Talk:Closed shop
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Start | rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
Contents |
[edit] Globalize
I came here hoping to read about the closed shop in the UK (and its eventual demise), which was a major political argument for years. Instead I see an article with not one word on anywhere outside the USA, and to a minor extent Canada - and worse, not the slightest acknowledgement that the setup even exists/ed in other countries. Not good enough. Sadly I don't have the ability to write what I was hoping for myself, but maybe someone else can? 81.158.1.234 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Based on the edit history, the lack of non-USA information was recognized in 2005, and USA writers were asking for help from writers who could add information for other countries. I'll rate it top importance for the Labour Project, and maybe that'll bring some help here. -- SueHay 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- No such concept in Portugal, and I dare say the same about the rest of southern Europe, and by extension Latin America. Workers would be persecuted by joining unions, not mandated to. Galf 07:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whereas in central and northern Europe, membership in the Arbeiterkammer is mandatory *sigh*. samwaltz 05:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- No such concept in Portugal, and I dare say the same about the rest of southern Europe, and by extension Latin America. Workers would be persecuted by joining unions, not mandated to. Galf 07:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Closed shop in Canada
'The 1946 Supreme Court ruling Rand formula determined largely that, while Section Two of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed both the freedom to associate and the freedom not to associate, employees in a work-environment largely dominated by a union were beficiaries of union policies, and, as such, should pay union fees, regardless of membership status (see dues shop).' This seems to imply that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms existed at the time of the 1946 Supreme Court ruling. This is, of course, incorrect as the Charter's date is 1982. Also the word should be spelled 'beneficiaries.' Grandma Roses (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion
THIS DELETED: In Australia, the term closed shop is also used to describe a situation where busineses have non-compete agreements, which is illegal under ACCC regulations.[1]...
I dispute this claim. It is too new a law for us to be claiming there is now a language developing around it. If you check the article, the term closed shop is used in quotation marks only, and in fact is used by the journalist to describe the freezing out of a doctor: two other doctors managed to cut him out of the industry when he refused to sumbit to their scheme. The use of "closed shop" was not used to refer to the non-complete agreements that doctor had originally rejected. Format (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Closed Shop in UK law
I believe that the Employment Act 1990 doesn't strictly make the closed shop 'illegal', rather it removes the legal protection the closed shop had had. This meant if somneone lost their job because of non-membership of a union they could sue for wrongful dismissal. Thus they became inopperable, rather than illegal. Belboid (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Belboid
