One solution is for the state to provide rights (such as the right to manage a social or pension fund or participation in an enterprise committee) or benefits (such as unemployment insurance) only for unions or their members.   Another solution is for unions to conduct collective collective bargaining that limits the benefits of the contract to union members.  The LNRA allows, under certain conditions, a union and an employer to enter into an inter-union security agreement requiring workers to make certain payments to the union in order to keep their jobs. A union security agreement cannot require that job applicants of union members be recruited, and the agreement cannot require workers to actually join or maintain union membership in order to retain their jobs. Under a union security agreement, individuals who choose to pay non-member fees may also be required to charge workers who actually join the union within a certain period of time (an additional period) after the collective agreement enters into force or after the hiring of a new member, to pay tuition fees and tuition. In March 2015, three Illinois government employees, represented by lawyers from the Liberty Justice Center in Illinois and the Virginia-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed a lawsuit to intervene.    In May 2015, Rauner was excluded from the proceedings after a federal judge ruled that the governor was not entitled to bring such an action, but the case was prosecuted under a new name, Janus v. AFSCME.  The case is named after Mark Janus, a child care specialist in Illinois, who is the subject of a collective agreement.
Outside of North America and Western Europe, the legal status of trade union security agreements is even more different. In New Zealand, the closed store was mandatory from 1988, when a union organized the workplace.  In the Philippines, different types of trade union security agreements are authorized by labour law.  In Mexico, the closed store was mandatory until the early 1990s, when a change in federal law allowed union stores, agency stores or no agreements.   But because of the political ties between unions and the ruling party in Mexico and other ways in which Mexican law favours established unions, the closed store remains essentially the norm.  The problem of parasitism is often cited as a justification for union security agreements. A classic study on the problem of parasitism is presented in Mancur Olson`s 1965 work, The Logic of Collective Action.  In labour relations, there is the problem of parasites, because the cost of organizing a union and negotiating a contract with the employer can be very high, and because employers will find it too expensive to take on multiple pay and benefit scales.
, some or all non-union members may find that the contract is also favourable to them.  However, many countries have not addressed the issue of trade union security agreements.