That's not true at all.

Those union members are perfectly free to create was is called a members only union, which only represents its own members who voluntarily join the organization.

Doing that avoids any of those conditions that you are talking about.

The NLRA has historically been interpreted in a way that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions. It hasn't been tested in a while, and it's possible that the current NLRB would view the issue differently, but unless and until that happens minority unionism is not a viable strategy in the US.

> that denies bargaining rights to members-only unions

Then you don't understand what "bargaining rights" are. It is absolutely fully legal for a members union to negotiation on behalf of its members, if those members consent to it.

In the same what that it is fully legal for me to hire a lawyer friend of mine, to bargain on my behalf.

What it can't do, is force everyone else, who is not in the members only union, to go along with that bargained contract.

So please, do not say that their bargaining rights are taken away. Instead be honest and say that their ability to force everyone else to have their bargaining rights taken away, and given to the union, against the wishes of those employees, is being removed from them.

Employers have a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith with unions which are the exclusive representatives of an entire bargaining unit. They have no such obligation to members-only unions. This is what the "right to collectively bargain" refers to in the context of US labor law. If you don't like the terminology, you can try to take it up with the NLRB, but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

> If you don't like the terminology, you can try to take it up with the NLRB

Well, I am talking to you here though right? And there is context here, to this subthread that you are ignoring/missing.

If you want to say "Non union members cannot force 3rd parties to work with them, if they don't want to" Then yes I agree.

But the context of this subthread was about the idea of who is or is not forcing people to do things.

So, to get back to the point of all of this, I was initially responding to someone else who tried to claim "That's not exactly liberty".

But it is liberty. Liberty is the idea of consenting parties, not being forced to do things. So yes it is liberty to say that people can join non-members unions, but that those non-members unions cannot force other people to do certain things.

Do you understand the point and context of this all? It was about whether that is "liberty" or not, which just means who is or is not forcing others to be in the group, or forcing people to work with your group.

Workers are free to take non-union jobs if they don't want to be in a union.

Except when all the jobs in your industry are union jobs.

Unless you're suggesting someone in this position should have to retrain for a different industry. Which, sure, ok, I guess, but the cost to do so might be quite high to the point of being life-ruining.

Those workers are also free to use right to work laws, to make it so they are allowed to get jobs at whatever company wants to hire them while also not joining the union.

And then workers who prefer the union, can join members only unions that are not forced to represent people not in them.