> "Corporations are usually horrendously corrupt so we should abolish them all?"

People voluntarily don't work for corporations whose mission or behavior is incompatible with their values; they do not have that option with unionization. If the union allows workers to not join the union, not charge dues for being an non-member, and not support them, then nobody would have a problem with them.

FWIW in the UK it's a legal right not to join or support unions (closed shops are outlawed), and unions can't charge non-members dues (no agency shops either). Lots of people (both company-owners and ordinary citizens) have problems with them anyway. Somebody in my industry recently left the union angrily and publicly, then subsequently criticised the union for not representing their interests after they'd gone. There's no accounting for folk.

Yes, the UK has never been a place with strong freedom of speech and contract protections, so it makes sense they would outlaw business owners from voluntarily entering into security clause agreements with their employees.

It's almost impossible for me to work for a corporation whose values align with mine.

It's really really easy to work in a non unionized workplace if thats what you want.

? This seems like a perfectly symmetric arrangement to me.

> People voluntarily don't work for corporations whose mission or behavior is incompatible with their values

And so if that corporation has signed a security clause agreement with a union, they are free to not work with that corporation.

Unions do not force workers to join a union shop, just as those people are free to not work for corporations whose mission is incompatible with their values, they are also free to not work for corporations subject to a union security clause that their owners voluntarily signed.