Talk:Union shop

Assessment
This article cannot be classed as "high" on the Importance scale. That assessment is not justified by the article at all. In fact, in many countries, this concept does not even exist; in others (such as where compulsory unionism exists) it is not an issue. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Legality of the Union Shop in the US
This article is really janky in terms of describing the rules surrounding a Union Shop in the United States. It also needlessly confuses the term "Union Shop" for readers who want to understand the distinction made by closed-shop vs. union-shop vs. right-to-work.

The term "Union Shop" remains the broadly accepted term in the U.S. for all states in which union dues can be required of workers as a condition of employment. There is a single citation to Pattern Makers League of North America v NLRB which gives little concrete legal opinion that the Pattern Makers decision invalidates the union shop, outside of some rhetorical remarks in Justice Blackmun's dissent. Pattern Makers prevents unions from levying fines against members who formally resign, but this distinction is not generally accepted as fundamentally changing the Taft-Hartley Act's notion of a "Union Shop," which has was understood both before and after the decision as an establishment that mandates union dues, but does not allow unions say over hiring decisions like a closed shop. Declaring that it does deem the Union Shop illegal is a rhetorical device, not a generally accepted legal opinion.

This is important simply for the sake of defining commonly used terminology. Non "right-to-work" laws in the U.S. are referred to as "Union Shop" states. Wildgunman (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)