“First, under the principle of exclusive (monopoly) representation, when a union has been approved as bargaining agent by a majority of workers on a job, that union also becomes the bargaining agent for those workers who voted against the union, as well as for those workers who didn’t vote.”

By that argument the U.S. Government (and pretty much every other elected body in the U.S.A.) is UnConstitutional, because any elected representative becomes the representative of those voters who did not vote for the elected representative, as well as of those voters who did not vote.

Secondly: “Second, not content to force numerical minorities to give up their individual right to freedom of association to numerical majorities through exclusive representation, the NLRA also forces many workers who are represented by unions against their will to pay those unions for the representation they do not want. This is called “union security,” but it is forced association. No worker’s fundamental human rights should be sacrificed simply to provide unions with financial security.”

Again, this sounds like an attempt to make the right to freedom of association repeal the power of elected government bodies to pass laws taxing their constituencies for the revenues needed to keep government in action. Elected representative bodies have to have funding for the proper funding of governance.

Your alternative, the idea of splitting big unions (with lots of bargaining power) into smaller and smaller groups, is a great way to engage in union-busting by getting the workers to *do it to themselves*: by splitting the unions into smaller and smaller groups, eventually the whole point of a union, the collective bargaining using threats of walkouts of all employees, loses its sting to employers. When three people in a company of one thousand “go on strike”, their efforts aren’t going to cause any more comment than three individuals calling in sick.

A tiny union has indistinguishable bargaining power from an individual’s bargaining power. If individuals had the power to exact living wages and safety equipment from their employers, unions would never have been created in the first place.

Its not that simple. The First Amendment covers right to assemble, not freedom of association. That point was made back in 1956 by the state of Alabama, that the U.S. Constitution only protects freedom of assembly, not freedom of association. The SCOTUS decided against the Alabama government and added “freedom of association” to the list of rights protected by the U.S. Constitution (see NAACP v. ALABAMA (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/357/449.html), 1958).

SCOTUS, NAACP v. ALABAMA (1958): “It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the “liberty” assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.”

The difference between “freedom to assemble” and “freedom of association” is that the former is the right of a group of people all in the same place at the same time, while the latter is the right of an individual to associate with an organization or another person, even when none of the other persons associated with are in the same place as the individual in question.