DU'ers - Anyone work in a "closed shop?"

I want to know how this works from someone who actually works in one, not from TV's talking heads.

And is there a way, legally or operationally, to eliminate the "covers all" aspect of collective bargaining so if these IDIOTS really do want lower wages and benefits, they can have them and we eliminate our free-rider problem without creating politically polarizing systems like "closed shops?"

If I had to choose between 1) limiting the collective bargaining contracts to only those who are dues-paying union members or 2) creating closed shops, I would absolutely choose the first.

Watch how quick the anti-union conservatives change their tune and join once they're making 30% lower wages.

ed for sp

I saw no advocacy. Did we read different OPs?

And since they're making a conscious choice to not join the union, I don't see how they could complain about this.

My question is though, do collective bargaining agreements cover all employees, union and non-union, because the law says they have to, or because "this is the way it's always been done." If the latter, what would it take to change this?

ed for sp

This is an evil site, but it does discuss that topic: http://www.nrtw.org/d/rctunctaa.htm

Let them fend for themselves, if they're so smart.

The "No-Bills" leech off of the dues-paying members.

Union democracy is a real issue, but forbidding collective bargaining is not the solution to it.

:evilgrin:

but I think it refers to those employees who choose not to join the union, but still get all (or most) of the same benefits and protections.

we had quite a few of those. They refused to join and said that they didn't need it but the moment they had a question about their rights or representation...

they paid dues but did not join. "Closed" union shop . CWA/AT&T. Needless to say they always needed a stewart. While the law required that we represent them, It didn't say which stewards. WE REPRESENTED all members in the bargaining unit, and yes we were required to, Occasionaly we;d have a scab who neglected to quit the union before scabbing. they paid dearly, non members were free to scab.

I believe a "free-rider" is an employee who has benefited from the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union, but who choose not to pay the union dues and join the union. I believe it exists because while an employee can choose whether or not to pay dues and join the union, the collective bargaining, by law or by precedent, has to cover everyone who works for that employer.

I support changing the collective-bargaining "covers all" provision because I believe it is 1) more effective and 2) seen as more fair than the politically divisive "closed shop" system. A closed shop affects everyone, current and potential employees, union and non-union, in response to a problem that the union has with free-riders. It can, by conservatives, be called "unfair" because 1) it puts the union's problem of freeloaders on everyone else's shoulders and 2) it requires the unemployed to join a union in order to get a job at their employer of choice, even those who, because they're idiots frankly, are opposed to unions.

We give the neocons political dynamite with closed shops.

In contrast, eliminating the covers-all provision, in my opinion, is actually inherently FAIR because it gives those who have contributed to the cause their share, and withholds from those who have chosen not to contribute to the cause. Everyone is affected by their choices only.

Taft Hartley outlawed the closed shop in 1947. Only union shops(in non rtw states) and open shops (rtw states) remain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop

new hires to pay dues, not to join the union and certainly not before

Free Riders exist primarily in "Right to Work" states where unions negotiate contracts with employers but employees, while not required to pay agency fees to the union (union dues) are included by law in the bargaining unit and receive the same pay and benefits as union members. It's an old tactic for weakening unions by requiring the union to provide bargaining services to employees who are under no obligation to pay for those services.

No one, nowhere in the US is required to join a union. In non RTW states employees who do not wish to join are only required to pay for their share of the cost of the bargaining that gets them the contract, pay and benefits that they receive. If they don't want to pay their portion for political contributions the union makes, they don't have to. (Beck v CWA, 1988)

were completely optional according to state "right to work" laws. See the problem.


The Free Rider problem exists in many fields of economics. Public Television Pledge drives are a great example. The term originates from how public transportation functions if enough people pay, but if too many people cheat then the system is insolvent.

and that's a political millstone around our neck. If we change the way CBA's work, that is, cover only those who pay, we eliminate free riders without the political albatross of "union shops."

ed for sp

Federal law has to be changed. Free Riders are required to be included in the bargaining unit and receive the same pay and benefits, IIRC it's in section 14c? of the NLRA.

In other words, if you look at the union as a business, they are required by law to provide services to people who are under no obligation to pay for those services. The bastards that crafted Taft-Hartley knew EXACTLY what they were doing. :grr:

You got hired, you did your paperwork, which included signing on to the UFCW. I don't remember anyone ever complaining about it.

... as a stock boy at grocery store.

Don

A closed shop would be a place that can only hire union members. A Union Shop, which is legal, can hire anyone, but that person has to join the union within a specified period or lose their job. Agency shop doesn't require technical membership, but does require payment for the service the union renders as a negotiator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop


All of these relate to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement

Now the idea of a contract that applies only to a few is against the purpose of collective bargaining. But if you tried it, the employers would simply fire the higher earning group and replace them with low wage workers.

Apparently they don't even exist now? :shrug:

IF they say they exist they are lying bastards and need to be called out on it.

Here's a page with some easy to understand breakdowns of the facts:

http://righttoworkfacts.com/

Employees were not required to join the union, but still enjoyed all the rights and privileges detailed in the bargaining agreement. During the last contract negotiations a couple of years ago, the union went to 'fair share', which still does not require union membership but does require deducting a fee from their wages, which is paid to the union for the benefits shared by all. I don't know how this fee compares to union dues, though.

and an arbitrator will adjust their payment to reflect their share of what the union is able to demonstrate has been spent providing a service for the worker. This means that the percentage of the dues that go to lobbying, public relations, organization drives of other areas, etc, will be deducted from the normal fee.

amount to. I think it's a percentage of gross wages, or something.

Some unions have claimed that it is not reasonably possible to separate activities at that level. It has given the right to work bubbas a bunch of ammunition.

EVIL SITE WARNING: http://www.nrtw.org/d/rctunctaa.htm is an example of how that works with the Calif Teachers Assoc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=224364

Jebus, what did it finally take??