Why is it suddenly coercion if your employees make this kind of negotiation using their collective bargaining ability? Employers are constantly able to dictate almost endless terms of employment, but if employees want the ability to exact more leverage using that power suddenly the supreme court and every supposed free-market guru shits their pants.

I mean coercion like threats of violence against strike breakers or non-union members, that sort of thing.

It's "coercion" because it has, historically, worked.

If a company enters into a contract - they cannot break it without facing consequences.

Yes - union contracts may include a ban on non-union workers. As long as that's not mandated by law - it's really none of our business.

Is this a contract freely entered by both parties? I got the impression that wasn't the case, that a company couldn't just politely decline.

That's no different than any other exclusivity agreement a company might make with a supplier.

I would potentially be on board with outlawing such agreements altogether, but it's not fair to restrict unions to be unable to make exclusivity agreements when every other type of organization can.

The issue is not voluntary exclusivity agreements, but if the union is able to force the company to employ only union members through threats of violence or similar.

I would hope my union would support legislation and lobby to protect wages over employer profits (with employers attempting to optimize for profits by employing cheaper offshore labor). Otherwise, the first world's standard of living is going to quickly race to the median of the world.

If, as an employer, you would prefer not to adhere to strong labor protection laws in the market you desire to operate in, you are free to find markets more to your liking.

Why is it inherently better to protect one middle class job in a first world country rather than lift 2 families out of poverty in the developing world? I'm not pretending that outsourcing is ethical thing to do, but neither is opposing outsourcing.

I vigorously support those with more wealth than they'll ever spend (billionaires and such, the wealthiest in the world) to take efforts to lift the poorest out of poverty. We're talking about a nation's labor policies to protect it's own citizens. Why would a nation disadvantage it's own citizens for the benefit of another country's citizens? If you're not protecting the income and ability to accumulate wealth of your citizens, this comes out of the pocket of your government's coffers for safety nets. So, at scale, weak labor policies are a wealth transfer from the middle class (that they didn't agree to) to other countries (as well as shareholders of your own country).

The richest 1%, with over $1 million in wealth, own 44% of the world's wealth, but we're going to keep chipping away at the middle class?

I'm talking about multinational corporations, not individuals or nations.

As am I. I'm arguing against labor arbitrage, due to weak labor regulation and protections, as a wealth transfer mechanism by multinationals (operating in a market while outsourcing labor to another, collecting and profiting off the spread, while likely paying minimal taxes where they're domiciled).

The hollowing out of the American middle class over the last 40 years due to globalization is what the end result looks like, hence why those in the Western world should not support further globalization efforts (including outsourcing offshore).

Just like an airplane, oxygen mask on yourself first, then help those around you.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477...

While I agree with your point, that linked article has a seemingly perverse way of defining middle class.

Middle class = 0.67(median household income) - 2.0(median household income)

Was there something wrong with the traditional definition of middle quintiles?