Category: Collective Bargaining

Introduction

Employees of an organization can request their boss to increase their pay following certain reasons best known to them. In the process, they will have a bargain and negotiate for a common pay that a is both of them; this type of negotiation is referred to as collective bargaining (Caisley, 6).

However, collective bargaining is not only limited to matters about wages and salaries, but it also extends to w working hours, job conditions and many more other areas of concern.

A brief history of the private sector labor movement

Many years back, employees used to work without any organization that could check or address their concerns or grievances.

This acted as a leeway for employers’ to over-exploit their worker, i.e., by overburdening them with excess work while, on the other hand, pay incredibly little cash for their services (Skurzynski, 1).

Workers became furious about the situation thus leading to the emergence of labor movements; avenues workers could address their concerns and grievances.

Labor unions in the US started, long ago, during the colonial time e (Silver, 6). The foremost labor union was created approximately two-three centuries back and was later formalized with the name of National Labor Union.

Years later, different unions emerged following the increasing quest to protect employees’ interests. Knight of labor was the immediate union that followed NLU; however, the union later collapsed following the certain rebellions, which diverted the union’s attention.

Although this was not the end of labor unions; instead, the disruption was later used as a catalyst for the formation of a stronger and better union; thus American federation of unions was formed.

In the early ’90s, the union tremendously grew following its incredible associations with traders and extensive support by the government.

Later in the years, a union named as IWW was established by a group of inexpert persons, who aired their view through physical fights. The union later collapsed following the beginning of world war one (WW1), which gradually consumed its members as time passes by.

Lewis, a member of a certain committee within the American Federation Union (AFU), pressurized for the formation of industrial unionism. Three years after its formation, the committee separated itself from the AFU and began operating autonomously as CIO.

After several years of independent operation, the two unions amalgamated to form a single unit that was named as AFU-CIO (Bill and Fernando). Currently, many people, particularly persons from the private sector, are withdrawing from being members of these unions.

Good numbers of employees seem dispassionate about strikes and also do not want to be associated with anything that connects them with the union. However, in as much as many industries shy away from these labor unions, the commercial sector still maintains its 50 percent representation.

How the labor movement arrived at its current state

Labor movement underwent several transformations before finally reaching its current state. Since the formation of labor movements, there have been several disputes, cases, and laws that significantly changed these movements.

In fact, until now there are still several disputes and laws that extensively influence the operations of these movements.

Within the last three decades, several concerns have been raised by employees from dissimilar industries. In the late ’80s, a group of Hollywood writers voted against a certain contract and promised to extend an ongoing strike that they had already started.

The voting indicated an overwhelming turnout of union members, which was followed by an unsurprising vote result, with over seventy percent members voting against the contract (Chicago Tribune).

This was a massive setback to the film industry since several film productions, and movie series were stagnated, and there was no indication that the situation could soon change.

There were no ongoing negotiations; workers insisted on the inclusion of their demands in the counteract before they even consider the negotiations.

Even after being threatened that, they will consider giving the contract to nonunion members; the worker still maintained their initial position of not negotiating.

The strike was one of the most dreadful strikes that Hollywood has ever been subjected to since everything was almost at a standstill. This indicates how the movement was firm about the position of their workers, despite the consequences implicated by their position.

This also indicated the degree of solidarity that the union had; they voted in numbers and also had one common mind of maintaining the same position, regardless of threats or effects of their action.

In the early ’90s, Los Angeles janitors raised a concern about their low remuneration s and thus demanded a pay rise. They aired their views via street demonstrations, with the help of labor unions who played a significant role in the bargaining process.

Their efforts were rewarded, since they were rewarded with, approximately, 12 percent pay increase. However, their effort did not end at that point; instead, they proceeded to request for additional pay, at around mid-’90s. The outcome was also positive.

Thus, they were rewarded with a 6% pay increase. This achievement indicated how effective these unions were when it comes to fighting for the needs and rights of workers.

This achievement developed a remarkable perception of the labor union, which led to the influx of new member with many more willing to join the union.

However, this incredible perception of the union has changed in recent years following the introduction of EFCA. Consequently, members are quitting the movement, due to indifferent positions over the controversial EFCA.

In the last half of this year, there have been several disputes between workers and employees, demanding either for a pay increase or favorable working conditions. For instance, it was just recently that construction worker demanded a salary increase and health cover via demonstrations.

As a result, numerous constructions within Chicago were left hanging, and there was no indication that work would soon resume to their duties. After several hours of intensive negotiations and bargaining, they managed to strike a pay increase deal.

The employees were given a 9.75% salary increase followed by numerous working benefits, for the whole contract period, i.e., three years (Chicago Tribune). Labor unions were the persons behind the deal, while the union employees being the beneficiaries.

This indicates how rewarding the unions are to its member, especially at times when they are most needed. On the other hand, employers seem to be disadvantaged, since they will have to incur extra costs when remunerating the workers.

In as much as these movements are characterized by several unpleasant reputations, such as achievements boost their trusts, which may eventually shift their recent societal perception.

The Employee Free Choice Act

The EFCA is a proposed law that will significantly alter the capacity of labor unions on workers. It is noted that several labor unions are mounting pressure on Congress to vote for the bill.

However, this position was opposed by numerous union members thus leading to the numerous membership resignations.

The bill is composed of three fundamental parts that are passionately opposed by the US chamber. The bill, also known as card check, proposes for the abolition of private ballot vote; government mediation and control and finally ruthless punishment for traders (James, Sherk).

