> Why do we have to put a name to it?

To set up a communications and decision-making structure.

> hung up on paying a union money.

Agreed.

Am open to unions, but their worst tendencies such as significant monetary collection and (everyday) work obstruction should be against the rules. Just as anti-employee corporate policy should as well.

Because without putting a name to it, you don't have the same level of organization. If you have a group of workers who organize collectively but don't have a real organization with a leadership structure, how do you vote and decide what your goals are?

I know someone who's in a union as a mechanic. Her union dues are $50 and she gets fantastic benefits, that more than pay for the union dues.

Probably because you end up reinventing unions from first principles. You start off with a group of employees organising together. Then they realise some of the things they need to do require money. Then they realise you need some contingency to pay for big expenses. Then you realise you can use your bargaining power to help members in other ways for example here unions offer lots of services, discounts and funds for things like education. We’ve also just been through a period of labour renegotiation with some strikes which has ultimately ended up with the government getting involved with promises of reform to resolve them.

Plus many countries have laws surrounding how unions can operate and protections for employees organising them. In a less enlightened society employers will just lay off anyone attempting to organise.

So in general Unions are typically formed explicitly because people have lots of existing evidence of the benefits.