Final answer:
The best arrangement between unions and workers depends on their specific needs and situations. While the Taft-Hartley Act banned closed and union shops, it opened the door for a variety of arrangements like the union shop, modified union shop, and agency shop. Compromise between worker benefits and employer needs often determines the effectiveness of the arrangement.
Step-by-step explanation:
The best type of arrangement between unions and workers can vary depending on the specific circumstances and preferences of the workers and the employers involved. The Taft-Hartley Act, which came to effect after World War II, had banned closed shops and union shops that required employees to join a union as a condition of employment. The act allowed for different types of labor arrangements such as the union shop, modified union shop, and the agency shop. Union shops mandate that all employees must join the union after a certain period of working at the company, whereas modified union shops require union membership only for current and future employees, not necessarily for existing non-union workers. Agency shops do not require union membership but do require that all workers pay union fees. The 'best' arrangement typically is the one that balances the interests of the workers with the financial and operational needs of the employer.
Presidential interventions, such as those during the 2002-2015 labor disputes involving longshoremen, highlight the complexity of the relationship between unions and employers. The ultimate agreement in that instance allowed for the introduction of labor-saving technology, while also maintaining high wages, health, and pension benefits, which may not be directly analogous to the best union arrangement but shows the importance of negotiation and compromise.