Editing Union security agreement

{{Short description|Contractual agreement between a trade union and an employer}}
A '''union security agreement''' is a contractual agreement, usually part of a [[trade union|union]] [[collective bargaining]] agreement, in which an employer and a trade or labor union agree on the extent to which the union may compel employees to join the union, and/or whether the employer will collect dues, fees, and assessments on behalf of the union.<ref name="Pynes">Pynes, Joan. ''Human Resources Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations.'' 2d ed. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons, 2004. {{ISBN|0-7879-7078-6}}</ref>

==Rationale==
The [[free-rider problem]] is often cited as the rationale for union security agreements. A classic study of the free rider problem is presented in [[Mancur Olson]]'s 1965 work, ''[[The Logic of Collective Action]].''<ref>Olson, Mancur. ''The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.'' 18th rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971. {{ISBN|0-674-53751-3}}</ref> In labor relations, the free rider problem exists because the costs of organizing a union and negotiating a contract with the employer can be very high, and because employers will find it too cumbersome to adopt multiple wage and benefit scales, some or all non-union members may find that the contract benefits them as well.<ref name="Cites">Towers, Brian. ''The Representation Gap: Change and Reform in the British and American Workplace.'' Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1997. {{ISBN|0-19-829319-4}}; Holley, William H.; Jennings, Kenneth M.; and Wolters, Roger S. ''The Labor Relations Process.'' 9th ed. Florence, Ky.: Cengage Learning, 2008. {{ISBN|0-324-42144-3}}; Beatty, David M. ''Putting the Charter to Work: Designing a Constitutional Labour Code.'' Toronto: McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 1987. {{ISBN|0-7735-0601-2}}; Bar-Niv, Zvi H. ''International Labour Law Reports, Volume 8.'' Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990. {{ISBN|0-7923-0429-2}}</ref>

Thus, the incentive is for some individual workers to "ride for free" by not paying the costs, which can lead to the collapse of the union and no collective bargaining agreement.<ref name="Cites" /> If the union collapses, each worker may be worse off than if the union had negotiated the agreement.<ref name="Cites" /> Union security agreements are one way of ensuring that all (or nearly all) workers pay their fair share of the costs of collective bargaining (e.g., join the union and pay dues).<ref name="Cites" /><ref>Not all scholars agree that a free rider problem exists in labor relations. See: Baird, Charles W. ''Opportunity or Privilege: Labor Legislation in America.'' New York: Transaction Publishers, 1984. {{ISBN|0-912051-02-7}}</ref>

One solution is for the state to provide rights (such as the right to administer welfare or pension funds, or to participate in a [[works council]]) or benefits (such as [[Unemployment benefits|unemployment insurance]]) only to unions or their members.<ref name="Rothstein">Rothstein, Bo. "Labour-Market Institutions and Working-Class Strength." In ''Power Resources Theory and the Welfare State: A Critical Approach: Essays Collected in Honour of Walter Korpi.'' Julia Sila O'Connor and Gregg Matthew Olsen, eds. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. {{ISBN|0-8020-7171-6}}</ref><ref name="Daubler">Daubler, Wolfgang. "The Individual and the Collective: No Problem for German Labor Law?" ''Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal.'' 10:505 (Summer 1989).</ref> Another solution is for unions to engage in members-only collective bargaining, which restricts the benefits of the contract to union members.<ref>[[Charles Morris (legal educator)|Morris, Charles]]. ''[[The Blue Eagle At Work|The Blue Eagle At Work: Reclaiming Democratic Rights In The American Workplace]].'' Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press, 2004. {{ISBN|0-8014-4317-2}}.</ref><ref name="Ulman">Ulman, Lloyd; Eichengreen, Barry J.; and Dickens, William T. ''Labor and an Integrated Europe.'' Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1993. {{ISBN|0-8157-8681-6}}</ref>

==Legal status==
The [[International Labour Organization]]'s [[Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention]] can "in no way be interpreted as authorising or prohibiting union security arrangements, such questions being matters for regulation in accordance with national practice."<ref>[http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/pdconv.pl?host=status01&textbase=iloeng&document=1905&chapter=3&query=(Denmark)+%40ref&highlight=&querytype=bool&context=0 "Case(s) No(s). 188, Report No. 34 (Denmark): Complaints against the Government of Denmark presented by Swiss Printing Workers' Union and the Swiss Federation of National Christian Trade Unions."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604190504/http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/pdconv.pl?host=status01&textbase=iloeng&document=1905&chapter=3&query=(Denmark)+@ref&highlight=&querytype=bool&context=0 |date=2011-06-04 }} Document No. 031960034188. Cases of the Committee on Freedom of Association. International Labor Organization. March 4, 1959.</ref>

