tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post5877017610263764423..comments2024-01-09T15:03:54.986-05:00Comments on Wolf Howling: Marx & The Communist Manifesto, From Feb. 21, 1848 To TodayGWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-24323872899006597982011-02-22T20:28:36.646-05:002011-02-22T20:28:36.646-05:00From Bill M:
What I meant was, there’s three leve...From Bill M:<br /><br />What I meant was, there’s three levels of union protection agreement, right:<br /><br /> <br /><br />1. The closed shop (where you must join a union before getting a job)<br /><br />2. The union shop (where you must join the union after getting a job)<br /><br />3. The agency shop (where you must either join the union or pay a fee in lieu for their bargaining services)<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now the first of these was outlawed by Taff Hartley in the US in 1947, but the latter two were legal, but could be banned under “right-to-work” laws by the individual states. Now my understanding (I could be wrong!) was Wisconsin state employees operate under the third of these, and that what’s Scott Walker is trying to remove? <br /><br />The strange thing is here in Britain I think all three would already be illegal right now. The Thatcher legislation you mentioned in the article was consolidated in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which goes as follows:<br /><br />s.137 Refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership. <br /><br />(1)It is unlawful to refuse a person employment—<br /><br />(a)because he is, or is not, a member of a trade union [so no closed shops], or <br /><br />(b)because he is unwilling to accept a requirement—<br /><br />(ii) to take steps to become or cease to be, or to remain or not to become, a member of a trade union,[ditto union shops] or<br /><br />(ii) to make payments or suffer deductions in the event of his not being a member of a trade union.[again, same for the agency shop]<br /><br />Funny thing is I remember at the time it generally was thought over here she was just copying the US example! I guess at least some of the “right-to-work” states must pre-date her, but it’s pretty surprising to find that kind of working arrangement still going on in the US. We always tend to think of dubious union practices and overly stroppy defences thereof as being the “British Disease” I suppose, and imagine the US free of that kind of thing.GWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-49279302031226805992011-02-21T23:51:06.545-05:002011-02-21T23:51:06.545-05:00Bill, by all means, do please expound on that thou...Bill, by all means, do please expound on that thought.GWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-86753994151165766002011-02-21T18:42:15.092-05:002011-02-21T18:42:15.092-05:00Funny thing is I think the current teachers' u...Funny thing is I think the current teachers' union arrangements would be illegal under current British Law...billm99ukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652530649924159098noreply@blogger.com