Us labor time line according to the chart, the first successful union was organized in. federal laws assisting workers in collective bargaining were passed in.

hey you! i hope this will help you!

Explanation:

From the earliest days of the American colonies, when apprentice laborers in Charleston, S.C., went on strike for better pay in the 1700s, to the first formal union of workers in 1829 who sought to reduce their time on the job to 60 hours a week, our nation’s working people have recognized that joining together is the most effective means of improving their lives on and off the job.

The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions was formed in 1881, and theAmerican Federation of Labor (AFL) was founded five years later. Congress became more sympathetic toward the labor force as time passed, which led to the creation of the Department of Labor.

Modern US labor law mostly comes from statutes passed between 1935 and 1974, and changing interpretations of the US Supreme Court. However, laws regulated the rights of people at work and employers from colonial times on.

Background

As more and more states debate whether a right-to-work law is right for their state, the issue has become increasingly charged with campaigns of misinformation and rhetoric.

For example, a right-to-work law does not prohibit employees from voluntarily joining a labor union, nor does it prohibit them from paying union dues voluntarily. Labor unions operate in right-to-work states, but the law protects each workers’ civil rights and freedom of association by prohibiting the payment of union dues from being a required condition of employment. The purpose of a right-to-work law is to protect anyone from being forced to choose between paying money to a cause he or she might oppose and making a living.

The arguments against right-to-work claim such laws are designed to cripple unions by allowing “free riders” to take advantage of the representation and services provided by a union without sharing in the cost. Right-to-work opponents say federal law requires unions to represent all workers at a company, whether or not they pay union dues, leaving unions in an impossible situation.  

Federal law does not obligate unions to represent non-members.  Under the National Labor Relations Act, unions can represent only their dues-paying members under a “members-only” contract.  The benefits secured under these contracts apply only to dues-paying members.  As noted by the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board William Gould, “the law now permits ‘members-only’ bargaining for employees.”  

Unions are only required to represent non-union workers if union executives choose to take on exclusive bargaining representation.  Exclusive bargaining representation gives unions a monopoly, because it specifies that only one union may organize and represent employees in a unit.  Employees may not represent themselves when negotiating with their employer, nor may any other union compete for membership.

This monopoly bargaining option means a union has decided to represent and negotiate on behalf of all employees in a company, regardless of whether every employee wants that representation. It also eliminates competition from other unions seeking to represent the same workers.

However, if unions opt for exclusive representation, the law then requires them to negotiate equally for all workers.  That is, as the exclusive representative, the union cannot negotiate a lower wage that discriminates against non-members.

If a union decides against exclusive monopoly bargaining, it is not required to represent non-members.  In that case only the members with a signed contract are required to pay dues and the union negotiates only for those members.  In practice unions almost always seek exclusive representation status, since it gives them a monopoly position in the workplace.

discrimination! they faced a lot of racism

so, what do you think and i can you from