I'm not sure. Simpson's Paradox is even more confusing, if I remember right.

My example crucially hinges on the company being able to convincingly argue that they singled out that particular widget department for reasons unrelated to the union. If they can't make that argument, or someone even manages to proof that they fired from the widget department _because_ of the union people, then they would be in deep trouble.

You can characterize it that way:

    P(lose job | bargainer): 50%
    P(lose job | not bargainer): 6.25%

but

    -----widgets team-----
      P(lose job | bargainer) 50%
      P(lose job | not bargainer) 100%
    -----everyone else----
      P(lose job | bargainer) NaN
      P(lose job | not bargainer) 0%
    ----------------------

Simpson's paradox in its prototypical form occurs when the comparison drawn in the top table (of just one cell) is reversed in every cell of the bottom table. (Which has two cells, here.)

This isn't the cleanest example, since the comparison at the bottom can't be drawn at all. But the way the problem is narrated, it would counterfactually have exhibited the paradox.