I also don't want to get into a deeper treatise, but my overarching point was just that you didn't even present the Libertarian side enough to show that there was any way for there to seem like they made any sense. And that doesn't make for a very good argument, because you end up arguing in the style of, "There exists this case which shows Libertarianism is foolish."

Well, yes indeed, such examples abound. But you can show that about any political outlook. Arguing that the number and severity of such cases makes the position untenable may require too much work, but it's good to at least provide a richer start.

The point about power differential is a good one, but I don't think you explored it with enough subtlety to be convincing, only enough to cheer on people who already agree with your position.

In particular, the Libertarians would say that companies can gain a competitive advantage if they plan to stay local by making agreements that they won't just up and leave, because people will be willing to work for lower wages in exchange for the extra security. And so you'll have mutual agreements: some companies will want flexibility and some not, and some will want to pay lower wages and some not, and the people who prefer one or the other will match up with the companies who have the same preference.

So you have to dig deeper into the actual nature of power differentials to start unraveling the problem with Libertarian views here. The Libertarian would respond to you by saying: well, the guy shouldn't have agreed to work for that company, then!