The judge is right - you cannot take private property and force an organization to lend its use to others without compensation.
No one is forced to join a union. But if you do, if you have to pay dues for the protection and benefits it provides you.
Its not fair dues-paying members should have to subsidize free loaders.
So called right to work laws are invidious on their face.
Joining a union should not be a condition of employment. If a bunch of people want to get together and present themselves as a group for wages etc. Fine let’em do it. However if that same company offers me a job (I am not a union member!) and I negotiate my own conditions of employment I should be allowed to do that. Even if I am and later quit and then negotiate my conditions of employment I should be allowed to that. Unions should not be able to block nonunion employment. If the union had any use other then to make the “no-work” union bosses rich and allow some to exercise their inner thug then it could make a case to attract membership. Offer me something positive that makes me want to join don’t just threaten me!
What your arguing for is coercive form of wage slavery!
Now you have gone and made me use an online dictionary to look up the meaning of the word invidious.
As to your post, it shows there is a conservative philosophy conflict between the freedom of choice (right to work) versus a union being able to protect its intellectual property (negotiated contract benefits). I am afraid though you will find condemnation of your point of view as FR holds Hillary in more esteem than organized labor.
That's absurd - the very definitiin of a union shop is that all employees must join the union or get fired. And if you choose not to be a member of the union, you shouldn't be required to pay it money.
Nothing in the National Labor Relations Act requires a union to represent all employees. In fact, "members-only" representations and contracts are perfectly legal. A union can bargain for a contract on behalf of its membership, and leave all non-union employees free to bargain for themselves.
It is the union's choice to not do that, and to force themselves to be accepted as the "exclusive representative" of all employees in the defined unit. Union's choose to certify as "exclusive representatives" because it forces a company to bargain with them. But they are perfectly free, if they choose, to represent only their own members.
In other words, the supposed "free rider" problem of which unions complain is one of their own deliberate making. They then use the exclusive representation label on which they insisted to claim that others are "free-riding" on them.