"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.
> > > ...

"G*rd*n" >:
> > 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.

"Alex Russell" >:
> 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.
> ...


Actually, when a union obtains a closed-shop contract with an
employer, it is simply dealing with the employer. Many
contracts may disadvantageously affect hypothetical third
parties, such as marriage, but in liberalism, which is our
frame of reference when we're talking about unions, that
isn't usually held to be an impediment to contracts.

The union members also contract with one another to form an
organization (the union). It is hard to imagine an effective
organization of any size which had to obtain the consent of
every single one of its members to do anything. Hence it
seems to me that the complaint about the use of dues (or
anything else the union does) being against the wishes of some
of its members is hardly valid.

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't