[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.