Straightforward regulation?? Binding arbitration goes against logic, which is presumably more fundamental than even common law.
In a way, unionization is really just one step up from that "vote with your dollars" tripe, and we know how well that works. I'm not categorically rejecting it, just highlighting that it's more of a stopgap than a solution.
For instance, why wouldn't a union's management adopt the same kind of disenfranchisement clauses in case you try to sue them? You know, to keep dues down and all that.
Why would you regulate something when there is no consequences? American always hold the position of various degrees of "don't trust the government, take care of yourself", but as soon as something gets slightly uncomfortable someone else is supposed to step in.
Unionizing isn't really like voting with your dollars. Individual contract negotiation is essentially that. Unions have actual market power. It is like e.g. Walmart stops selling something.
A union could adopt a similar clause, but the members shouldn't allow that. If they do you of course have a much larger problem.
The consequences of deeply fundamental issues develop slowly. Binding arbitration goes against the concept of law itself - allowing one party to unilaterally effect how a contract document can be interpreted means there is actually no contract at all! Even capital-L Libertarians believe that one of the jobs of government is to administer law, and so preserving that function is directly in line with its purpose.
Of course we can just assume that it's a forgone conclusion that government is corrupt, and look to how we can personally act to overcome - I did say that collective action is a "step up" from individual action. It's just important to remember the larger context of direct action being a tactic rather than a solution.
Yes, I'm certainly not against a union-optional situation. If specific companies want to be union-only, that's fine by me. I'll go work elsewhere. If those companies can change their minds and admit scabs, that's okay by me.
If a bunch of people want to group together to bargain, that's their right. I've gotten together with my co-workers and spoken to bosses before. The only problem is when state regulation is used to enforce this. I'm not okay with that.
It can't be a right if it isn't regulated. Unionizing is a legally recognized international right. It isn't really optional. Then of course you can argue how it should work, but that is largely a different matter. You want to waive that right that's fine, but it is just that. Anyone else who wants to keep their right should get to.
