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.
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.