Yet you think tying people's hands and forcing them into furthering the interests of a foreign business venture's goals at the expense of the locality is okay?

Ask yourself, why is that okay? Why is it more wrong for a locality to refuse to cooperate with an uncooperative outsider than for an uncooperative outsider to act in a highly disruptive manner to the sensibilities of a foreign locale in the first place?

What would you do if it was you in their position?

> Yet you think tying people's hands and forcing them into furthering the interests of a foreign business venture's goals at the expense of the locality is okay?

i did not write that.

my point was that as long as there are laws enacted by the state that mandate using a specific intermediary and then that intermediary refuses service to a 3rd party, that means that the law needs changing as that intermediary now has unintended power over both the 3rd party and the state. double so when it comes to something as mundane as postal services.

Think of it this way instead, the people working there have their own rights to refuse to do so. They the people aren't "Postnord" the company, they are individuals who are free to act on their own, they aren't slaves to their company.

valid point, but at the same time people should be free to resign and employers should be free to fire their employees.

Striking is one thing, but targeting an individual company is another. They are not striking, they are selectively denying a critical service to force submission.

It is not hard to imagine scenarios where this is weaponized with horrifying outcomes.

Anything can be weaponised with horrifying outcomes. (Your kitchen knife, radio, rats, automatic rifles, democracy)

The thing to look at: actual track record (positives vs negatives).

How many tragic events happened due to Swedish sympathy strikes targeting a company?

"It is not hard to imagine scenarios where this is weaponized with horrifying outcomes."

Well, it is for me to imagine - could you expand on "horrifying"? The Mirriam W definitions don't seem to make sense when used in your particular context.

“I’m a fireman. I don’t like you, so I’ll stand here while the fire burns you and your house.”

WE are firemen. Plural. It's not the decision of a single employee.