[Brielle Buckler]

For this discussion, refer to this prompt from Lumen Learning (copied below):

At the start of the industrial revolution, employers took advantage of desperate workers by demanding 12–16 hours a day, six days a week from them, providing poor working conditions and little in terms of compensation and benefits. Labor unions swung the balance back in the direction of the worker and continued their hold as a solid third-party participant between workers and employers in labor negotiations throughout the post-war era.

Some people think unions are a twentieth-century has-been, and that they’re not as powerful as they need to be to protect workers’ interests. In his 2014 article “The Employer Strikes Back” for prospect.org, Josh Eidelman talks about the worker lockout, and how it’s used by employers as a weapon to force desperate workers to agree to worse contracts than those that have just expired.

On the other hand, in the October 2019, Economist article, “The GM Strike is an Anachronism,” the author states that, over time, union victories made carmakers less competitive, and the recent Flint, Michigan, auto workers strike may be another case where demands will be met that will make employers buckle, this time under the weight of healthcare costs.

Looking at it from either the point of view of the locked-out worker, or the employer who is facing lost profitability and crushing overhead costs, it seems as though unions might not be making the same difference in labor negotiations that they used to.

Technology aside, the future of unions is in debate in these two articles. As a future HR professional, read these articles and consider these differing opinions on the work of labor unions. Is there a way that labor unions can move away from a zero-sum-game approach to negotiations, where one party has to lose in order for another to gain? Consider government law and government contribution in your response (e.g. Affordable Health Care Act, etc.) Write your thoughts in 1–3 (short!) paragraphs. Then, review the thoughts of at least two of your classmates.

———————————————————————-

In order to receive full credit for this assignment, all components of this assignment are due by 11:59pm ET on Sunday, May 2, 2021. You should first contribute a thoughtful post of your own before viewing/commenting on the posts of others. Once you submit your post, you must respond meaningfully to at least two other classmates’ threads. This assignment is worth a total of ten (10) points — 6 possible points for your original post, and up to 2 points for each of the two responses to your classmates’ posts. Please reference our Discussion Rubric for more information.

[Robert Calaf]

While the inherent relationship between employers and labor unions is by nature an adversarial one. I believe that labor unions must recalibrate their approach to contract negotiations and relations with employers to be in tune with the current playing field in the modern economy. Overhead, healthcare, supplier, maintenance, and labor costs continue to increase across the board for companies regardless of industry causing many of them to make bold, sweeping, and sometimes desperate changes just to stay in business. A union by nature only exists if its members are employed and the union is collecting dues. The previous strong-arm approach of unions to get companies to give in to their demands must be reexamined. Sure, a union could fulfill their obligations to their constituents at a heavy cost to a company but if the companies long term survival/growth potential is then impacted, the union could very well bring down the company. This presents a lose lose for all three parties involved – the company, union employees and the union.

An example of the changing playing field is the passing of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The ACA requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to offer employer-sponsored insurance (certain circumstances may require insurance to be provided to part-time employees) (PASSY 2017). Now companies besides just the smallest of businesses have to incorporate this additional health care cost in per employee where perhaps before it was optional, and they may have only offered it to a select few as a competitive benefit. Another major government law is the national wide push to increase minimum wage to $15 per hour, some states such as New York and California have already done this at the state level (Wikipedia – Minimum wage in the United States). These are major costs a company has to absorb, all the while trying to stay afloat.

I believe that labor unions must approach contract negotiations in a collaborative and scaled manner. Demands must be realistic and tailored to company performance. The union and its members must be invested in the growth, competitiveness, and profitability of the company versus a “what can I get out of it” attitude. This will require increased transparency as well; companies can show the impact of union demands and provide evidence if what is being asked for is too much in scale at a given time but what needs to be done to meet union demands without adversely affecting the company. In the end, the union does not exist without the company. The attitude should change from mutual destruction to mutual gain if both parties can help each other achieve one another’s stated goals. This may require the union perhaps to deliver bad news to its members if all asks cannot be met upfront but at the same token the union should create a contract in which if certain company performance metrics are hit, those concessions will be given. I believe if unions explain that to their members that they will understand. The money to fulfill union members requests/benefits does not grow on trees. If a mutually benefiting collective bargaining agreement can be created, then both sides could prosper.

