I didn't disdain your position. I thought it was odd, strange, maybe to the point of amusing as it seemed to use a particular word "war" that was a much more apt description of the state of societies interaction with unions many years before your supposed "start".
You've already revised your position, to one that I think is still overly broad and simplistic, but one that I think is common and thus not bizarre.
If I were to describe my thoughts on the particular point in history its that Reagan's action was an effect of the decline of labor unions, that occurred because in many ways they had accomplished a lot of their stated and most approachable goals. The only reason he could get away with it was because the unions had lost so much of their sway. They didn't lose their sway because he fired striking workers.
You also see that it was not confined to the US as Thatcher was doing similar things in the UK.
