Not really a comparable extrapolation of my point. Without antitrust regulations, the anti-competitive cartel tactics of the robber baron era would have allowed one or two monopolies to consume the entire American economy. So we passed regulations that prohibited anti-competitive cartel tactics and monopoly power, but then labor unions were successful at getting a carve-out from that regulation (Clayton). Their legality depends on being exempted from anti-trust laws. Further, labor laws and regulations have been needed, passed, upheld, and continually protected by the courts (referencing said regulations) for unions to have any power, thus their existence depends on those regulations. The argument "keep government out of collective bargaining" is as silly as saying "government keep your hands off my Medicare."
Circling back to the specific issue I brought up here, those aforementioned regulations that establish rules relative to what type of strike is being conducted were for a good purpose, which was to preserve collective bargaining. Even the side of those regulations that unions don't like was for a good purpose. If the rules of collective bargaining are set up such that either side has the other by the absolute nuts, then the bargaining power becomes so lop-sided that it ceases to be bargaining, rather it just becomes a charade in which one side can crush the other repeatedly. That's not sustainable and would lead to legislative changes to try to maintain some semblance of a balance of power.
If unions can strike and employers were prohibited from replacing the strikers (whether temporarily or permanently), then strikes would shutter companies or industries and unions would have the absolute nuts and thereby basically hold entire industries and frankly the entire American economy hostage to its demands. So that won't work. Employers need to be able to bring in replacements.
If employers could fire every union member the moment negotiations hit impasse/deadlock, then employers would have the absolute nuts and could basically kill unions dead in their tracks instantly. So that won't work either. There needs to be some degree of protection of strikers jobs for unions to have any leverage whatsoever.
The purpose of allowing employers to hire permanent replacement of economic strikers was to prevent strike power from getting out of hand and being used to extort theoretically unlimited monetary demands from employers. On the other side, the purpose of entitling ULP strikers to unconditional reinstatement is to prevent employers from intentionally committing unfair labor practices to create an excuse to permanently replace swaths of union workers.
Practically speaking, it's pretty difficult to find qualified permanent replacements for very many workers on such immediate notice. But in addition to the practical difficulties to go gang-busters finding permanent replacements, the
NLRB has made it more difficult legally to even attempt to do so. The employer has to somehow figure out a way to convincingly demonstrate that the permanent replacement was with "pure motive" and not retaliatory or punitive in nature. How one proves that is anyone's guess.
But nonetheless, unions continue to make up ULP allegations as the basis for striking so that there is zero risk of permanent replacement. Notice how the union isn't required to demonstrate that their motives for striking over a ULP are "pure" rather than feigned when the real motive is economic. That's a double standard and we're not upholding the intent of these regulations. We should either enforce these regulations and their intent or we should change the law and have that debate about how it should be changed.