> To be clear, the contention is "Most heavy industries go bankrupt because union members are constantly stealing supplies from the company." I didn't read it

> To be clear, the contention is "Most heavy industries go bankrupt because union members are constantly stealing supplies from the company." I didn't read it like that, and I'm surprised anyone can read it this way. It seems to me the contention is that someone who steals from a company does other things too that lower the overall productivity of the company. One bad apple and all that. The supporting evidence was that once those people were fired, the company starting performing well. At least that's how I understand the OP's argument.