The row over whether Hillary Clinton's running mate is a liberal and how it could help the UK rebuild after Brexit

Tim Kaine represents Virginia in the senate, a so-called “right to work” state – yet too many people feel they don’t have a stake in society and the workplace rules in controversial 'right to representation' states could offer one way to fix that

Hillary Clinton and her running mate for vice-president, Tim Kaine. He represents a 'right to work' state – but other US states have a right to representation at work instead

Now that referenda are in vogue, especially with the right, how about we extend the principle to the workplace? How about we allow staff to have a vote on union representation? If a simply majority votes yes, they not only get union recognition but the whole workforce gets to have conditions that are collectively bargained for by the union.

In return for the service provided by union negotiators, and the costs incurred, they would all agree to pay a fee. But hey, that’s democracy. The majority rules.

At this point, readers of a certain age might start to foam at the mouth: “He’s calling for the return of the closed shop! Get thee gone Satan!”

Actually I’m not. I’m looking instead at something more like the system that operates in a number of American states. It is in focus right now amid a debate over whether Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s choice of running mate, is a liberal or a conservative "blue dog” Democrat.

Kaine represents Virginia in the senate and is a former Governor of that so-called “right to work” state – an example, if ever there was one, of the right appropriating the left’s language to sell an evil idea. In these states you don’t have to be a member of a union where collective bargaining agreements exist. To many people that might seem fair enough: why should one be compelled to join any organisation?

You’ll see something like that argument deployed in a variety of places. It deliberately misconstrues how the system works in the US. In the minority of states yet to enact so called “right to work” laws, you don’t actually have to be a union member “in good standing” to be able to work. A union cannot prevent you from getting a job. You, in fact, have every right to work – which is why the use of the term “right to work state” is so cynical.

But the key difference between "right to work" and other – let’s call them “right to representation” – states is that in the latter you have to pay a fee for the terms and conditions that the union collectively bargains for on your behalf, at least where the majority backs such an arrangement. These “agency fees” prevent you from receiving a benefit as a free-rider at work.

There are plenty of figures available on both sides of the Atlantic to show that union members earn more and enjoy better conditions than non members. The Office for National Statistics Labour Force Survey has details on the UK situation. Thus the benefits accrued from such a “right to representation” arrangement should more than enough to offset the fees that refuseniks might moan about paying.

“You just want to ban people from bargaining with their employer for better terms and conditions, you evil pinko.” At least that’s what I’d imagine my opponents saying. It’s another false argument. Most people simply don’t get to do that.

There is a power imbalance at the heart of the employer employee relationship, which is why unions came into being in the first place. They help to level the playing field. And, as I said at the outset, we’re talking democracy here. Majority rules. The only places these sort of union shops (as distinct from closed shops) would exist would be where workforces voted for them.

Some unions might baulk at the idea of an “agency fee” paid by non-members for collective bargaining, worrying that they would lose out if people were able to opt for the benefits of membership on the cheap. It needn’t be that way. Union membership ought to offer benefits beyond collective bargaining such as, for example, help with legal advice and other services.

The need to prove they have a value beyond collective bargaining might ultimately encourage unions to raise their games and prove the worth of becoming “full members” to staff working for right to representation employers.

We live in a country where many people feel alienated, angry and cynical. They live with feelings of frustration and powerlessness. It’s hard not to see why. We’ve just seen two Parliamentary committees detailing how Sir Philip Green was able to make himself fabulously wealthy before cutting BHS employees, and its pension scheme members, adrift. Barely a week goes by without another pay outrage involving a chief executive paid a huge bonus for mediocrity while his employees received pay rises of percentage point or two if they got any rise at all.

Too many people feel they don’t have a stake in society and incidences like these exacerbate the situation. We are now living with the dangerous and damaging result, and Brexit may just be the start of it.

The union movement has to change too. In too many cases it has allowed itself to become dominated by shouty hard left activists and thus divorced from people in the wider workforce who look at these people and shudder. It needs to pursue new models of engagement, and perhaps shake off some of the old fashioned rhetoric of class struggle in favour of championing members rights.

However, if we are to construct a society in which everyone feels they have a real investment then unions must be seen as a part of the solution and brought in from the cold. As part of that, workers should be given more than simply the facility to vote on union recognition by a simple majority without any of the preconditions successive governments have imposed. Give the rights and make them stakeholders. And if they win votes for representation, let them ask for a contribution from all those who enjoy the benefits that follow. Democracy demands it.