kurt_w wrote:Not very well, unless you think that rapists might conceivably have a legitimate grievance against their victims.
Which I hasten to say I'm sure you don't.
That's also not to say that anyone with a legitimate economic grievance against the rich and powerful is justified in using violence to address that grievance. But there's a big difference between a situation where a grievance exists, and one where one doesn't. Your analogy is pretty offensive, actually.
Oh no, offense! Heaven forbid we test the boundaries of polite conversation on TDPF. I purposefully picked an extreme example because that's what I do (argumentum ad absurdum), but I don't see my rape-rationalization as categorically different than rationalizing violence in response to labor law changes. We don't have to get into that, because I'm sure you're not interested in ingenuously exploring the issue anyway.
The legitimacy of the union grievance in this case is entirely subjective. Subjectivity notwithstanding, what's best for society might leave some people with legitimate grievances. If we raised marginal income tax rates to 95% to the benefit of society (hypothetically speaking), the rich might have a legitimate grievance against the rest of society, especially those few who made their billions providing valuable goods and services. In the case of union/labor law, if the current grievance is only the result of acclimation to previous legal privileges, is there really a grievance to speak of?