What happened in your first sentence was ruled impermissable in the USA due to Taft-Hartley in 1947 as I understand it, strikers can only picket where the company they are striking against does business. So you really need to be less vague.
I think you need to be careful translating the comment.
We only know they were picketing. We do not know if they were carrying out a prohibited action under Taft-Hartley.
All we know is that chmod600 got confused upon learning the picketers don't work there.
You can picket a place without being employed there. For example, "Arab American leaders demonstrated Thursday outside the Walt Disney studio against two Disney films that the protesters said contain insults to Arabs." https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-08-23-fi-36982-...
> Picketing to force an employer to recognize - or employees to select - a union is permitted under certain circumstances. As with secondary boycotts, the law here is a bit complex.
> Section 8(b)(7) of the Act makes it unlawful for a labor organization or its agents "to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective-bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees: (A) where the employer has lawfully recognized any other labor organization and a question concerning representation may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c); (B) where within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) has been conducted; or (C) where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under Section 9(c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 30 days from the commencement of such picketing: ...
