the union workers during a strike, isn't that akin to the factory worker banning unions outright?

Yes it is. And that's why (in many countries) you can't fire people when they go on strike. The employer doesn't have to pay them, but the can't fire them. When/If the strike is over, they still have a job.[1]

Is it legal to fire striking employees in USA?! That sounds bizare!

[1] Here's the UK Government advice on it. The UK had Thatcher, so that employment law would not be as strong as in France https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/your-employment...