References

“Minimum Wage in the United States.” <i>Wikipedia</i>, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Apr. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#:~:text=In%202016%20New%20York%20and,followed%20by%20Massachusetts%20in%202018.
<div></div>

Passy, Jacob. “Businesses Eliminated Hundreds of Thousands of Full-Time Jobs to Avoid Obamacare Mandate.” <i>MarketWatch</i>, MarketWatch, 24 Nov. 2017, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/businesses-eliminated-hundreds-of-thousands-of-full-time-jobs-to-avoid-obamacare-mandate-2017-11-24.
<div></div>

[Shane russell]

I agree with you that the union and companies should change their attitude from mutual destruction to mural gain because, they both need each other to thrive in this world. They need to sit down and come up with a plan that with benefit both sides instead of trying tear down one side and leave with nothing accomplished

[Justin Campos]

I agree with that the Unions need a better negotiation system because the current one was not getting them no where or helping. Good work.

[Sonia Gonzalez]

Hi Robert, I agree. I accept as accurate with the union station of the workforce. Corporations that support labor unions illustration of their employees regarding the advantages resulting from organized labor and management seem to be opposites. Despite generally contentious negotiation agreement negotiations, there are blessings to having a labor union represent your employees. The advantages vary from consistency in operations to lower turnover satisfaction among your staff.

Thank for Sharing.

[Miko Nourieli]

Hey Robert, great post.

I agree with you that Unions need to change the way that the negotiate with the businesses and do away with the us vs them mentality, it doesn’t help anyone. I also liked when you said that both sides will prosper and that they should all be invested in the growth of the company because its true. At the end of the day they are all on the same ship, why want it to sink?

Thanks for sharing

[Jean Muy]

I agree with your takes on how both unions and companies need to change their way of how they see things via negotiations. It’s important for both sides to come in agreement that benefits all of them across both fields of the business.

[Richard Ledesma]

Hey Robert,

It was a great post on your way of seeing this. I totally agree with your view and take on how the unions need a better negociation approach or structure just simply because the current one wasnt really getting the job done. I also agree with you saying they should change their attitude, it is very important that both sides come together and make sure it benefits them across both areas.

[Jaylen Santana]

Dear Robert,

I too agree that there needs to be a change in mindset when going into these negotiation terms because realistically it would be impossible for both sides to get what they want without leaving the other unsatisfied, but unfortunately most companies refuse to do that.

[Shane russell]

As a future HR professional after reading the two selections that were giving to me , I believe their can be many ways that labor unions can move away from a zero-sum game approach to negotiations, where one party has to lose in order for another to gain. Out of all the ways that labor unions can go to make sure both side benefit the one I feel fits better is collective bargaining. A factor which makes collective bargaining negotiations relatively unique from the standard negotiation definition is that it entails many issues that have to be discussed, including hourly wage, piecework rates and fringe benefits such as pensions and health care. Many of the bargaining subjects allow the sides to trade issues in ways that allow expanding the overall pie and maximize the joint return involved. Corporations should concede issues union leaders value more for topics management officials prefer. This permits the negotiating parties to seek win-win results that satisfy the underlying interests of both sides. The multi factor aspects of collective bargaining interactions make the need for thorough pre- negotiation preparation especially important. Both labor and management negotiators should sit down with people on their respective sides before meeting with the other side. This is a chance to decide which items need to be addressed and to ascertain their priorities. There will always be distributive negotiating  items that both sides value. These issues generally entail monetary terms. However, even in this area, negotiators may be able to expand the pie and simultaneously enhance their respective positions. This can be achieved if negotiators are willing to think outside the box and seek innovative solutions. For example, if profits have been decreasing, a company may offer workers a bonus instead of a pay increase. The employees get the benefit of the cash payments, but the base pay rates remain unchanged.

