> It seems to me that what the union is asking for is that the corporation act more like a benevolent force than one that is restricted by market pressures.

I disagree. The union is simply changing the market pressures that the corporation experiences. There is no benevolence required when you are faced with a strike. You either negotiate acceptable terms, or you have to deal with the consequences.

"but those violent delights have violent ends." You talk as though the US isn't steeped in regulation. All modern capitalist nations are. Without regulation, you get absurd instabilities as we saw until the New Deal.

If someone's selling you a simple explanation, they're likely wrong.

You've got it backwards. The principals of economics accurately describe a shitty situation created by corporations. They do not determine how the corporations must act; economics models exchanges of wealth. When the corporations control the wealth they simply model what the corporations are doing.

From a purely laissez-faire perspective, so long as the union does not call for government interference -- and there is no indication in the article that they have done so -- their strike action (or threat of such) is merely a way to influence the supply side in the question of supply and demand.

Do you feel this to be illegitimate? If so, why?