I'm usually on board with HN moderation but I have to disagree here.

They're literally refusing to do their jobs, for a reason analogous to farriers striking because the automobile is taking away their jobs because no-one needs horseshoes anymore.

They’re striking because they believe they should be paid more considering GM is making billions in profits. Concessions were made when the economy was in trouble, and the union wants those concessions reversed. Why is this unreasonable?

I understand that labor unions aren’t well understood in America, but this is what they’re for: to get a better deal from a corporation for their labor. The alternative is what used to happens centuries ago: violent civil unrest over labor conflicts. No one wants that.

“Just fire them” is a grossly inaccurate solution for a complex problem.

Agree, up to: "what used to happens centuries ago: dragging business owners into the street and beating them to death"

This seems like a mischaracterization. The history of worker/owner conflict has a lot more dead workers than owners.

Fair enough. I should’ve said “violent civil unrest” to encompass the long history of worker/employer conflict. It’s hard to distill complex issues into a sentence or two.

I'm not commenting on the strike (about which I know nothing), only about that post (which was not a good comment for HN).