The other side of the coin is why should people who don't want to collectively bargain have a veto over the people who do? (Since that's what happens when management can circumvent the union -- the union loses its bargaining power.)

As for how to choose, I'm not sure.

It is unreasonable to equate imposing something upon others and "imposing" nothing upon others. When all else is equal, the higher bar ought to be placed upon the imposition of additional layers of bureaucracy in other people's lives.

But all else is not equal. Unionized negotiations change a lot of things.

It's easy to see all the change caused by a union; it's harder to see all the change that didn't happen because of the union.

Why is it coercive to have to join a union to work somewhere? Work somewhere else. If that sounds coercive then so should having to work at tesla to begin with. I think wage labor is always a bit coercive but I don't see how having to join a union to work somewhere is worse. And it solves the free rider problem.

I agree with you in the case where a union was already in place when you joined. I'm talking about the situation where a new union is proposed in your current workplace.

> Work somewhere else.

You could equally say to any workers at Tesla who want to establish a union. Work somewhere else.