Someone asked a good question, sorry I can’t find it now to respond, hopefully you follow me. Question was something like, “I thought solidarity unions didn’t have legally enforceable agreements and that was one of their major disadvantages?”

Solidarity unions have in common a belief that workers are typically better off asserting power where they are uniquely powerful. That is, at work, not a courtroom. Direct action, not litigation.

That’s why solidarity unionists reject no-strike clauses for example and reject grievance procedures that give up direct action in favor of administrative process culminating in arbitration.

So to the premise of your question, a solidarity unionist would readily give up legal enforceability if that’s what it took not to give up direct action tools. We see keeping these direct action tools as an advantage, rather than disadvantage.

To the substance of your question, solidarity unionists differ on this and some oppose legally enforceable agreements with bosses per se.