Abstract
The continuing controversy over the union shop is usually phrased in terms of compulsory versus voluntary union membership. In this article, a further distinction is made between the payments now required of union members and the payment which a union may rightfully claim for those services solely rendered to workers as their agent. The author suggests that compulsory payment of this bargaining fee is preferable to compulsory membership clauses and to the present requirements of the Taft-Hartley Act. (Author's abstract courtesy EBSCO.)
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
