You are saying in expressing the right to have a say in how they work, they chose to vote to not have a say in how they work?

It's a pretty simple calculus. When the company spends twice the yearly payroll of the entire place on preventing the lowest of low workers on the totem pole from forming a union, maybe the company isn't acting in their best interests.

Equating a specific approach with _the_ solution to the problem is the oldest trick in the book. You’re implicitly assuming that this specific proposal to form a union is equivalent to “having a say in how they work”. That’s definitely what people proposing the union would have everyone believe, but it’s not necessarily the reality. There are many other outcomes possible, and on the balance the people disagreed with that framing.

They said that they did not want to be represented by these specific people with this specific deal. Maybe they'd be happy to be represented by someone else as part of some other arrangement? I don't know, and neither do you.

But if that's what they say when asked what else should we do except honour that?

If you think it's absolutely inconceivable they could legitimately vote against it at all... I mean then why have a vote at all? Might as well unionise them by force against their will and impose the union leaders as unelected and unwelcome representatives? That'll empower 'em, right?