Colonel William A. Phillips

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Organized Labour Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whereas in central and northern Europe, membership in the Arbeiterkammer is mandatory *sigh*. samwaltz 05:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

This article cannot be classed as "high" on the Importance scale of the LabourProject. 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. The article has been re-assessed. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947, but permits the union shop, except in those states that have passed right-to-work laws, in which case even the union shop is illegal."

What's the difference?

"An employer may not lawfully agree with a union to hire only union members; it may, on the other hand, agree to require employees to join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues to it after a set period of time."

Again, I don't see any difference here. Can someone explain this to me? Captain Quirk (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pre-entry closed shop (US- a closed shop, I believe) means that you have to be a member of the union before being employed by this employer. For instance, it used to be the case that you had to be a member of the NUJ (national union of journalists) in order to be employed by a national newspaper. The only route to get your union card was to join a local newspaper as a trainee. So, for instance, an expert economist could not be employed as the economics correspondent of a national newspaper without having served his time on a local newspaper. A post-entry closed shop (US- union shop, I believe) means that anyone can be taken on, but they then have to pay their union dues. Legal systems seem to differ across the world in what they allow. Gravuritas (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Closed shop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130815224141/http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/SWEDEN/ANCHOR-ORGANISATIONSKLAUSUL-SE.htm to http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/SWEDEN/ANCHOR-ORGANISATIONSKLAUSUL-SE.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]