I'm not sure either of those is fully relevant. Part of the point of a good union is to pressure an owner into addressing matters that an owner might not want addressed. True, it's unlikely at this point that Musk would tolerate unionization (technically there are probably laws in the US which protect worker rights to unionize if they want, but in reality Musk would probably find a way to undermine any such efforts), but that doesn't change, by an iota, my point that things might have gone better had there been a union.

As for a new owner coming in to a company that already has a union, I suspect that there are legal protections which would not allow the new owner unilaterally to disregard agreements made by the old management. Yes, in reality, either Musk would not have bought a unionized shop or would try to find a way to end the setup, but I'm just saying, the whole point is that what a CEO likes or tolerates is, by definition, not the whole story if a decent union and agreement are in place.

I would add, I think it's possible that Musk will turn out to be more right than many presently realize, not in his treatment of others, but in his overall vision of a labor-lite low-moderation service. It's also quite possible he will turn out to be very wrong. Either way, my Union point was just looking backward and wondering if there is a lesson to be learned, as we see Musk's dishing out of unearned disrespect to thousands of people that are gone and the disrespect of those who remain.