 

[Sonia Gonzalez]

Hi Shane, I agree collective bargaining is how unions negotiate the contract with their employer to determine the terms of employment like pay benefits, working hours, safety policies, ways to balance work and family, and many more. It is a way to solve workplace problems.

Thank for Sharing

[Miko Nourieli]

Hello Shane, great ideas. I too think that both sides need to work together and speak with their own sides first and then to find win-win solutions for both parties no matter how hard it may be, and I agree too that negotiators need to start thinking outside of the box for solutions because we definitely need some new ideas on how to deal with these discrepancies.

[Jean Muy]

I agree on how both sides need to come together and form a solution that favors all 0f them as equally as it always should be. I also like how you mentioned that labor and management negotiations should be met before any meeting happens where they can have an agreement before anything starts.

[Justin Campos]

The Labor unions are used to a zero-sum game approach and there many be many way to move away from this approach of zero-sum when comes to the Labor unions. The zero-sum is the idea that one side wins (most of the time the labor union) and the other side loses (most of the time the employee) so the goal is to move on from this approach and get to wear both side win. As the future HR I will start by moving the labor union forward when it comes to they approach to contract and how unfair the contact are at some point. The Labor Unions would be force to give some type of health care to employee it can variety depending on the employee’s income. The Labors unions should pay their employees fairly by raising the minimum wage and also pay the employees at a stable rate. The companies and the labor unions should start listening to the propose and take it into consideration when replying with a counter proposal because according to the article “The Employer Strikes Back” the unions would not be listening to the employee’s proposal and they would just offer them the same thing over and over. “Crystal took a hard line. “Every time we went to negotiate,” says Jacobson, “the company refused our proposals and kept going back to their first and final offer.”” Therefore, something I will make sure is done is better the way the proposal negotiation goes and that both parties need to take each other proposal and work into making a agreement where both parties win.

[Sonia Gonzalez]

Hi Justin, I agree is simple negotiation is the process of discussion between two or more, bringing in all the inputs from both ends and deciding upon the common objectives that benefit both parties, creating a win-win situation on a common platform.

Thank for Sharing.

[Richard Ledesma]

Hey Justin, I agree with your take on how a simple negotiation can help, coming together and talking about all the inputs from both sides can help benefit both sides and like Sonia said create pretty much a win-win situation for both.

[Sonia Gonzalez]

I believe almost everyone has at one point felt unheard or powerless as an employee. Joining a union means that you and your colleagues have a say because you negotiate essential employment conditions together.  Collective bargaining agreements and labor unions are necessary in the current times because of the increased pressure of achieving excellence and competitiveness. Collective bargaining agreements include the process of negotiation between employers and the group of employees aimed at reaching agreements to regulate working conditions. These agreements are essential as they give the employees the platform to discuss their issues and improve their working conditions. In the current scenario, the main agenda for collective bargaining is related to salary, setting of the pay scale, hazardous jobs, health and safety measures, training, promotion, etc. The employees negotiate for flexible working hours, compatible salaries, and outsourcing activities because of the advent of globalization. The employees negotiate for flexible working hours, consistent salaries, outsourcing activities, and help with this tool. The employees could protect the right of workers to retain the working conditions and strive to make it a better place to work.
Today also the unions continue to serve the same purpose as they initially founded. Current union agendas include raising the standard of living for the working class, increasing wages, ensuring safe working conditions, and increasing benefits for workers and their families—growing wages.
They are increasing the benefits for workers and their families.
These are important because most corporations focus on creating profits at the expense of employees. In the current scenario of cut-throat competition, companies are focusing on adopting several measures to cut down the costs. Therefore, they are shedding the responsibility for providing health insurance, reasonable working hours, and good pension coverage, and job safety protections. Labor unions use various tools to get their demands fulfilled, like collective bargaining agreements or negotiation. In addition, labor unions help control the company’s action in making the jobs less secure by downsizing, contracting out, and sending jobs off-shore. Thus, today and in the future collective bargaining agreements and labor unions will continue to play the same role to improve the quality of working life and families.

