As a relative matter, you should expect the union to be more involved on your behalf than the company you joined. You have little say in a large company either,

As a relative matter, you should expect the union to be more involved on your behalf than the company you joined. You have little say in a large company either, and companies can engage in political activities that you disagree with, funded in part by the profit you help bring to the company. That of course doesn't guarantee the union will always work on your behalf. For a simple and clear example, historically many unions discriminated against their black members. In general though, unions are run more like a democracy than most companies, so you should have more representation as a union member than as an employee. You do understand that many companies place requirements on their employees which effectively takes money and time from them, right? Like, a company can have a dress code which requires people to buy and maintain more expensive clothes they otherwise wouldn't have. And while some positions have a clothing allowance, that's not common for places with a dress code. Or, a company can require you to undergo a security screening before leaving the warehouse each day, but not pay you for the time you spend waiting (see Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk). Why then should a job requirement to join a union be any different than other sorts of job requirements that force you to spend your own time and money for something that doesn't benefit you? You look at total compensation, and not each line item benefit and cost, right?