"G*rd*n" > wrote in message
...
> "Alex Russell" >:
> > ...
> > The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
> > course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.
> >
> > I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
> > right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use
members
> > dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
> > contributions.
> > ...
>
>
> A closed shop is the outcome of the normal use of the rights
> of association and contract. It is not the closed shop
> which infringes on the rights of contract, but laws against
> the closed shop.
>
>
> --
>
> (<><>) /*/
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
> { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't


Generally only the owner of a property can make contracts regarding the
property, but in the case of a "closed shop", it is an association of
employees imposing their contract on all employees of the owner's property.

Employees and the owner do not have the option of working outside of the
union contract except for management jobs. To me this does interfere with
the normal right of individuals to work where they want, under conditions
mutually agreed on by them and the owner. I have not heard of this happening
without government intervention.

It would give employees and the employer more freedom if employees could
choose to join the union, or make their own deal with the owner. I do
understand that in practise owners of large properties have abused their
position as owners and the "closed shop" is meant to even out the real life
balance of power.


--
Alex Russell