No, the difference is not "obvious". In some industries and workplaces, there will always be damages due to work stoppages. Otherwise the laborer wouldn't command a competitive salary.
That doesn't seem to me as normal business losses and striking to increase one's bargaining position. That borders on extortion.
I think the difference is "obvious".
Please read my previous comment again. My claim isn't that there won't be damages due to work stoppages, just that there's a difference between damages caused as a side effect of work stoppages (eg. lost production), and work stoppages deliberately timed/engineered to cause max damage. A sibling comment[1] listed out other examples. Surely you see the difference between the scenarios listed and simply not showing up to work one day?