This all sounds like stuff that's not in the law, but seems like "common sense" to some people and not others. The rights you take for granted are not permitte

This all sounds like stuff that's not in the law, but seems like "common sense" to some people and not others. The rights you take for granted are not permitted to workers, even when the law says so, everybody assumes stockholders have. Look at GameStop and its followers. It was selling "Blue", that is, video games in stores, and some weirdos on reddit became obsessed, caused a short squeeze, or so the myth goes, and some of them had strong opinions that the company should and could totally pivot to some sort of completely different business that's substantially online. That is, "Yellow". So if shareholders can engage in that sort of activity, why not a union? And if a union can, then surely the law requires that people be able to do it whether or before there is an official union; the whole point is to enable and protect collective action. "employees do not in fact generally have the equivalent of first ammendment rights at work" Ok, but nobody said they did - they have specific rights from a different source. Sometimes companies, even large or long-lived ones, do have to totally change their business. I forget which one it was, but there was one of those snack cake/junk food companies that went bankrupt a while ago. Ideally, management and workers would find a way together to save things. When a company goes down the toilet like that, management usually blames the union, so it would be perverse to declare that in general, the workers need to stfu and gbtw instead of having opinions on the business.