This is what's wrong with our union protection laws

Take a close look at this article.  Now, as someone who spends a fair amount of time interacting with my company's suppliers, I do from time to time have the sad responsibility of informing my managers that particular suppliers are simply not reliable.  When I do this, my company does not face the possibility that any government agency will force my employer to use a particular supplier.  Vendors know that if they do not supply the product they contracted to produce in a timely manner, my employer will work to find a vendor that will.

Now take a look at Boeing; they have an unreliable supplier of labor, their machinists' union.  Why is it wrong for them to contract with laborers in a right to work state after the union has repeatedly stalled work and infuriated their customers?  If monopoly is wrong when it is Standard Oil or IBM, why is it OK when it's the NRLB and a machinists' union?

Reality here is that Boeing spent billions building the South Carolina plant in question; it's not like they're doing this simply to "retaliate" against their union.  Rather, they're simply locating their company--like steel mills on the great lakes, or auto factories near steel mills--near reliable sources of what they need to make their product.

To put it mildly, that shouldn't be a crime.  Unions should know that if their cost exceeds the costs of relocation, they might just be losing their jobs.