Power exists when recognized
Laws exist when enforced
You can "have power" in title or constitution but if you aren't recognized by others when you try to enforce the paper that gives you power then it's meaningless and nothing happens.

This is how the State works but at also how power and structures in general work. Someone can write down that you "are in charge of X and can fire people" but if you try to fire someone and get just keep coming to work and getting paid then you have no power

Understanding this, the different between de jure and de facto, can allow this dynamic to be unversed. You can refuse to recognize power. Will that accomplish anything? Depends. But if one day you all decided not to listen to your boss; including the bureaucrats and accountant managing revenue and payroll; well then he wouldn't be the boss anymore.

The boss "owns" the means of production in so much as there is, maybe, a piece of paper ascribing it to be his property. But that relation is also a construct. If there are police who will enforce this ownership (such as by considering fired employees to be trespasser and arresting them) then the ownership is real. Unionizing often works because when nobody will work the relation of "ownership" is the only weight the boss still has, he is helpless before those who actual act out production

So what if the police refused to enforce ownership? Ownership ceases to exist and the employees could fire the boss. Would the police refuse to enforce ownership?

It then begs the question what if the police were "forbidden" to intervene in unionizing or enforcement of trespassing. Would the police find other ways to do it? If a power was recognized to fire them if they did, then would they not? What if there were no police, and they were replaced with another safety system

If police as agents of property owners were abolished and replaced by some kind of community safety system like many that have been proposed (there's a Rolling Stones article about it if you're interested) then there would be nobody to enforce ownership and the workers, if they agreed to act together, could fire the boss and run the company collectively. In this matter I could see why loyalty to a unionizing effort would matter.

However prior to some such act of power inversal, the boss has been collecting some of the salary himself. Even if the accountants refuse to comply with his directives in how to manage company funds, he still owns a sum of the construct Money, which could use to hire private security to combat unionizers. Unless a stronger force could enforce a law against this, there is nothing stopping the boss from using hired thugs.

So how to counter the use of hired thugs? I get stuck here a lot when I think through this. "Have bigger guns" isn't a scalable solution and becomes a problem if you are trying to create a new more peaceful society (in the sense of positive peace not just negative piece.) Peace enforced through threat of violence is a risky endeavor.

Presently, unions often wield the power of Bad Press. To control the narrative will affect the company's business under capitalism. But only to an extent

@shel bad press was THE ONLY reason my employer eventually recognized our union. They were steadfastly against it until the articles started rolling in.

@srol mmhmmm!! When the dining common workers unionized at my alma mater it was also bad press that did it. The image and narrative of the progressive college was affected strongly by being seen as anti-union