To hear the outcry, you'd think that Suleiman the Magnificent had risen from the grave and was leading his Ottoman armies through the streets of Shelbyville, Tenn. The New York Times reported that Tyson Foods and the union representing 1,200 employees at its Shelbyville plant agreed to a collective bargaining agreement replacing Labor Day as a paid holiday with Id-al-Fitr (pronounced eed-al-FIT-tr), which celebrates the end of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting. Why did they do it? The union says 400 or so of the 1,200 are Muslims, and two members of the eight member union bargaining committee were Muslim. They wanted to negotiate the day as a paid holiday in the contract. After all, it was important to the Muslim employees the union represented. This leads me to two legal points. First, a technical one: Under the National Labor Relations Act, a union owes those it represents a duty of fair representation. It violates the NLRA not to provide it. Second, a larger context: American legal institutions are flexible. The collective bargaining system was set up in the 1930s. Its beauty (and I use that word deliberately) is that, almost 80 years later, it accommodates change. Poor Tyson has been berated in blogs and by radio talk shows. Shouldn't it be applauded, not hissed?