4 ms·

The company can hire you. Your unionized coworkers can decline to work with you, or for the company, if they do so. Would you deny them that right?

morgante 5y ago
No. Some union agreements specifically forbid the company from hiring non-union employees. That's what makes it a closed shop. "Right to work" states have it right here. A union should never forbid you from voluntarily transacting directly with an employer. If they do, they're just a protection racket.
- zorpner 5y ago
  Ok, so the union has negotiated a contract with the company, and as a part of this negotiation the company has agreed to specific terms of employment. Should they be prohibited from engaging in those negotiations, or agreeing to those terms?
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    I don't think the union contract should cover people who don't want it. If the company consents and an employee comments consents, why is the union when relevant? Why should they be able to barge in and mandate their terms?
    - eru 5y ago
      Careful! If you keep going in that direction, you might speak out against minimum wage laws next.
    - zorpner 5y ago
      It's a contract that the company has agreed to -- if they violate that contract, the consequences apply. Or should they be able to violate contracts negotiated between private parties?
      - missedthecue 5y ago
        If a company signs a contract with a supplier of aluminum or electricity should that contract cover every other supplier as well? Why do you only make this exception for suppliers of labor?
  - morgante 5y ago
    Yes, because it is monopolistic/anti-competitive behavior. In isolated cases, it doesn't seem so bad. But you eventually end up with entire industries dominated by unions where you can't work at all without paying their protection money. We have laws against corporations using market power to force monopolies. Unions also should not be able to legally monopolize the labor market.
    - lmm 5y ago
      I would agree that if unions were significantly larger and more powerful than corporations then there might be an issue (just as corporations being significantly larger and more powerful than individual workers is an issue - that is after all what unions exist to address). But I highly doubt this union is bigger and more powerful than the NYT, and I rather doubt that any union is as big and powerful as Google/Facebook/Amazon/Apple/etc..
      - eru 5y ago
        Many unions are active in entire industries (or more). Many companies are much smaller than that.
        lmm 5y ago
        Sure, and maybe in cases where a single union has a monopoly on the labour supply for an industry then certain counterbalances would be appropriate, like allowing smaller companies operating in that industry to negotiate collectively with that union. I really don't think that's a relevant concern in this instance though.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  I wonder if there have been situations where someone was banned from a union, but then couldn't find employment in their trained profession and home state because of the closed shop contract.

morgante 5y ago

No. Some union agreements specifically forbid the company from hiring non-union employees. That's what makes it a closed shop. "Right to work" states have it right here. A union should never forbid you from voluntarily transacting directly with an employer. If they do, they're just a protection racket.

zorpner 5y ago
Ok, so the union has negotiated a contract with the company, and as a part of this negotiation the company has agreed to specific terms of employment. Should they be prohibited from engaging in those negotiations, or agreeing to those terms?
- missedthecue 5y ago
  I don't think the union contract should cover people who don't want it. If the company consents and an employee comments consents, why is the union when relevant? Why should they be able to barge in and mandate their terms?
  - eru 5y ago
    Careful! If you keep going in that direction, you might speak out against minimum wage laws next.
  - zorpner 5y ago
    It's a contract that the company has agreed to -- if they violate that contract, the consequences apply. Or should they be able to violate contracts negotiated between private parties?
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      If a company signs a contract with a supplier of aluminum or electricity should that contract cover every other supplier as well? Why do you only make this exception for suppliers of labor?
- morgante 5y ago
  Yes, because it is monopolistic/anti-competitive behavior. In isolated cases, it doesn't seem so bad. But you eventually end up with entire industries dominated by unions where you can't work at all without paying their protection money. We have laws against corporations using market power to force monopolies. Unions also should not be able to legally monopolize the labor market.
  - lmm 5y ago
    I would agree that if unions were significantly larger and more powerful than corporations then there might be an issue (just as corporations being significantly larger and more powerful than individual workers is an issue - that is after all what unions exist to address). But I highly doubt this union is bigger and more powerful than the NYT, and I rather doubt that any union is as big and powerful as Google/Facebook/Amazon/Apple/etc..
    - eru 5y ago
      Many unions are active in entire industries (or more). Many companies are much smaller than that.
      - lmm 5y ago
        Sure, and maybe in cases where a single union has a monopoly on the labour supply for an industry then certain counterbalances would be appropriate, like allowing smaller companies operating in that industry to negotiate collectively with that union. I really don't think that's a relevant concern in this instance though.
dehrmann 5y ago
I wonder if there have been situations where someone was banned from a union, but then couldn't find employment in their trained profession and home state because of the closed shop contract.