Bunch of people tying this to specific case, and saying how it's a good thing... Just for consideration. If the NLRB recognized this is an issue for negotiatio

Bunch of people tying this to specific case, and saying how it's a good thing... Just for consideration. If the NLRB recognized this is an issue for negotiation, it doesn't seem good to me to say "corporations, that already have a ton of the power in these negotiations can sue outside of the NLRB." The problem I see is why wouldn't anti-union companies just sue for loss of business now? The goal posts have moved, and it doesn't seem like it would take much effort to get them to where you can sue people for sabotage just for striking in the first place. Everyone who is saying this is a good thing is pointing to how the NLRB agrees wit h this. So why is it necessary if the governing body that oversees these disputes agrees with the principle of this for negotiations? It seems like we just lost more worker protections here, and that people are gonna be SLAPP-sued to oblivion anytime they strike...