> If you break an employment contract, the contract is arguably void, and you are no longer employed, that's all. That depends on the nature of the way you bre

> If you break an employment contract, the contract is arguably void, and you are no longer employed, that's all. That depends on the nature of the way you break it. If breaking the contract willfully, even after receiving warnings causes considerable harm to the company, you can expect to be held accountable for the consequences. Also, if you break a contract in a way that causes a company to break the law, I suppose it could lead to criminal prosecution as well. Let's say you're an airplane inspector, and you sign off on a checklist without actually checking the plane, you could be in trouble if the plane crashes, especially of your team cover up for each other when doing so. Similarly, if you work on an oil rig installation, and something bad (like and oil spill) is the result, it may be more than just losing your job. Now in the case of this article, the topic is not just about individuals breaking their contracts, but indeed there seems to be someone organizing it. Organizing some activity with the explicit intent to cause harm to the company may very well be subject to prosecution, just like organizing a hacker group to attack the computer systems would. Indeed, in the early days of the labour movement, ring leaders frequently went to jail. Eventually those conflicts were solved in a way that gave strikes a special status, explicitly allowing them. However, that came with some restrictions, such as the strike having to be organized by a union, and also some limits on how much damage the strike could cause (especially to third parties). Finally, unions would have the right to temporary forego the right to strike for a given duration, in exchange for some compensation up front. Actually, this last part can benefit the Union in that it provides a very valuable bargaining chip, especially if they work in a high-cost industry (such as oil&gas). By offering that chip, it may cause the employer to provide better conditions and pay than it otherwise would, in exchange for security. An employer not having the luxery of knowing that workers will not strike have higher risk, and will have a harder time finding investers. In turn, that means less growth, less ability to take on critical projects and generally a smaller pie to share between the workers and the owners.