[Sow]

Hello SONIA,

The last paragraph of your comment is so filed out with knowledge. As you mentioned, corporations care only for their sake, they are looking for profits and are careless when it is about the employees. The alarming part is the method they use, as you highlighted, they lower the workers’ compensation to increase the size of their profits. Horrible and condemnable deeds.

Thanks for sharing.

[Miko Nourieli]

We have come a long way in the last 100 years when it comes to our business practices and the way that we form and use our unions. The relationship has always been strained and it always seemed to be an us vs them mentality and one that could bring some positive change but also has negatives that at least one side must face. I believe there are ways that unions and employers can come to the table and come up with solutions that benefit everyone at least in some shape or form, and wouldn’t it be better if everyone walked away from the negotiations happy, with no bad feelings that could come up later? After reading a page on the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) about Employer/Union Rights and Obligations, I saw that the government has laws that directly talk about how employers and union leaders/officials should meet and speak with each other.  It states that both parties MUST agree to meet at reasonable times to discuss and bargain in “Good Faith” : wages, hours, vacation time, insurance, safety practices and other mandatory subjects. When they talk about good faith they mean “an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground.” I think that this is already good, but the problem is that I don’t think companies and unions go into negotiations with true good faith, and like i said earlier its very much an us vs them mentality. I think that if both parties were to realize and act like they are truly on the same team (which they are) then they could come to reasonable conclusions for both parties. Unions need to realize that companies also can struggle and need to make enough money to stay alive and cant pay for every single employee request such as healthcare, higher minimum wage, and all of these other benefits that employees want these days. Companies also need to realize that their employees are what makes the company a company in the first place and they should respect and at least try to provide some services and extra benefits to keep their employees happy and productive. Unions and companies need to truly work together and make realistic demands and everyone should truly be invested in the companies health and growth, because that will only help everyone.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/employer-union-rights-and-obligations

[Sow]

Hello MIKO,

You are absolutely right, bargains conducted in ” Good Faith ” might be more profitable to both protagonists. However, good faith is an ideal hard to meet since everyone comes to the table of negotiations with a dose of subjectivity. Everyone is looking for protecting his interest and that will bias confrontation.

Thanks for sharing.

[Robert Calaf]

Hi Miko,

I like how you focused on the topic of negotiating in good faith as per government law. As you described in your post, that is often not the case or the reality on the ground. Laws are often written looking at a situation in black and white and tend to be specific and targetted in nature. The concept of employer/union negotiations is often filled with alot of gray with either side having numerous layers of hidden agendas in their requests or perhaps trying to play to a macro objective that they may not disclose to the other party or sometimes even to their own constituents. In a perfect world, both sides would happily bargain in good faith and walk away from the negotiating table smiling, shaking hands and show unity. But in reality is often a game of who loses least.

[Emily Espinal]

Hi miko I agree and like your point of view companies need to realize that they are on the same side and come together to negotiate what they want but making it reasonable. When it comes to unions they care alot about how much they are spending and not the labor force but without the labor force they won’t be making as much money. Both sides rely and need each other.

[Zoila Cedeno]

Hi Miko.

I agree with you.  It would be nice if people understood that the fair thing would be for everyone to walk away from the table with something so that everyone would win.  Unfortunately, some employers are greedy and are unwilling to share the wealth and unions can’t always be trusted to do what is in the best interests of its members.  We need to keep lobbying for more legislation to continue to improve working conditions for all Americans in order to level the playing field.

[Sow]

A labor union, or union, is defined as workers banding together to meet common goals, such as better pay, benefits, or promotion rules.’’ This assertion defines the union but also highlights its main goals. While we can define Firms, organizations in three words ‘’for-profit business”. Obviously, these 2 forces (Unions and organizations) cannot have any balanced fight. The ones are looking for better living conditions for the workers while the others are seeking more profit over and over. Unions have been seen over the years as a tool of conspiration created for altering negatively the commerce and harming the employers. I don’t know how fighting for a better standard of living can be misunderstood or criticize at this point. Any collective Bargaining which aims to make the work environment safer, to incite employer to pay health care or for raising the minimum wage according to the inflation, doesn’t look for destroying an organization. Besides, as long as this is the employers take the Unions’ work as a “cancer tumor” which need to be wiped out a peaceful cohabitation will be hard to find.

