As I believe you have pointed out before, the ex-employee could grow his own food. He/She could also get another job and work for someone he/she agrees with.
I'm pretty sure your statement is considered some type of logical fallacy. You can refuse to work, and not refuse to eat. You would have been closer if you'd said something like, "If you refuse to work, then you will have no money to purchase food to eat."
The difference in our points of view is that you feel that bringing an uninvolved third party into a dispute, then allowing the third party to force its views on one party is a good way to settle differences. I think that allowing the two parties with a stake in the matter to come to an agreement is a good thing.
Your solutions tend to be something like this: An employee doesn't agree with his employer's demands, so he hires a thug to come in and put a gun to his employer's head while slowly squeezing the trigger until the employer changes his demands.
My solutions tend to be something like this: An employee doesn't agree with his employer's demands, so he quits his job. He did not have to force anything on his employer. His employer did not have to force anything on him.
My scenario could also play out like this: An employee doesn't agree with his employer's demands, but doesn't think he can make enough money to support his lifestyle anywhere else, so he continues working for his employer and decides to change to meet his employer's demands. Again, neither employer nor employee had to force anything on the other.