I disagree with your analysis of the situation. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled that union shop or other union security agreements fall under the category of Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining. In other words, the company cannot refuse to bargain over the issue of a union security clause. The NLRB further requires both parties to bargain “in good faith.” That nebulous requirement can be interpreted to mean that some concessions must be made to meet the “good faith” standard. Eventually, over the course of time, the company is pressured to give in on something. Oftentimes the union will then offer to forgo wage increases in order to obtain the union security agreement. The employer is then caught between the conflicting interests of the stockholders, who are entitled to a fair return on their investment, and the liberty interests of its employees. The employees, who have an obvious interest in a wage increase, have now been abandoned by their bargaining agent and are then subjected to the injustice of being compelled to pay the union for its “representation.”
All of this takes place over the objection of the employees who have not sought union representation and have declined to join the union. Furthermore, the employees, who have declined to associate with the union are not allowed at the bargaining table to participate in or even witness there own fleecing. The two parties represented at the bargaining table, the employer and the union, sit there and agree to violate the rights of a third party who has no voice in the matter. What a country!