Union security agreements are explicitly mentioned in the labor laws of many countries. They are regulated by law and in the [[United States]]<ref name="Pynes" /><ref>Gold, Michael Evan. ''An Introduction to Labor Law.'' 2d rev. ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998. {{ISBN|0-8014-8477-4}}</ref> and in the United Kingdom.<ref name="Ulman" />{{verification needed|date=April 2023}} In [[Canada]], the legal status of the union security agreement varies from province to province and at the federal level, with a few provinces permitting but not requiring it but the majority of provinces (and the federal government) requiring it if the union requests it.<ref>Bennett, James T. and Kaufman, Bruce E. ''The Future of Private Sector Unionism in the United States.'' Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2002. {{ISBN|0-7656-0852-9}}</ref>

In most [[Western European]] countries, the [[closed shop]] (one form of the union security agreement) is typically banned, while other forms typically go unregulated in labor law.<ref name="Ulman" /><ref>Kassalow, Everett M. "The Closed and Union Shop in Western Europe: An American Perspective." ''Journal of Labor Research.'' 1:2 (June 1980).</ref> This is not universal; for example, in [[Germany]] both the right to join a union and the right ''not'' to join a union are equally protected by law and the courts, and all forms of union security agreements are banned.<ref name="Daubler" /> The law in [[Belgium]] has similar provisions.<ref name="Ulman" /> Still, since participation in the unemployment insurance system is compulsory and only unions have the right to administer this system, union membership in Belgium remains high.<ref name="Rothstein" />

Outside [[North America]] and [[Western Europe]], the legal status of union security agreements varies even more widely. In [[New Zealand]], as of 1988, the closed shop was compulsory where a union organized the workplace.<ref>Davidson, Alexander. ''Two Models of Welfare: The Origins and Development of the Welfare State in Sweden and New Zealand, 1888-1988.'' Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1989. {{ISBN|91-554-2486-4}}</ref> In the [[Philippines]], various types of union security agreements are permitted under labor law.<ref>Mendoza, Quintin C. ''The Philippine Labor Relations Law.'' Manila, Philippines: Rex Book Store, 2001. {{ISBN|971-23-0583-X}}</ref> In [[Mexico]], the closed shop was mandatory until the early 1990s, when a change in federal law permitted the [[union shop]], [[agency shop]], or no agreement at all.<ref>Befort, Stephen F. and Cornett, Virginia E. "Beyond the Rhetoric of the NAFTA Treaty Debate: A Comparative Analysis of Labor and Employment Law in Mexico and the United States." ''Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal.'' 17:269 (Winter 1996).</ref><ref name="LaBotz">LaBotz, Dan. ''Mask of Democracy: Labor Suppression in Mexico Today.'' Boston: South End Press, 1992. {{ISBN|0-89608-437-X}}</ref> But because of the political ties between unions and the governing party in Mexico and other ways in which Mexican law favors established unions, the closed shop is essentially still the norm.<ref name="LaBotz" />

Many countries, however, have not addressed the issue of union security agreements. Neither [[Indonesia]]n nor [[Thailand|Thai]] labor law addresses the issue, and in both countries collective bargaining, union administrative procedures, and dues collection are so weak that the union security issues rarely arise.<ref>Levine, Marvin J. ''Worker Rights and Labor Standards in Asia's Four New Tigers: A Comparative Perspective.'' New York: Springer, 1997. {{ISBN|0-306-45477-7}}</ref> In [[Australia]], the legal status of union security agreements has varied widely across each state and the national government and over time. Australian labor law does not explicitly regulate union security agreements. However, various forms of the union security agreement have been favored at one time or another by each state, territory, or the national government, effectively regulating the favored type of union security agreement and disadvantaging its other forms.<ref>Weeks, Phillipa. ''Trade Union Security Law: A Study of Preference and Compulsory Unionism.'' Annandale, NSW, Australia: Federation Press, 1995. {{ISBN|1-86287-167-1}}</ref>