Whether it is directly or indirectly, each one of us is touched by the fallout of collective bargaining and unions. For instance, the American Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO) covers more than 12.5 million working people. It is complicated to determine how many people are virtually impacted by the dedication of this union. Without omitting that the AFL-CIO is not the only union in the United States. Without being exhaustive, we have the National Education Association of United States, Service Employees International Union, Teamsters… this is a big number of workers and households impacted directly. These unions are perpetrating a noble mission. Their job is a cross-power against the greed of employers. In addition, government interventionism has brought a minimum of legal references between the two protagonists for a better understanding between them. These deeds pass by voting bills such as the Fair Labor Standard Act which set the federal minimum wage; determines the length of worker’s overtime… The Affordable Care Act (ACA) pushes employers to reassess the benefits provide to their workers and also emphasizes the criteria for being eligible to receive them. Furthermore, the ACA plan sanctions for employers who refuse to implement strategies aimed to satisfy the ACA’s coverage and benefit requirements. Since this issue is more about the size and the impact of the compensations on the companies, the government implication is acknowledgeable.

As long as the revendications are not aiming to harm the company and respond to the SMART disc (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-based), they are not mean to be overlooked. The greedy interest of employers should not take precedence over that of employees who are the raw material in the creation and perpetuation of an asset.

Sources:

https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2014/03/the-affordable-care-act-considerations-for-employers-with-unionized-workers#:~:text=The%20Affordable%20Care%20Act%20(%22ACA,negotiations%20over%20health%20insurance%20benefits.&text=The%20ACA%20forces%20unionized%20employers,be%20eligible%20to%20receive%20them.

https://prospect.org/economy/employer-strikes-back/

[Rayon Lambert]

Hello Snow,

You gave a lot of information which gave me a lot to think about. I think unions, in some cases, mainly the representative of a specific company, may be bribed or influenced by money to work in the employer’s favor. Most of the situations with unions are based on ethical issues in which someone is being paid to look the other way.

[Jean Muy]

Labor unions have massively changed over the course of time, either drastically or slowly. It obviously has it’s ups and downs and up to this date, there still has to be a way where employers and employees can come together as a whole to agree on things that can become very beneficial for everyone at the company. Government laws have stated that it is a requirement for unions officials and employers should have direct communication within each other to be assure of every situation that can be happening at any time. Both respective parties have to agree on many big things like insurance and hours. Having to be obligated to ensure that there is a equal spread of everything being distributed across every little thing that the company provides. Both need to come together to come up with realistic changes and how their demands have to form some sort of agreement to not have any problem with anything and anyone. That’s how my point of view towards the union should be at. Their practices should be fairly equal since it’s a time in life where demands like changes to insurance or what so ever is crucial for employers and the union once everything is done for. Communication is an important factor through this course of action as word needs to be spoken out so that everyone can understand their situation.

[Rayon Lambert]

Unions have been the voice of many people for many years. But, recently, many unions seem to care more about their profitability than the welfare of workers. When thinking about different people who have fought for workers’ rights and how it has paved the way for many people to have better opportunities today, it is hard to understand that the people that employees pay to represent their best interest are not doing so.
The purpose of collective bargaining is to ensure that all persons in the same department and position are all receiving equal benefits. Without this, some persons may gain more benefits, salary, health benefits, and vacation benefits than others who have started working at the same time. For example, one company I knew of would have a collective bargaining agreement drawn up every two years for their employees. This helps in the employees’ skills being protected, and they were able to be treated fairly. However, there are other cases where some companies, the employees, are paying dues but have never seen or knew of any negotiation in their best interests.
Though the affordable care act has benefitted many individuals, every working person will still be happier if their company can cover that cost. They will not have to worry about the monthly cost coming out of their salary. Unions need to have checks and balances to which they are legally bonded to. Companies should have a department or group which is tasked with holding unions accountable for the benefits of the staff. I also think that there should be laws or interference in the operations of these unions. The only way they will move away from the zero-sum game is if they are held accountable for their actions.

