Now that that's settled, let's go back to the beginning of
#35 (with the offensive part edited out):
The key difference is that companies can struggle on with a new CEO when the old one decides he wants more money than the company is willing/able to pay. With the power of the union to prevent any replacement of them outside of an actual strike (and no permanent replacements in the event of a strike),..., most companies can't long survive when their union decides it wants more money than the company is willing/able to pay.
Any union stupid enough to demand so much as to bankrupt their employer is a union that deserves to go out of business.
I'm afraid that rapacity exists on both sides.