No need to suppress them nowadays, for unions have been significantly weakened by decades of red scare propaganda, which makes the US government a democracy for capitalists, and a dictatorship for workers.
Labor is gaining power, but there's still interrupts coming from the government.
A lot of kennedy era political art and the positivity around him was from him "crushing" labor unions, especially big steel. I was struck by this while visiting his presidential library in Boston.
I kind of hate it. The reality is that most people "think" they like unions, but in reality they seem not to.
And the insidious thing about that omission is that there are plenty of perfectly valid arguments in defense of the journalistic integrity of everybody in that office, until you get to the interface between editor-in-chief and the actual owner of the newspaper. And even then, there's an apparently huge difference between "tell people that labor day is actually meant to celebrate the noble spirit of the lone entrepreneur, laboring to make our civilization great" and "just don't mention it, people don't care". That the actual intent is identical either way is not anywhere near as apparent as the surface-level differences between the two.
While in general, strike tactics have moderated, its also true that companies' first step in breaking a strike is no longer physical violence against union organizers.
The strikers backed down because the violence they feared. The government has a reputation, and if they say "we're going to hurt you" they probably will.
Let's be honest, though, the single biggest weakening function is the general decline in value of labour. People with low paying jobs simply can't afford to strike. The other side can just wait them out until they start to starve. It'll only take a few days.
There is good reason why unions remain strong in high paying professions, but nowhere else. Those in high paying professions generally have much greater access to resources to maintain a strike for months or even years.
I'm not sure it proves that at all.
The anarchist "protests" involved significant violence including more than 40 bombings including letter bombs mailed to the Attorney General of the US and FBI.[1]. As well as bombings of public areas that were up to 25 pounds of TNT.[2]
I don't know of any country that wouldn't treat it as a crime.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#April_1919_mai...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#June_1919_bomb...
It's incorrect to frame the violence as justified because of a small group of anachists who later retaliated with small bombs.
Also a gentle reminder that most of your rights were gained through violence. It's a sad fact, but peaceful protests and sending gentle letters to your representatives is rarely effective. Debates are great and functional only when there is a little power asymmetry between the involved parties. Otherwise the US didn't gain its independence from Great Britain just by whining about it in London lol.