That's a bad take. Strikes are temporary, and have clear goals of increasing pay and work conditions. You talk as if a union is formed, then strikes indefinitely and hurts profits, then the business fails.
Unions have "fallen out of fashion" in the US because there are not enough labor protections in place. Even now you hear of Starbucks and Amazon even going so far as hiring firms to do hit jobs on union leaders. If you think this is because they are afraid of downtime, rather than having to actually share more of their profits with workers, suit yourself.
> You talk as if a union is formed, then strikes indefinitely and hurts profits, then the business fails.
The original claim replied to was that profit would decline, not disappear... Talk about a bad take.
> enough labor protections in place.
That's the remainder of the story. Because labour laws have appeared over the decades and centuries, one doesn't have to forego financial stability to save their life like people once had to. Workers now become de facto members of the government union which has already negotiated minimum standards for all. That wasn't always the case.
Those who are in a position to be able to walk away from an income for months at a time may hold on to eek out an ounce more, but it's simply not worth it to low paid workers who rely on a regular paycheque. The cost of losing a home and going hungry greatly outweighs any potential returns.
Unions have "fallen out of fashion" in the US because there are not enough labor protections in place. Even now you hear of Starbucks and Amazon even going so far as hiring firms to do hit jobs on union leaders. If you think this is because they are afraid of downtime, rather than having to actually share more of their profits with workers, suit yourself.