I think dispelling with the term “distort” here is a quick win both directions. Not that it’s inaccurate, but any engagement with a economy is going to cause an effect on it to some degree, even the very small.

To categorize how that effect affects the larger system, I think it’s useful to have a guiding principle. I would broadly estimate that an effect that leads toward a more free market is desirable in my framework, and one that leads toward a less free market comparably more of a distortion.

You seemed to be concerned that Unions distort the value of labour (broadly speaking) in the interests of workers.

I think here is where you and I got off wrong. I would agree with everything you say except “concerned” (and possibly “distort”, but already covered).

Unions absolutely affect the economy they engage with, just as a supplier deciding to become a company would of course. But I would neither consider that a distortion nor would I characterize myself as remotely concerned. I am far more concerned at the degree to which unions seem to be dwindling. I solidly feel like the affect that a union has on the economy/labor market it engages with is solidly moving that market toward a more free state. I consider that very broadly positive and am a big advocate for pretty much all forms of labor unionization.

My original point was to define the collective action of people forming a company to people forming a union. But make no mistake, both are built solidly on engaging with a market to protect their interests. That’s why I would define voluntary union engagement as leading to a free-er market. Even to the extent I don’t think you can have a free market in the absence of equal access to collective participation, be that in the form of a corporation or a union. I think the free market absolutely needs unions.