make stuff up?  If you say so.  I'd suggest you read up on labor law, but doubt you will.

And, FWIW, if you bothered to look it up you'd know closed shops have been illegal under FEDERAL law (Taft Hartley antitrust since at least the 40s).   But, of course, federal law is irrelevant, right?

Andrew--that would probably be a union shop, where persons who were not members could be hired, and then become members of the union after a period of time.  But, as I recall, Taft Hartley prohibits closed shops (only union members can be hired) shops (even the article degeeees says that).

But I also recall that there have been NLRB and court opinions saying one could not be compelled to support political activities of a union, which gave way to the agency shops.  I don't know what the law would be if a union only charged its membership the equivalenet of an agency fee and had a separate political arm funded by voluntary contributions of the membership, but concede in that context a union shop might be legal. 

Andrew--if I get a chance I'll do some research, but I recall a number of USSC decisions since the 60s that said the only requirement of a union that is enforceable against a person not wanting to join is to force the payment of dues and initiation fees and also that it was impermissible for union to force those who choose not to to support its political activities.  This, in effect, appears to be what an agency shop is--the union is paid for the services it renders for the employee.  Many states have adopted agency shop rules to assure this is enforced, but I think the SC has spoken fairly clearly on this.

By the way, i do believe the terms closed shop, union shop, and agency shop are  legal terms used by the courts and the NLRB, not colloquial ones

Well, besides pointing out that people cannot be compelled to pay dues to be used for political purposes, Big RR also wrote that "under current labor law no one can be compelled to join a union to work ...."  It is that portion to which I took exception, and it seems clear from the statutory language that federal labor law explicitly provides that a person can be compelled to join a union to work:  Isn't that what "nothing in ... any ... statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization ... to require as a condition of employment membership therein" self-evidently means?