[Robert Calaf]

Hi Rayon,

You make an interesting point as far as the parties (employer/union) accountability to their actions being the way they move away from the zero-sum game. As is often the case in contentious/high stakes negotiations. Either side may use the media or their own internal communications arm to shape the narrative that the other side is solely responsible for the current situation and issues facing labor. This can become a battle of which side has the more effective propaganda machine. Making the issue of accountability one that is dictated by public perception. As a former manager in a union run manufacturing plant, our side (management) and the union had two very different perceptions of what was taking place often resulting in a tug of war for the hearts and minds of the employees.

I believe accountability must be dictated by each respective side internally. Labor has the right to get rid of their union by majority vote should they believe their needs are not being fulfilled and employer management can police their own if they believe their actions are causing unwarranted issues with labor.

[Emily Espinal]

hi rayon I completely agree with you and I like how at the end you proposed an idea for laws to be made in order to hold people accountable for their actions in order to stop the zero sum game. What i find startling is, that both the employees and employers rely on each other for important reasons but can’t come together to negotiate and talk about what has to be changed in the work place to benefit everyone and their needs.

[Zoila Cedeno]

Hi Rayon.

I agree that unions need to have checks and balances so as to ensure that they are doing what is in the best interest of its members.   You would think that in an era when unions are becoming obsolete, union officials would be more concerned with figuring out how to keep unions alive instead of getting involved in corruption schemes to line their pockets .  We also need more legislation like the Affordable Care Act to force employers to give workers better salaries and benefits.

[Richard Ledesma]

Over the last 100 years, we have come a long way when it comes to things such as business practices and use in our unions. Labor unions have progressed over time, although the union may have many ups and down over these years but there’s still work to be done, there has to be a way for employers and employees should come together as a whole and agree. A Labor union is supposed to represent or defined as the collective interests of workers, coming together and bargaining about concerns such as wages and working conditions and even benefits. This is pretty much what a union is and tells us what exactly their intentions and goals are. Unions and organizations basically can’t have any balanced fight. I strongly believe that there are simpler ways that can make the union and employers come together and simply come up with a solution that can benefit everyone as a whole. It can be a simple negotiation where everyone comes out happy with no bad or harsh feelings towards one another. This has been happening for years now and the government laws have once even said that the union officials and employers are required to have direct communication within each other and to make sure everything is running smooth and with the flow. Both employees and employers must and have to come together to come up with real life changes and how the demands can benefit each other and make a simple agreement with each other. That is my point of view to be honest. I feel like it can honestly be so simple but sadly it isn’t. There practices should be equal since it is during a time where changes can happen. Communication is a really important factor probably even the most important one, they simply need to just talk about it and explain it to everyone so they can understand the situation they are in.

[Rayon Lambert]

Hello Richard,

I wish things in life could be simple. Many people may see the simplicity in a situation but, the root of all evil, money, can complicate many things. I like that you talked about people needing to work together to reach their goals, but it takes level head thinking and compromise, unions, employers, and employee, but many people do not want to give up their power.

[Jaylen Santana]

After reading both articles I can understand both parties viewpoints where they’d obviously want the best possible deal for themselves. The problem is that one party cannot get what they want without undercutting the other essentially offering a one-sided deal which nobody in their right mind would take. That being said I don’t think there is a way that both parties will ever be able to get what they want without both parties equally sacrificing, which is why I propose the concept of Mutual Gains Bargaining (MGB).

The idea of MGB came about because traditional bargaining resembles a war game that does not lead to the best deal for both parties. It is inefficient when you consider the time, energy, and resources invested in it, and it compromises relationships after the signing of the contract. The new approach underscores the importance of tactics based on information, persuasion, and cooperation, and sees coercion as dysfunctional and counterproductive. Although this approach has its limits, it challenges traditional dispute resolutions methods, the efficiency, and appropriateness that are constantly being called into question.

