So the thing which is "unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional and violates a person's right to self-determination and other human rights" is not what the heirs did, but what the workers doing all the work and creating all the wealth did. No questions about the province of the heirs. You're dealing with both these groups but questioning the paternity of only one of them, the ones actually doing all the work and creating all the wealth.
Miners extract resources from someone's else land, using someone's else tools to be sold by someone else via someone's else logistical chains. And that high valuation of a natural resource that keeps mine operational? Miners had nothing to do with it. What miners do here is spend their time to add value to existing resource. In most cases this is done voluntarily and with a fair compensation.
I can name dozens of corporations who have used their profits not to increase worker compensation, but instead to lobby directly against their workers. And the workers have no vote or voice in the matter. Google in the article, for instance. But think of all the other dubious lobbying corporations engage in. It's never discussed in this context because your pay check doesn't include a line item for "lobbying fees".
People pay commissions to work all the time, they might agree with taxes, they might disagree with union dues, but regardless, I'm pretty sure it's not a human rights violation.
You are badly misinformed about what "right to work" is. In a union shop, the unionized "coerce" all employees in their bargaining units to participate, even in "right to work" states! Everyone is covered by the same contract! That's the whole point! Even in "right to work" states, everyone in the unit is coerced into participation by your understanding.
The only thing "right to work" offers is that people covered by the contract may choose not to pay dues (or choose to forgo some portion of the dues).
In all cases, all relevant employees are "coerced" into the union contract.
If anything, right to work is more unethical because it allows people to receive the benefits of union coverage without the input. Of course, that's the point: starve out the unions by making it so no one has an incentive to pay into the union.
It's funny because usually the libertarian response to a lot of problems is "put it in a contract". But not that kind of contract!
"Right to work" only covers whether you can be made to pay union dues as part of this arrangement.
Contracts deprive non-signers of things all the time. That's kind of the point.
Do you have a problem with corporations signing "exclusive" deals with other corporations?
This is absurd.
You’re saying a corporation cannot enter into a contract to be the exclusive supplier of a widget to another corporation?
“You can’t hire anyone else willing to work for less than $x” is extortionate. Competition is necessary for a market.
Entering into a contract with multiple people to collectively bargain with a corporation = deprivation of human rights (according to some posts in this thread)
At least the GP admitted that their problem really is just "that kind of contract".