[Marxism] Michigan’s Anti-Union Law Breaks Hearts and Backs

Joonas Laine jjonas at nic.fi
Mon Dec 17 12:54:23 MST 2012


On 12/16/2012 08:02 PM, Dennis Brasky wrote:
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/michigan-s-anti-union-law-breaks-hearts-and-backs.html

This is interesting, could someone explain the context concerning the
position of the unions, it's not explained fully in the referred piece
of news, nor in another Bloomberg piece here (or at least I'm not
getting it):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/unions-begin-long-war-after-stunning-blow-in-michigan.html

Wikipedia says on 'Right-to-work law' that

"A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that
prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions
and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can
require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a
condition of employment, either before or after hiring."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Questions: How does a union become "established" in the sense used
above? By "convincing" individual employers, one by one? If a union
becomes "established" in this way, does it mean that effectively you
have a closed shop, with only union members? If yes, how common is this?

-- 
jjonas @ nic.fi




More information about the Marxism mailing list