This is ridiculous - your view of unionism is way off reality. Some points just on the first paragraph:
> with unions, they can't work unless they join the union
Er. No. This is a 'closed shop' (compulsory unionism), illegal in most of the Western World, and not advocated by the great majority of unions either.
> limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do what they want with they money
Errr. Unions don't stop employees from changing jobs or spending their money how they want. I don't understand where you get this from at all.
> limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire) anybody they want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them
Part of the freedom to negotiate conditions is the freedom (non-compulsory) to allow a union to negotiate on your behalf. Although this doesn't always work out well for either party, I don't see how you can say that allowing a worker to appoint a union in this way is reducing anyone's freedom.
Closed shops are perfectly legal in the US. Only 23 states in the US have right-to-work laws.
"Errr. Unions don't stop employees from changing jobs or spending their money how they want. I don't understand where you get this from at all."
Unions demand (in closed shops) from employees to give them part of the money as dues, and compel them to participate in union activities (such as strikes, etc.). It is true they do not limit how they rest of the money is spent - but I never claimed they take all the freedoms away. I claimed they limit them - by requiring payments and forcing to take part in their actions.
"Part of the freedom to negotiate conditions is the freedom (non-compulsory) to allow a union to negotiate on your behalf"
This is true, however in many union shops you do not have this choice. You either accept collectively bargaining conditions or you can not be hired. You can not just come to your employer and negotiate separately. Appointing somebody to negotiate on your behalf does not limit freedom, giving him exclusive right to negotiate - and that's how many unions are working in the US - does.
> with unions, they can't work unless they join the union
Er. No. This is a 'closed shop' (compulsory unionism), illegal in most of the Western World, and not advocated by the great majority of unions either.
> limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do what they want with they money
Errr. Unions don't stop employees from changing jobs or spending their money how they want. I don't understand where you get this from at all.
> limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire) anybody they want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them
Part of the freedom to negotiate conditions is the freedom (non-compulsory) to allow a union to negotiate on your behalf. Although this doesn't always work out well for either party, I don't see how you can say that allowing a worker to appoint a union in this way is reducing anyone's freedom.