What a terrible analogy. This strike didn't hurt anyone, it cost the employer money, which is exactly what they're supposed to do! A strike that doesn't cost money isn't a strike, and a union that can't strike is a social club.
Strikes are intended to lose the company money in a very specific way - by a lack of labor. They are not intended to lose the company money by intentional destruction of property (nor should they be intended to do that)
Also, I think you're imagining a set of gentlemanly Marquis of Queensbury rules around strikes that don't exist. This isn't an elaborate ritual like the filibuster; labor dispute precedents are written in blood.
Another example to help you understand:
If I came into my office in the morning with a highly flammable liquid and put them where the sun shines in the afternoon, and then intentionally left for "striking" - the ensuing office fire would be property damage on my part.
But absolutely I agree that destroying millions of dollars in equipment and supplies is not equivalent to killing people, but the examples share an underlying principle of sabotage.
Imagine if software developers took a service down for maintenance and then just decided to strike at that moment. Or maybe unloaded some servers from truck and then left them outside in rain.