Firstly, all negotiations must focus on the merits of the problems to be resolved being that, the more parties can bring principles and standards of fairness, efficiency, and scientific merit to the issues at hand, the more likely it is that the exchanges will produce a fair and reasonable package. Secondly, principled negotiations allow the parties to achieve mutual benefits when they focus on interests rather than on specific and entrenched positions. Third, bargainers have to separate the problems to be solved from the individuals who are discussing them because people who are committed to their positions are more likely to respond to what the other side has said or done than to act in pursuit of their long-term interests. Fourth, refraining from positional bargaining means not committing yourself to fixed and detailed demands meaning each negotiator can freely discuss and examine a variety of options before they decide what to do. Lastly, principled negotiation requires that the parties use objective criteria in assessing solutions, meaning that resorting to objective criteria should reduce the number commitments made and then unmade during the traditional bargaining process.

[Nelson Sanchez]

Hello Jaylen,

This thread was a great read. I like how you explained your view points on this topic and you finished strong

[Emily Espinal]

As a future Hr specialist i do believe their is a way for labor unions to move away from a zero-sum-game approach to negotiations where one part has to lose in order for another to gain simply by talking with one another to come to a fair understanding. By doing so neither is a locked-out worker, or facing lost profitability and crushing overhead costs. Collective bargaining should be taken into consideration so everyone can receive fair and equal benefits, while the employer still does well. By doing so the ensure that the employee stays happy and working for them because without happy employees the work doesn’t get done right and even lead to people quitting hurting both the employer and employee.

 

Not only that but I believe a bigger overall action should be taken for things such as healthcare, meaning it should be at a reasonable price where the employer doesn’t have to drastically hurt their pockets in order to provide healthcare for their employees. Without cooperation from both parties the zero sum game approach will be a never ending loop. Both parties rely on each other heavily and need each other to succeed which is why when employers don’t care about who represents their company its strange.

[Nelson Sanchez]

Hey Emily,

You put a lot of thought into your threat and I like how you touched on topics like ethical dilemma with lock outs hurting both employees and employers.

 

[Nelson Sanchez]

As a future HR professional, after reading both of these articles. I can safely say there is a way that labor unions can move away from a zero-sum-game approach to negotiations, where one party has to lose in order for another to gain.  For example the Crystal sugar lockout. The original agreement was to either disband the union and except the worst health plan the company offered or get locked out of the factory and let non-union workers do their job. The union workers did not accept that and denied what the company was offering. In order to get what they wanted which was to be let back in, the workers went on a strike with other companies employees who were also locked out of their jobs. By doing these actions, it proves that labor unions can move away from a zero sum game approach and fight for their rights. They knew if they participated in the negotiations they were going to be treated poorly for the rest of their lives.

[amadou bah]

hello, nelson,

I like that you “if they participated in the negotiations they were going to be treated poorly for the rest of their lives”. because now the company is competing with capitalism.

[amadou bah]

As a future HR professional, after reading both these articles “The Employer Strikes Back” the main point is that work stop and mass refusal to works. And  “The GM Strike is an Anachronism,” the main point is that the company needs to pay for better health care. in my opinion labor union can move from a zero-sum-game to approach negotiations. where one party lose and the other party gain. however, I beivle it all have to do with capltiaslim. but, both parties need each other to be succful because emeloyee don’t really don’t care who represent they company. a solution the labor union need to provided employee healthcare. beasue that wouldn’t hurt the employee pocket.

[Zoila Cedeno]

Collective bargaining is a concept that has been around for a long time.   We know that there is always strength in numbers.  This is the reason why we come together and form groups like community boards, neighborhood watches and parent teachers’ associations, to name a few.  It’s the concept behind every grassroot movement that has resulted in changes to legislation like establishing speed limits, gun laws, voting rights for women and minorities, etc.   That’s exactly what joining a union is about, and it is a right that is protected by the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law.   However, as is mentioned in both articles in this week’s assignment, “The Employer Strikes Back” and “The GM Strike is an Anachronism,”, Unions as we know them to be now are slowly becoming obsolete.  In part, due to the changing composition of the U.S. economy, the decline of blue collar work, the replacement of certain jobs due to technological advances, and the rise of jobs in the service industry.

