Unions under current laws can force employers to negotiate exclusively with them, and can strike without fear of being fired and replaced. Collective bargainin

Unions under current laws can force employers to negotiate exclusively with them, and can strike without fear of being fired and replaced. Collective bargaining in a free market, where the union and employer both freely choose to engage in it, is not exploitive. Under current laws, employers can be forced to engage in collective bargaining, thus limiting their options, and making it a tool for exploitation. "They can freely choose to engage in it. Nobody forces them to rely on wage labor." But that's not contract liberty. If you have contract liberty, you can choose to "rely on wage labor", as you put it, without entering into collective bargaining. The laws the unions rely on restrict contract liberty, i.e. freedom of association, and they're based on socialist constructs like "wage slavery". "Competition goes both ways, not just top down. If you choose to compete with your workers on company resources (AKA wage labor) then you deal with the consequence that these workers use their leverage just as much as you use yours if they have to." I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say or what argument you think I'm making that this is relevant to. For example, I have no idea what this is referring to: "If you choose to compete with your workers on company resources (AKA wage labor)". Could you 1. reiterate to me what you think my argument is, and 2. elaborate on and clarify your point so that I may better understand it?