Bargaining Fee versus Union Shop
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3342932 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John V Spielmans (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1957 |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 609 |
| Publication date | 1957-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Industrial and Labor Relations Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0019-7939 • E-ISSN: 2162-271X |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2520067 |
| OpenAlex | W4236358102 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
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.)
Business · Collective bargaining · Courtesy · Economics · Labour economics · Law and economics · Payment · Political science · Finance · Labor Movements and Unions · Law
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,02 |
| Citation span | 1985 - 1985 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |