Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935

So what I'm getting from that and this (https://www.vorysonlabor.com/2014/07/articles/nlrb/how-many-unions-can-your-workplace-support/) is that if workers are "substantially connected" then they have to fall under one negotiator, but each type of employee can be under a different union. So the office workers and warehouse workers can fall under different unions.

I don't have a substantial issue with that division, but I think it might be better to allow workers to join multiple groups within the work place, mainly because I highly doubt that you would end up with two separate unions bargaining lower rates against each other to do the same job so I don't see it as an effective change.

dad joke to be sure

Think of it like this. Imagine a shop of plumbers. In the US, by law all the plumbers have to be represented by the same union. In Europe, some plumbers can be represented by one union, others can be represented by another, and so on and so on.

/e and unions compete by getting better deals for their members, not lowering prices for management.

This post was edited by Santara on Oct 30 2020 12:23pm

I'd support removal of right to work tied with a law that removes single unionship then.

We could totally remove minimum wage and pro union laws if we also did the same to the other side of the coin, but most of the time I hear the right pushing the removal of worker protections without also pushing the end of things like right to work to even the playing field.

I'd like a Scandanavian style free labor market where unions and employers are unencumbered, but in the states for most of our history we had police and mercenaries shooting into union rallies. Hardly an even playing field lol.

Eliminating exclusive bargaining renders right to work laws moot.

We should allow exclusive bargaining but not mandated by the government, but with specific lengths of time mandated in the contract and the like

Pick one.

I'm saying that unions should have the right to negotiate for exclusive bargaining in their contract with a business, but it shouldn't be mandated by the government as we have it now.

If that's what the company wants, there'd already be nothing stopping them from choosing to only negotiate with one union. But for a union to force it onto the company? That's gonna be a no from me, dawg.