I think this is what the difference between “right to work” states and not is. In “right to work” states, unions cannot stop someone from working at an employer. In non-right to work states, unions have more power to determine that, but I don’t understand how exactly.
Personally I find it pretty hard to reason through this. On one hand, right to work seems utterly reasonable, how can a third party tell an employer and employee that they can’t conduct business to their mutual satisfaction? But at the same time, it’s clear that right to work will gut unions. So if you feel that employers have too much power over employees and unions are a good answer to that, but also think it’s absurd to allow a third party to block an employment contract, then it seems like there are no options left.
Federal law allows for arrangements where employees can be required to join the union after being hired, or can choose to not join but have to pay the union a fee for their representation.
"Right-to-work" states change this and don't allow those arrangements: employees are free to not join and not pay.
The "closed shop," where only members of the union are hired, is illegal everywhere in the US under federal law.
- Closed shop - must belong to union to be hired. Outlawed in US in 1947.
- Union shop - must join union after being hired. Not allowed in right-to-work US states.
- Open shop - can optionally join union.
- Yellow-dog contract - forbidden to join union. Outlawed in US in 1932. Violated by some US employers.
US labor law dates from an era of strong unions, and basically outlines a set of rules under which management and labor can battle it out. Management won. In 1954, about 35% of US private sector workers belonged to a union. Today, that's about 6%. In Canada, 14% of private sector workers belong to a union today. In Germany, about 50%.
Yeah good luck working a job where everyone else is union and you’re not though, you’ll find your lunch missing and people will be total jerks to you at every possible turn…
> But at the same time, it’s clear that right to work will gut unions.
Not inherently. If a union is providing clear value to the employees, they'll presumably want to be a member. If an employee doesn't want to be a member, presumably they don't feel it provides them with commensurate value.
I think this is what the difference between “right to work” states and not is. In “right to work” states, unions cannot stop someone from working at an employer. In non-right to work states, unions have more power to determine that, but I don’t understand how exactly.
Personally I find it pretty hard to reason through this. On one hand, right to work seems utterly reasonable, how can a third party tell an employer and employee that they can’t conduct business to their mutual satisfaction? But at the same time, it’s clear that right to work will gut unions. So if you feel that employers have too much power over employees and unions are a good answer to that, but also think it’s absurd to allow a third party to block an employment contract, then it seems like there are no options left.