4 ms·

If you prefer, think of it thus: 1. People in a shop voluntarily associate with the union or not 2. If the shop hires non-union workers, the union workers stop

If you prefer, think of it thus: 1. People in a shop voluntarily associate with the union or not 2. If the shop hires non-union workers, the union workers stop working 3. Mgmt decides whether or not this is worth it to them to hire non-union workers No one is coerced or forced into an involuntary association. A "union shop" is just a shorthand for the process above. Incidentally, who is lobbies/bribes politicians for "right to work" etc.? Is it management or individual, non-organized workers? (If you think it's the latter I've got a bridge to sell you...). Why might management be interested in promoting the "right to work"? The interests don't seem to line up.

stale2002 8y ago
Management is not allowed to fire union people and hire non-union people in their place. Once the union is created, nobody has any choice but to join it. Thats the law. Once the union is voted in, they now represent all workers, and it is highly illegal to just decide to fire all the union people. There is nothing voluntary about that.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  When a company agrees to a contract, they are expected to abide by the terms of that contract. Why should unions be disallowed from forming exclusivity contracts when every other type of organization is allowed to?
  - stale2002 8y ago
    If a union is allowed to make such an exclusive contract, then management should be allowed to fire everyone for starting the union, before such a contract is made. The rights work both ways. Either everyone should be allowed to make exclusive contracts, INCLUDING a contract that disallows unions, or nobody should be allowed to do so.
bmelton 8y ago
> No one is coerced or forced into an involuntary association That is provably false in at least some states, because joining some professions in certain states required you to pay agency fees whether or not you chose to be a member of the union at all. That's been the case since 1977, and was decided with __Abood v Detroit Board of Ed__[1], hich compelled teachers to pay union dues, no matter their stance on the union. To whit: > A Michigan statute authorizing union representation of local governmental employees permits an "agency shop" arrangement, whereby every employee represented by a union, even though not a union member, must pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service charge equal in amount to union dues. That issue is currently up for dispute in __Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31__[2] [1] - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.htm... [2] - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466
- sequoia 8y ago
  > because joining some professions in certain states required you to pay agency fees whether or not you chose to be a member of the union at all. You can't work at a private school or as a tutor or private instructor in Michigan without being part of the teacher's union? I dispute your characterization of the "profession" compelling union membership, at least in the case of teachers. The Detroit Board of Education is a "shop", not a profession. Police officer would perhaps be a better illustration of your point, as one can't really be a "private police officer" but shrug the state has a total monopoly on that law-enforcement profession, so you've got more than unions to contend with there. (Why can't I start my own police department?)
  - bmelton 8y ago
    You point out that I made a misrepresentation, which I did do by exclusion of a better example and citation. In Harris v Quinn, the plaintiff quit work to care for a sick relative. Finding out that Illinois had a program to assist home health care workers to help defray the costs. She enrolled in the program and was awarded a grant to help her take care of her relative. According to the Service Employees International Union, this made her an employee of the state of Illinois. Because the state of Illinois was a "union shop", it meant that all people of this sort were de facto "home health care employees of the state", and all home health care workers who received grants of this sort were compelled to pay union dues, whether they were employed by the state, the individual to whom they were providing health care, or whomever else. In this regard, anyone who the union deemed to be in the home health care profession, and who availed themselves of state assistance, were members of the union, and obligated to paying dues. [1] - http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court-decision-on-public-union-dues/1143/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court...
conanbatt 8y ago
3b. Mgmt decides to fire employees that are defaulting on their contract to work. 4. Mgmt hires new non-union workers.
- sequoia 8y ago
  Exactly. No one is "compelled" to do anything, the employer can fire everyone–that's their choice.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Employers can't fire people for being in unions. That's illegal. Either everyone should be protected, ie you can neither be fired for being in a union or for NOT being in a union, or nobody should be able to be fired for these things.

stale2002 8y ago

Management is not allowed to fire union people and hire non-union people in their place. Once the union is created, nobody has any choice but to join it. Thats the law. Once the union is voted in, they now represent all workers, and it is highly illegal to just decide to fire all the union people. There is nothing voluntary about that.

TheCoelacanth 8y ago
When a company agrees to a contract, they are expected to abide by the terms of that contract. Why should unions be disallowed from forming exclusivity contracts when every other type of organization is allowed to?
- stale2002 8y ago
  If a union is allowed to make such an exclusive contract, then management should be allowed to fire everyone for starting the union, before such a contract is made. The rights work both ways. Either everyone should be allowed to make exclusive contracts, INCLUDING a contract that disallows unions, or nobody should be allowed to do so.

bmelton 8y ago

> No one is coerced or forced into an involuntary association That is provably false in at least some states, because joining some professions in certain states required you to pay agency fees whether or not you chose to be a member of the union at all. That's been the case since 1977, and was decided with __Abood v Detroit Board of Ed__[1], hich compelled teachers to pay union dues, no matter their stance on the union. To whit: > A Michigan statute authorizing union representation of local governmental employees permits an "agency shop" arrangement, whereby every employee represented by a union, even though not a union member, must pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service charge equal in amount to union dues. That issue is currently up for dispute in __Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31__[2] [1] - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.htm... [2] - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466

sequoia 8y ago
> because joining some professions in certain states required you to pay agency fees whether or not you chose to be a member of the union at all. You can't work at a private school or as a tutor or private instructor in Michigan without being part of the teacher's union? I dispute your characterization of the "profession" compelling union membership, at least in the case of teachers. The Detroit Board of Education is a "shop", not a profession. Police officer would perhaps be a better illustration of your point, as one can't really be a "private police officer" but shrug the state has a total monopoly on that law-enforcement profession, so you've got more than unions to contend with there. (Why can't I start my own police department?)
- bmelton 8y ago
  You point out that I made a misrepresentation, which I did do by exclusion of a better example and citation. In Harris v Quinn, the plaintiff quit work to care for a sick relative. Finding out that Illinois had a program to assist home health care workers to help defray the costs. She enrolled in the program and was awarded a grant to help her take care of her relative. According to the Service Employees International Union, this made her an employee of the state of Illinois. Because the state of Illinois was a "union shop", it meant that all people of this sort were de facto "home health care employees of the state", and all home health care workers who received grants of this sort were compelled to pay union dues, whether they were employed by the state, the individual to whom they were providing health care, or whomever else. In this regard, anyone who the union deemed to be in the home health care profession, and who availed themselves of state assistance, were members of the union, and obligated to paying dues. [1] - http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court-decision-on-public-union-dues/1143/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court...

conanbatt 8y ago

3b. Mgmt decides to fire employees that are defaulting on their contract to work. 4. Mgmt hires new non-union workers.

sequoia 8y ago
Exactly. No one is "compelled" to do anything, the employer can fire everyone–that's their choice.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Employers can't fire people for being in unions. That's illegal. Either everyone should be protected, ie you can neither be fired for being in a union or for NOT being in a union, or nobody should be able to be fired for these things.