Question: Do a majority workers in Finland belong to a Union if one is available ofr their position?
About the article "Finland", section "Public policy".

Candidate passages:
Agency Shop Agreements are struck by a majority trade union (either one union, or a coalition of unions representing the majority of workers employed) and an employer or employers' organisation.
This agreement requires employers to deduct a fee from the wages of non-union workers to "ensure that non-union workers, who benefit from the union’s bargaining efforts, make a contribution towards those efforts".
Permission from the employee is not required for deductions to be assessed.
However, if the employee is a conscientious objector, that is refuses membership in a trade union on the grounds of conscience, she or he may request that their fees are paid to a fund administered by the Department of Labour. 
Public approval of unions climbed during the 1980s much as it did in other industrialized nations, but declined to below 50% for the first time in 2009 during the Great Recession.
It is not clear if this is a long term trend or a function of a high unemployment rate which historically correlates with lower public approval of labor unions.
One explanation for loss of public support is simply the lack of union power or critical mass.
No longer do a sizable percentage of American workers belong to unions, or have family members who do.
Unions no longer carry the “threat effect”: the power of unions to raise wages of non-union shops by virtue of the threat of unions to organize those shops. 
Shop stewards are union representatives, "the infantry of the trade union."
They play a very important role in industrial relations, being in the best position to represent the union in the workplace and to relay information about the workplace to the union.
They look after the day-to-day operation of the union and the protection and assistance of workers with their work-related problems.
Their statutory role is to ensure compliance with the law and with collective agreements.
Section 14 of the LRA provides that members of a registered trade union, provided that the union represents the majority of employees in the workplace, are entitled to elect trade-union representatives if the union has at least ten members in the workplace.
The nomination, election, terms of office and removal from office of representatives are governed by the union’s constitution.
The number of representatives is determined according to the number of union members in the specific workplace.
For example, if there are only between ten and fifty union members, there will be two representatives.
The amount increases on a sliding scale.
The maximum number of representatives is twenty.
The functions of union representatives are set out in section 14(4) of the LRA:  to assist and represent the employee at his request in grievance and disciplinary proceedings;  to monitor the employer’s compliance with the LRA and all other applicable laws;  to report alleged contraventions of LRA or collective agreements to the employer, the representative trade union and the responsible authority or agency; and  to perform any other function agreed between representative trade union and the employer.
Shop stewards are employed by the employer, not by the union.
Grogan describes "the difficult position in which shop stewards find themselves," keeping two sets of books, or attempting "to serve two masters," their employer and their trade union—masters whose interests are often diametrically opposed.
"This situation is particularly difficult," writes Grogan, "when shop stewards also occupy supervisory or managerial positions."
The courts have held, however, that employers may not for this reason forbid managerial employees from being elected as shop stewards; the most they can do is to discipline them if their union role actually prevents them from performing their managerial duties properly.
The distinction between union officials and union representatives (like shop stewards) is an important one.
Trade-union officials are employees of the trade union; they perform various duties for the trade union in this capacity.
Trade-union representatives, on the other hand, remain employees of the particular employer at the workplace, although they also represent the union in various ways within the workplace where they are employed. 
In 1933, along with Sidney Hook, Burnham helped to organize the American Workers Party led by the Dutch-born pacifist minister A.J.
Muste.
Burnham supported the 1934 merger with the Communist League of America which formed the U.S. Workers Party.
In 1935 he allied with the Trotskyist wing of that party and favored fusion with the Socialist Party of America.
During this period, he became a friend to Leon Trotsky.
Writing for "The Partisan Review", Burnham was also an important influence on writers such as Dwight MacDonald and Philip Rahv.
However, Burnham's engagement with Trotskyism was short-lived: from 1937 a number of disagreements came to the fore.
In 1937, the Trotskyists were expelled from the Socialist Party, an action which led to the formation of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) at the end of the year.
Inside the SWP, Burnham allied with Max Shachtman in a faction fight over the position of the SWP's majority faction, led by James P. Cannon and backed by Leon Trotsky, defending the Soviet Union as a degenerated workers state against the incursions of imperialism.
Shachtman and Burnham, especially after witnessing the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 and the invasions of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia by Joseph Stalin's regime, as well as the Soviet invasion of Finland in November 1939, came to contend that the USSR was a new form of imperialistic class society and was thus not worthy of even critical support from the socialist movement.
After a protracted discussion inside the SWP, in which the factions argued their case in a series of heated internal discussion bulletins, the special 3rd National Convention of the organization in early April 1940 decided the question in favor of the Cannon majority by a vote of 55–31.
Even though the majority sought to avoid a split by offering to continue the debate and to allow proportional representation of the minority on the party's governing National Committee, Shachtman, Burnham, and their supporters resigned from the SWP to launch their own organization, again called the Workers Party.
This break also marked the end of Burnham's participation in the radical movement, however.
On May 21, 1940, he addressed a letter to the National Committee of the Workers Party resigning from the organization.
