Well, your classification truly does not matter in the slightest. This is legal in the Nordics. You know how you make it illegal? By signing the CBA, which if you're already providing better terms, doesn't change anything.

Almost all of the comments on this forum, or any online forum do not matter in the slightest. But perhaps we can use forums to discuss ideas.

Perhaps the world needs fewer Americans that speak so confidently about labour relations in other countries. As usual, 90% of what’s being said on this matter is utterly ill-informed back and forth by Americans that despite their best efforts can’t hide that they’ve bought in to the longstanding American anti-unionist culture.

Discussing ideas and making up hypotheticals are two distinct activities.

> Similar to cops deciding not to police a region populated by a certain tribe. Or, in the same vein, over policing a certain region/tribe.

You should have gone with firefighters.

Cops famously never act in solidarity with other workers. In fact, they actively work against workers' rights.

Cops "over policing", or more accurately, "targeting", most certainly violates certain fundamental rights. A mailman not delivering packages to some company offices does not.

Sure, use firefighters not putting out certain fires.

I would classify use of infrastructure as a right. Like if a toll booth operator refused to take money from certain people.

Also, in this case, it sounds like the workers are also not allowing anyone else to deliver the packages, so it is not just "a mailman not delivering packages to some company offices".

> I would classify use of infrastructure as a right. Like if a toll booth operator refused to take money from certain people.

We aren't talking about people here. Corporations don't have that kind of consideration in most of Europe.

Call it a "boycott". It's perfectly legal and obviously not comparable to cops targeting people in the slightest.