Where's the snark? I'm asking you why if you're opposed to mandatory contribution of union dues by employees, you're not similarly opposed to mandatory contribution to shareholder profits by employees. It's a 100% genuine question.

Your point is actually very interesting to me. I've never heard that before. I get it- maybe I "don't wanna" contribute to x, y, or z. What right do I have to do about those things? That "takes away my agency and freedom", right?

I found your point insightful. Because you can't really have it one way, and not the other. Just cherry-picking what you find offensive in an employment agreement. If there is a union involved, you can just find another job! Same solution I'm presented if I prefer profits to go into my pocket, rather than someone else's.

Thanks, I’m glad somebody has grasped the point I’m making - which is that the whole system is built around coercion, so singling out one arbitrary part of it as involuntary is completely inconsistent and ideological.