I appreciate you making this distinction; it's one I haven't understood clearly. My outside impression is that right-to-work is a campaign to smear unions, though I understand in some areas/professions they can only hire union workers.
Closed shop: must be a full union member to have the job
Fair share: you don’t have to join, but you must pay the portion of dues that go towards contract negotiations and enforcement
Right to work: they can’t make you do anything. In some cases even going as far as saying the employer does not have to deduct dues for members (who have agreed to it) pay
> even going as far as saying the employer does not have to deduct dues for members (who have agreed to it) pay
I'm surprised you frame this as an extreme example. Regardless of one's views on unions (they have their place), it seems way off for the employer to deduct those payments. Perhaps it's a convenience, but as a worker that is my money to pay to the union; if the union and the employer orchestrate the transfer of my membership payment behind closed doors before the money hits my account, it's makes it harder to feel the union is truly acting in my interests.
This is not just a matter of hygiene; for example, I was once in a (notoriously corrupt and socially reactionary) union here in Australia that represents retail workers. I didn't have a choice in the matter and my membership payments were deducted by my employer. About a decade later, a court ruled that a deal made between that employer and the union had left workers worse off (but was in the interests of the union bureaucracy). Incidents like this seriously damage the reputation of the union movement.
Having your dues deducted automatically in an environment of compulsory unionism doesn't seem to have much to do with empowering workers at all!
lokar|2 years ago
Closed shop: must be a full union member to have the job
Fair share: you don’t have to join, but you must pay the portion of dues that go towards contract negotiations and enforcement
Right to work: they can’t make you do anything. In some cases even going as far as saying the employer does not have to deduct dues for members (who have agreed to it) pay
cdogl|2 years ago
> even going as far as saying the employer does not have to deduct dues for members (who have agreed to it) pay
I'm surprised you frame this as an extreme example. Regardless of one's views on unions (they have their place), it seems way off for the employer to deduct those payments. Perhaps it's a convenience, but as a worker that is my money to pay to the union; if the union and the employer orchestrate the transfer of my membership payment behind closed doors before the money hits my account, it's makes it harder to feel the union is truly acting in my interests.
This is not just a matter of hygiene; for example, I was once in a (notoriously corrupt and socially reactionary) union here in Australia that represents retail workers. I didn't have a choice in the matter and my membership payments were deducted by my employer. About a decade later, a court ruled that a deal made between that employer and the union had left workers worse off (but was in the interests of the union bureaucracy). Incidents like this seriously damage the reputation of the union movement.
Having your dues deducted automatically in an environment of compulsory unionism doesn't seem to have much to do with empowering workers at all!