==Types==
Various types of union security agreements exist.  Among the more common are:
*'''[[Closed shop]]'''—The employer agrees to hire only union members. An employee who resigns from the union must be dismissed.<ref name="Pynes" />
*'''[[Union shop]]'''—The employer may hire anyone regardless of their union membership status, but the employee must join the union within a set time period (such as 30 days). An employee who resigns from the union must be dismissed.<ref name="Pynes" />
*'''[[Agency shop]]'''—The employer may hire anyone regardless of their union membership status, and the employee need not join the union. However, all non-union employees must pay a fee (known as the "agency fee") to the union to cover the costs of collective bargaining (and, in some countries, other fees as well). An employee who resigns from the union may not be dismissed but must pay the agency fee.<ref name="Pynes" />
*'''Fair share provision'''—The employer may hire anyone regardless of their union membership status, and the employee need not join the union. However, all non-union employees must pay a fee (known as the "fair share fee") to the union to cover the costs of collective bargaining. An employee who resigns from the union may not be dismissed but must pay the fair share fee.<ref name="Pynes" /> In public sector collective bargaining, where the agency shop is often outlawed, the fair share provision (almost identical to the agency fee) may be negotiated instead.<ref>Marczely, Bernadette. ''Human Resource and Contract Management in the Public School: A Legal Perspective.'' New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. {{ISBN|0-8108-4379-X}}</ref>
*'''Dues checkoff'''—A contract between the employer and union where the employer agrees to collect the dues, fees, assessments, and other monies from union members and/or non-members directly from each worker's paycheck and transmit those funds to the union on a regular basis.<ref name="Pynes" />
* Some jurisdictions mandate an [[open shop]], which does not require union membership or union dues.

== ''Janus v. AFSCME'' ==
{{Main|Janus v. AFSCME}}
''Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31'', _ US _ (2018) is a [[US labor law]] case, concerning whether governments violate the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] when they require their employees to pay fees to a union as a condition of employment.

In February 2015, [[Illinois]] Republican Governor [[Bruce Rauner]] filed suit, claiming that [[fair-share agreement]]s are unconstitutional and a violation of the [[First Amendment]] right to free speech.

In March 2015, three government workers from Illinois represented by attorneys from the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center and Virginia-based [[National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation]] took legal action to intervene in the case.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.illinoispolicy.org/press-releases/state-workers-in-illinois-sue-to-end-mandatory-union-fees/|title=State workers in Illinois sue to end mandatory union fees|date=2015-03-23|work=Illinois Policy|access-date=2018-06-21|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/unions-battle-for-survival-in-key-strongholds-as-court-cases-challenge-forced-dues/|title=Unions battle for survival in key strongholds as court cases challenge forced dues|last=Ravve|first=Ruth|date=2015-04-06|work=Fox News|access-date=2018-06-21|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/3-state-employees-want-to-join-rauner-lawsuit-over-fair-share-union-fees/|title=3 state employees want to join Rauner lawsuit over 'fair share' union fees|work=Chicago Sun-Times|access-date=2018-06-21|language=en}}</ref> In May 2015, Rauner was dropped from the case, after a federal judge ruled that the governor did not have standing to bring such a suit, but the case proceeded under a new name, ''Janus v. AFSCME.''<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-rauner-fair-share-union-lawsuit-met-0520-20150519-story.html|title=Judge drops Rauner 'fair share' suit, lets non-union workers' case proceed|last=Pearson|first=Rick|work=chicagotribune.com|access-date=2018-06-21|language=en-US}}</ref> The case is named after Mark Janus, an Illinois child support specialist covered by a [[Collective agreement|collective bargaining agreement]].

Janus claimed that he should not need to pay fees to the [[American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees]] because doing so constitutes paying for political speech with which Janus disagrees.<ref>{{cite web| url=https://ljc-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/12/Rauner-v.-AFSCME-120-First-Amended-Complaint-2015.06.01.pdf | title=Case: 1:15-cv-01235 - MARK JANUS, MARIE QUIGLEY, and BRIAN TRYGG v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31; General teamsters/professional & technical employees Local Union no. 916; Tom Tyrrell | date=2015-06-01 | access-date=2024-01-29}}</ref> This became permissible after a 1977 decision by the [[US Supreme Court]] in ''[[Abood v. Detroit Board of Education]]''.

In June 2018, the [[US Supreme Court]] ruled in favor of Janus, in a 5–4 decision, and stated that "States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees".<ref>{{cite web| url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf | title=JANUS v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL | date=2018-06-27 | access-date=2024-01-29}}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External links==
{{Portal|Organized labour}}
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20110724225129/http://www.aflplayers.org/documents/CBA/Article_V_Union_Security.pdf Sample union security agreement] Arena Football Players Association and Arena Football League, 2007-2015.
*[http://www.nflplayers.com/user/template.aspx?fmid=181&lmid=231&pid=512&type=c Sample union security agreement] National Football League Players Association and National Football League, 2006-2012.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20110721195701/http://www.seiu503.org/assets/assetcontent/7c8327d7-9acf-4ebd-b068-c536cbe80e2a/546bfa9e-94e2-495f-9d30-54cc81f55e47/9ad3074b-0fd3-44bd-a294-c2b17c4f3e39/1/CCAFCMbrApp.pdf Sample membership form] [[Service Employees International Union|SEIU]] Local 503 (mentioning union security agreement as part of dues notice)

{{Organized labor}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Labor relations]]
[[Category:Industrial agreements]]