I’m not super sure I understand here, the government can say “no, you will continue working” when a union threatens to strike? What’s the point of a union if companies can be so powerful that they can bend the government to deny them the ability to strike?
In theory this sort of thing is intended to be used in cases where the strike poses a risk to public health and safety. For example garbage collectors or ambulance drivers. Naturally this requires a measured approach and careful consideration even in those cases.
In practice, back to work legislation, or whatever the name for it is in any particular jurisdiction, is often wielded as a blunt instrument to end strikes that the establishment finds uncomfortable.
Because historically … governments often or almost always side with companies, wealth and those in power (which are the people with money - and not elected officials)
The more you read about it … at one point government just starts to look like an extension of the wealthy class and has either nothing or very little to do with the betterment of society … government starts to look more like a system meant to manage society (for those in power), not make it better for people.
As the late great American comedian George Carlin once said -
“Governments don’t want a population capable of critical thinking, they want obedient workers, people just smart enough to run the machines and just dumb enough to passively accept their situation.”
Well, 2 outcomes exist after this, burn it down or bend at the knee, bend at the knee get free kool aid
A similar situation happened with the American Railroad strikes a couple of years ago, and the USPS gave up their ability to strike a long time ago