Perhaps the biggest reason would be because, at some point in time, union officials forgot the reason why they came to exist in the first place.   For example, on October 1, 2020, The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York released a statement citing the names of 11 union officials who were charged with racketeering, fraud, and bribery offenses.  “All 11 defendants are also charged with participating in conspiracies to commit honest services fraud and violate the Taft-Hartley Act, based on, among other things, their agreement to accept bribes in exchange for acquiescing in the bidding and performing of construction work with non-union labor for plumbing and pipe fitting projects that would otherwise have potentially been awarded to companies whose employees were represented by Local 638 or Local 200.” Incidents like these have eroded the trust and confidence of the public at large in unions and have made them less credible and has made it easier for “emboldened employers” to use lock outs to force union members to make massive compromises and dilute a unions’ bargaining power.

Unions must figure out how to change and evolve to match the industries that are on the rise instead of desperately trying to protect dying trades.  They need to start looking for ways to retrain members and prepare them for the future. (Harder, 2019).  They need to remember to put their members first and try to approach problems with a willingness to compromise so that both sides can walk away with something instead of the zero-sum approach.  If succumbing to the demands of the union, breaks the company, there won’t be a job to come back to.  Also, companies can declare bankruptcy, send production overseas, dissolve and reopen under a new corporate name, hire new employees, etc.  In the end, collective bargaining makes it possible for all three parties to win, the employer, the union, and the employee.  Otherwise, unions may find themselves being replaced altogether by organizations like United for Respect or Coworker.org which have shown promise in obtaining favorable results for employees via social media, without the need for payment of membership dues.

References:

https://www.epi.org/publication/how-todays-unions-help-working-people-giving-workers-the-power-to-improve-their-jobs-and-unrig-the-economy/

https://www.inspiredworkservices.com/why-are-unions-dying/

http://ipjournal.law.wfu.edu/2020/05/unions-are-disappearing-do-we-care/#:~:text=Several%20factors%20have%20contributed%20to,US%20workers%20held%20manufacturing%20jobs

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/11-union-officials-charged-racketeering-fraud-and-bribery-offenses

 

[Talisha Smith]

Unions are put into play to serve as moderator between employees and their employers. Unions are used to argue the terms and conditions of employees and help reach agreements with employers. They fight for healthcare, raises and other things that employees need. They also fight for people to keep their jobs when they are facing disciplinary actions and terminations. Since unions are supposed to protect employees and always rule in their favor employers care for them. Employers feel like the terms put in place by unions are not fair to them and that they give employees reasons to be poor workers because they know they are protected.

Because of this when contracts are over employers don’t rush to negotiate and would rather lock outs. They tend to not be to fazed by strikes to if they have non union workers that can do the job in the union workers absence.  This can last as long as the employers see fit in hopes that the employees get tired and return to work under their new contract terms.  Huge strikes like MTA and police strikes seem to always go in favor of those employees because they are needed in order to make the world run but little companies don’t seem to mind the stand off.

Reading both articles i do feel like its a way that labor unions can move away from a zero-sum- game approach to negotiations. I think that unions and Human resources should work together and come up with plans that benefit the employees and the employers. Of course everyone wants the best deal for themselves and they don’t want to compromise anything for it but that doesn’t work in the companies favor.  Unions and CEO’s should sit at the round table a  year prior to a contract ending and discuss plans that would be beneficial to both parties that wouldn’t cost so much. Unions should pass out surveys prior to the meeting to see what is most important to employees and what employees would be willing to sacrifice.

Before the 20th century there were no laws put into place to protect employees but that changed when important labor protection laws were put into place such as minimum wage, workplace safety, health coverage, social security and unemployment benefits and whistle blowing protection. With these new laws in place it has protected employees from unjust conditions.  If employers and employees work together instead of against each other things can be beneficial for both parties.

[Author]

Posts