The plea to "tyranny of the majority" thus seems here to conceal a plea for the tyranny of the minority, in that they be allowed to frustrate their colleagues' strongly held and constructively expressed desire to obtain a more equitable balance of power in their workplace by recognizing their shared interest and forming a united bloc to match that which management and ownership present in support of their own shared interest.
One wonders on what basis this sort of tyranny merits more favorable consideration than any other.
If me and a friend come up to you and say "let's all take a vote to see if I can take your wallet", and you vote "no", it doesn't mean you aren't getting your wallet taken anyway.
Are we all affected by wallet-carrying management?
Do our choices in wallet-carrying communally affect this wallet-carrying enterprise?
Is corporate wallet-carrying management trying to convince us to carry wallets for longer than the usual 8 hours or wallet-carrying?
1. A union is required to represent all employees. They should t have to.
2. Companies will still have the money, and the employees will just have "work".
A better view is worker owned co-ops. That way the manager is the employee. The stresses of union vs company dissipate. Some others do take hold, but are much less so.
It would be unusual in the extreme for a modern western democracy that was 75% christian to force the 25% minority to convert.
So no, I don't really see the distinction. But my point was more that sometimes we are "forced" to do things for the benefit of the people around us, even if we don't really want to and don't personally think we need it. Unionizing is one of those things.