Why would you abridge my freedom of association by forcing me to be part of a group I have no desire to join?

Because it benefits the public good, the same way you're forced to be part of any country, state, city you reside in.

Also freedom of association is very clearly intended as freedom to associate, not freedom not to associate, so it's a little confusing for you to refer to it.

You’re exactly as forced as people are forced to have a job.

I believe you are arguing I could always choose not to work. I wish to work for an employer and the employer wishes to work with me. In this hypothetical there is required membership with an unrelated party I do not wish to associate with.

If I wanted to go to a coffee shop and that shop wanted to serve me coffee but the mafia is standing outside saying I have to pay them before I can go in, they are in fact forcing me to pay or turn away.

The party’s not unrelated.

Yes, in both cases.

Are boards of directors unrelated parties you’re forced to associate with if you don’t want to severely limit your employment options?

The people the owners of the company have selected to run the company on their behalf are directly related to a company. I fail to see the similarity.

It’s a legally required body for many companies. It’s being imposed by law. Same as required unions would be.

I've never been forced to become a member of a corporate board. This proposal however is that I be required to join a union. That is the material difference.

True. You’re merely forced to be subject to their decisions, made on behalf of and in the interest of people who aren’t you.

[edit] I’m getting the sense that if we just restructure this so the union exists and does normal union stuff but you don’t have to “be a member” (but do have to abide by its decisions or else leave, as with a board) you’d be ok with it? Like it’s mainly a semantic problem?

I see it as more than a semantic problem, but the problem does boil down to the membership. If they are the lawful structure I'll abide by their decisions, I just don't want to be forced to join.

So it’s exactly the same as a union, in a situation where the union is the lawful structure of worker bodies in the country you’re working in.

I hate the idea. I've been in a union once and will never willingly do that again, but it would be more palatable if they couldn't claim me as a 'member'.

The way I would do it is simply: no matter what, the employees get to vote down things their managers do. They can vote to do nothing, have no organizing body, and pay no dues, but they still get to vote, so if they want to prevent their bosses from doing something exploitative to them, they get to.

This model does not put you in a group anymore than being an American citizen puts you in a group by giving you the right to vote on things. In my version it is like how you get to be in a political party if you want to and not be in one if you don't, but you get to vote either way. The right to have some say against your manager's power in your life (short of quitting, that is) should be unassailable.

The fact that quitting is "all or nothing", and often not an option to people because the cost of finding a new job is high and often prohibitive to specifically the people who are most disenfranchised, makes it a poor and almost useless way to exercise power. Unions allow, in principal, for there to be intermediate pressures between "quitting" and "asking nicely".

Some people I know despise their unions and union leadership. How would you structure it so that people aren't forced to support a union they hate?

Opt-in by default.

Not all unions are great, but the median unionized worker earns more than a non-unionized worker in the same field. So the main reason people wouldn't want to join a union is because they've been conditioned to think they're bad, against their own economic interests.

I feel like you're reducing everything to material conditions. Joining a union would (statistically) help me economically but my objections to being in a union again are all moral convictions. Perhaps workers are optimizing for concerns you do not share?

Yes, I am reducing unions to economic concerns, but I should mention that most people's "moral" objection to unions is conditioned by parties whose interest is solely economic. When the Koch foundation buys airtime on news programs (effectively) to spread the idea that unions are evil and striking is immoral, it's not because they actually care about morals, it's because unions shift the economic playing field in a way that they don't like.

Is your moral objection that you're opposed to improved material conditions?

I believe I should follow my word. Striking violates my principles.

Would it be ok if you were upfront about the possibility of striking? That seems like a very achievable adaptation.

I think that would be acceptable to me assuming I had assurances I wouldn't be asked to participate or be represented by union actions that would be violent. No threats, no breaking things, no vandalism, etc.

Strikes are generally non violent, and the majority of times that they become violent, it's instigated by strike breakers hired by the company (including police). There is over a hundred years of history of this - plenty for you to read if you want to learn more.

The same way we avoid forcing people to support companies they hate. People can always quit if they want.

This strikes me like the people who (after a big contentious election AKA every election) tell the people whose candidate lost, "if you don't like it, move to another country"

Except I think switching trades (which you would have to do since the union is all encompassing and forces membership) is a lot more onerous than emigrating, and emigration is no slice of cake.