pol annoyance
Sometimes you can protest in a way that has an impact on some entity, but doesn't make _public's_ life harder (e.g. bus drivers that strike by refusing to collect fares), but that's rather an exception than a rule. I expect (but might be wrong) that most people espousing that view would not consider such protests bad. Do you think otherwise?
Also, let me steelman that view: There are some implicit rules that we expect people to adhere to, and we adhere to, so that life in the society is more bearable. If those rules start being broken all the time, the loss caused by that is larger than the directly observable costs, because it also:
a) destroys trust that those rules will be adhered to,
b) makes others think that they also have a good reason to flaunt those rules.
So, one should break them only if one thinks that it'd be fine if everyone with at least as good a reason to break them would do so. Reason to break rules is evaluated on two axes: how important is the thing one wishes to affect and how affected it will be by this act that breaks them. Often protesting in a way that simply causes cost for a random set of people is low on the second criterion.
Do you think this is a reasonable steelman of their position? Is there something obviously illogical in it?