[chimeracoder]

> The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation considers anything but "open shop" to be "forced unionism" and lists 28 states as free from that scourge.[1] No exclusive contracts, no agency fees.

I think you're conflating open shops and right-to-work laws, but besides that, the point is that there is no free rider problem even in states with right-to-work laws, because the union can structure their contracts with the employer so that non-members don't receive any benefits. Sure, they'll represent non-members, but there aren't any reasons the non-members would ever need them to, because the benefits literally would not apply in the first place.

Unions don't really talk about this, because the free-rider problem is a convincing argument to use in favor of mandatory dues withholding, but in reality it's an issue that they already have the tools to avoid.

[pseudalopex]

NRTW's definition of "right to work" appears to be the common definition. It's also the common definition of "open shop".

Minority unions can bargain only for their members -- but as far as I can tell, members can't commit to be bound by the outcome, which undermines the union's bargaining power. Even then, the prevailing legal opinion seems to be that they can't negotiate terms that structurally favor members over non-members.

Majority unions have to represent all workers in a bargaining unit, members or not.

[chimeracoder]

> NRTW's definition of "right to work" appears to be the common definition. It's also the common definition of "open shop".

Not quite, because you can have an open shop in a state that doesn't have a right-to-work law. Right to work laws only ensure that workers have the ability to dissociate from the union without losing their employment.

> Minority unions can bargain only for their members -- but as far as I can tell, members can't commit to be bound by the outcome, which undermines the union's bargaining power.

Alternative way of phrasing that: Only unions which represent the majority have the ability to compel all members to accept whatever terms they negotiate.

> Majority unions have to represent all workers in a bargaining unit

They have to represent them for things like grievances, yes, but that doesn't mean that they can't pick and choose which subgroups they advocate for in negotiations over others.

That's literally what negotiating is - you have to figure out what you're willing to give up in order to get what you value more. And a union with a heterogeneous membership will inevitably have to decide which group of members to prioritize over others.

The purpose of right-to-work laws is to limit their ability to marginalize minority members, because those minority members always have a second option that doesn't involve unemployment.

[pseudalopex]

> you can have an open shop in a state that doesn't have a right-to-work law

"Right to work" laws are also called "open shop" laws because that's what they mandate. Of course unions can choose not to collect agency fees in other states.

Going back to the beginning, you claimed that unions can negotiate closed shops. The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed closed shops, NLRB v. General Motors made union shops equivalent to agency shops, and 28 states forbid agency shops.

> Alternative way of phrasing that: Only unions which represent the majority have the ability to compel all members to accept whatever terms they negotiate.

No, those statements aren't equivalent. Plenty of other negotiations see parties authorize their representatives to agree to terms within certain parameters. Plenty of contracts commit the parties to accept the result of some process.

> They have to represent them for things like grievances, yes, but that doesn't mean that they can't pick and choose which subgroups they advocate for in negotiations over others.

They can't choose members as one of those groups. If other groupings correlate with membership, sure, they can get away with some favoritism. You originally claimed they can exclude non-members entirely.

[chimeracoder]

> Going back to the beginning, you claimed that unions can negotiate closed shops

This is a rather pedantic quibble. In the US, "closed shop" refers to post-entry closed shops, which are legal (except in states with right-to-work laws), as opposed to pre-entry closed shops (which is what Taft-Hartley outlawed nationwide).

Despite that ban, unions can still use tactics like hiring halls (even contractually mandated ones) to simulate the effects of a pre-entry closed shop, while still technically not running afoul of the letter of Taft-Hartley, but undermining the clear intent of it.

> No, those statements aren't equivalent. Plenty of other negotiations see parties authorize their representatives to agree to terms within certain parameters. Plenty of contracts commit the parties to accept the result of some process.

You're missing the point, which is that unions can compel people who never entered a contract with the union or authorized the union as their representative, as long as that person is a member of a bargaining unit for which the union has secured majority representation.

[pseudalopex]

I only brought up the distinction between closed shop and union shop to cite sources. You can call them whatever you like. The Supreme Court says unions can't require actual membership, only fees, and in 28 states they can't require that either.

Hiring halls are subject to the same laws. Individual cases of discrimination can be hard to prove, but patterns are hard to defend.

Federal law sets the terms of union representation. Some union members would be happy to have collective bargaining for union members and individual bargaining for non-members, but that isn't an option.