> Interestingly, while this is a frequent threat, the instances of an employer ever actually following through are vanishingly small.

The more common occurrence is for the employer to let the union go on strike. Then the employer keeps the shop open by hiring new workers from outside the union and lets the union stay on strike forever. Obviously the effect on the union workers is basically the same.

There is a Seinfeld about this. Kramer learns from the paper that a strike which lasted for like decades has been 'resolved'.

He goes back to the diner/bakery to demand his job back.

Also, Colt is famous for doing this and it didn't work out so great for them : https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/01/nyregion/workers-rejoice-...

The difference in that case being that they were skilled workers.

They're also a defense contractor, so you're effectively talking about a public sector union and the dynamics of that are completely different.

Sure, if the company is of the sort that can function fine without its workers. This does not really always work out in practice, esp. in today's labor market.

If you start hiring permanent replacements, you're basically killing any chance of a successful negotiation.

That's sort of the point. Amazon can function just fine without these particular employees, the jobs they are doing don't require any special skills or training, and the already high wages make them very attractive to job seekers. For Amazon, having a union in permanent impotent limbo would be a best case scenario.

IF you don't want the union to begin with, you are OK will the union negotiation failing.