Yes, there are many countries that violate or restrict universal human rights in some or many ways. That does not necessarily mean that those universal human rights can just be ignored and considered to be nothing more than an irrelevant and worthless text.
In this case (USA, video game industry), I don't see any reason why the right to strike would be questioned.
AFAIK, nearly all anti-strike legislation in western countries is targeted at strikes in the public services or the "infrastructure" type of private sector, e.g. to enforce some kind of minimum service for transportation, security, schools, hospitals (e.g. Reagan's laws in the USA), and/or to forbid so-called "political" or "solidarity" strikes (e.g. Thatcher's laws in the UK), as opposed to "economical" strikes for reasons related to the working conditions at the company itself.
In this case (USA, video game industry), I don't see any reason why the right to strike would be questioned.
AFAIK, nearly all anti-strike legislation in western countries is targeted at strikes in the public services or the "infrastructure" type of private sector, e.g. to enforce some kind of minimum service for transportation, security, schools, hospitals (e.g. Reagan's laws in the USA), and/or to forbid so-called "political" or "solidarity" strikes (e.g. Thatcher's laws in the UK), as opposed to "economical" strikes for reasons related to the working conditions at the company itself.