In it he made it clear the distance he had moved away from Marxism:I reject, as you know, the "philosophy of Marxism," dialectical materialism...
The general Marxian theory of "universal history," to the extent that it has any empirical content, seems to me disproved by modern historical and anthropological investigation.
Marxian economics seems to me for the most part either false or obsolete or meaningless in application to contemporary economic phenomena.
Those aspects of Marxian economics which retain validity do not seem to me to justify the theoretical structure of the economics.
Not only do I believe it meaningless to say that "socialism is inevitable" and false that socialism is "the only alternative to capitalism"; I consider that on the basis of the evidence now available to us a new form of exploitive society (which I call "managerial society") is not only possible but is a more probable outcome of the present than socialism... On no ideological, theoretic or political ground, then, can I recognize, or do I feel, any bond or allegiance to the Workers Party (or to any other Marxist party).
That is simply the case, and I can no longer pretend about it, either to myself or to others.
In 1941, Burnham wrote a book analyzing the development of economics and society as he saw it, called "The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World."
Truesdale returned to his position as the Board's executive secretary, but on December 23, 1994, President Clinton again named him to a recess appointment on the Board.
Truesdale replaced Dennis Devaney, a conservative Democrat appointed to the Board by President George H. W. Bush.
This recess appointment lasted until January 3, 1996.
According to Gould, Truesdale was a hard worker who produced decisions quickly, but who also adapted his views to changing political winds.
He also overwhelmingly supported any request by the General Counsel for legal action to enforce the Board's rulings.
Gould and Truesdale clashed repeatedly on the role the Board should play as well.
Gould felt the chair should speak out publicly about pending labor law reform and should sponsor conferences on current issues in labor law to keep itself and the staff informed.
But Truesdale advocated silence on pending legislation, and that the Board should not create the appearance of partiality by sponsoring seminars.
Truesdale played a key role in several important decisions during his term on the Board.
Among these were "Makro, Inc.," 316 NLRB 109 (1995) (better known as "Loehmann's Plaza II"), in which the Board reversed a precedent ("Makro, Inc.," 305 N.L.R.B.
663 also known as "Loehmann's Plaza I") established just four years earlier and denied union picketers the right to access an employer's property; "Oakland Mall", 316 NLRB 1160 (1995), also known as "Oakland Mall II", in which the Board held that nonemployee handbilling on behalf of a labor union may not occur on an employer's property; "Leslie Homes, Inc.", 316 NLRB 123 (1995), "aff'd" "Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO v. NLRB", 68 F.3d 71 (3d.
Cir.
1995), in which the Board held that a union may not picket on land occupied by homes being sold by a real estate developer.
He also voted with the majority in important cases ("California Saw & Knife Works", 320 NLRB 224 [1995, "Paperworkers Local 1033 (Weyerhaeuser Paper Co.)", 320 NLRB 349 involving the rights of workers who are not union members as established in "Communications Workers of America v. Beck", 487 U.S. 735 (1988).
"California Saw" was the NLRB's first ruling in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Beck".
Truesdale and the majority held that whenever a union seeks to make employees pay dues under a union security agreement, it must inform all workers that they have the legal right to remain a non-member of the union and to pay only such fees as may be used for collective bargaining purposes (and no more).
"Paperworkers Local 1033 (Weyerhaeuser Paper Co.)" addressed issues which "California Saw" did not, and Truesdale and the Board unanimously held that a union must inform all bargaining unit members (not just existing nonmembers) of their "Beck" rights and that they must inform all union members that they have the right to become a nonmember.
In "Canteen Co.", 317 NLRB 1052 (1995), "enf'd."
103 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir.
1997), Truesdale joined with the majority in a major new ruling on successorship.
In "Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB", 482 U.S. 27 (1987), the Supreme Court had held that if a one company succeeds another, it has a duty to bargain with the previous company's union if there is a substantial continuity between the two companies and the new company retains at least 50 percent of the workforce.
Joining an opinion written by Gould, Truesdale held that that the duty to bargain was not sundered by the employer's decision to change wage rates or benefit levels.
In "Keeler Brass Automotive group", 317 NLRB 1110 (1995), Gould convinced Truesdale and Cohen to change their vote and form a five-member majority in holding that a grievance committee is not a labor organization under the NLRA and hence cannot be a "company union" (even if employer-dominated).
In "A.P.R.A.
Fuel Oil Buyers Group", 320 NLRB 408 (1995), Truesdale joined with Gould against Democratic Member Peggy Browning to interpret the Supreme Court's ruling in "Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB", 467 U.S. 883 (1984).
The Court had held in "Sure-Tan" that undocumented workers are entitled to back pay awards under the NLRA.
In "A.P.R.A.
Fuel Oil", the collective bargaining agreement required the employer to reinstate laid-off workers first when it begins hiring again.
If there were no dismissed workers available, then the employer was required to hire union-referred workers.
The union asserted that this included undocumented workers.
But Truesdale and the majority held that the Board has no authority to force an employer to hire such undocumented workers.