According to the current laws, workforces are entitled to carry out their democratic rights by using private ballot boxes. On the other hand, card check forces employees to vote in public, which is the exact opposite of a private ballot.

According to card check, when the majority of an organization’s workforce attest the cards, then every worker will have no option, but to join the union. This, beyond any reasonable doubt, denies the workforces to exercise their voting rights.

Moreover, in case the bill passes, the union and employers will know the position of each worker on whether or not they want to be part of the union (Human Rights Watch). Consequently, this would expose them to unnecessary intimidations by the union and employers.

Also, employees may be forced to join the union either as a way of impressing their seniors or to avoid intimidations by their bosses, which is not a reflection of their position.

EFCA grants the government all the authority to manipulate business decisions.

In other words, the government could appoint a committee to decide on job terms and conditions, without the employees’ consent or votes.

In this bill, Workers and unions can be subjected to binding arbitration, in case collective bargaining proves fruitless, i.e., within the first three months of bargaining (James, Sherk).

Consequently, private organizations would be exposed to risky practices that may be unproductive in the long run.

In binding arbitration, the government officials’ take charge on some of the most crucial aspects of an organization, i.e., it controls employees’ salaries and terms of employment (Committee on Business and Corporate Liti, 1171).

This so unfortunate to organizations; since they will have to operate under terms created by persons with insignificant knowledge about the industry and the company itself.

Furthermore, it is unreasonable for organizations to be accountable for their actions and activities, yet the terms of operation were created by foreigners (government officials).

It is further noted that judgments or decisions made by arbitrators are final; persons who do not bear the repercussions of their decisions.

EFCA would also unjustly discipline businesses; whereas, on the other hand, the unions will escape unpunished in case of unethical practices.

Sources indicate that labor unions are among the leading organizations charged with numerous unethical behaviors, yet they are the persons advocating for businesses to be harshly punished. Small and medium enterprises would be the foremost victims of EFCA, due to their unfamiliarity of the union’s operations and acts.

The unkind punishment within the act can be summarized as follows: twenty thousand dollar charge for each deliberate violation committed by an employer; the act also increased the amount payable to discriminated workers. In as much as the bill is characterized by extensive negative effect, it also has some positive impacts on employees and employers.

Activists and other supporters argue that this bill is the best opportunity for the Americans to restore their financial system that will considerably benefit the average citizens. It is also noted that EFCA provides employees with a tremendous opportunity to form Unions, which will eventually help solve their numerous working problems.

For instance, Union employees will benefit monetarily from this bill, i.e., their pay will be thirty percent high than the nonunion employees. Additionally, unions minimize the margin between gender pay and also stretches its benefits to pension schemes and health insurances thus benefiting employees.

Analysis of the labor movement and the most recent version of the EFCA

Labor movements started long ago, as avenues for workers to address their concerns. However, as time goes by, these movements faced several experiences; some being beneficial, while others are disadvantageous.

In studying these labor movements, I noted that they massively benefited US employees in different capacities. Labor movements assisted employees to collectively bargain for their requests such as pay rise, improved working condition and so on.

As a result, many employees’ thirsts were quenched, i.e., their pays were increased while others realized a changed working condition. For instance, in the ’90s, janitors realized a pay increase following their demonstrations and support by labor movements.

Labor movements are extensively affected by new laws; for instance, the introduction of EFCA, which not only affects labor movements but also impact on companies and their workers (US chamber of commerce).

Introductions of such laws not only influence the number of union members but also discourage membership involvement especially when unions support a law that suppresses their fundamental rights.

Employers are the prime persons targeted by labor movements when addressing the concerns of employees. This is because most of the employees’ problems such as poor working conditions and low payments are only and best addressed by employers.

Such demands made by employees exert pressure on employers thus making them dislike labor movements, to the extent of intimidating workers who supports them.

Furthermore, these movements encourage employees to strike and demonstrate in case employers fail to consider their requests; approaches opposed by employers.

The intention of forming EFCA was to provide a worker with a suitable working environment. However, this was not the case, since the act was accompanied by numerous negative implications for workers.

The clauses in the act tend to lean on employers and government side; the person who do not need to air their grievances. The act is composed of clauses that are either advantageous or unfavorable to both employers and employees. Moreover, the effects of this act extend to both the small and large scale businesses (US chamber of commerce).

If the act is passed, employees will be denied the essential right of private voting. This is because voting will be done in public by the use of certain cards. Furthermore, workers will be forced to join these unions without even exercising their fundamental rights.

This bill can also be used by employers to intimidate workers since they will be able to know the position of their employers following public voting. There is a possibility of business operating under unfavorable terms, which are created by persons who are incompetent about the business’ industry.

This is due to the clause, which permits the government to appoint a committee that arbitrates on any organizational dispute. Additionally, this clause would unfairly punish businesses especially the small scale enterprises, due to their unawareness of the union laws and undertakings.

Although it looks disadvantageous to employers, some of its content can be of benefit to employers and the economy as a whole. This act will play a significant role in reviving the economy, i.e., providing a suitable environment for middle-income earners.

The act provides workers with health covers and also increases their likelihood of being part of the pension scheme. Apart from reducing the margin between gender pays, the act also encourages employees to form and join unions where they can air their grievances.

Consequently, they will be able to enjoy several membership privileges such as increased pay, health coverage and so on.

Conclusion

Labor movements formed as avenues for employees to air their grievances and concerns. These movements assisted workers to collectively bargain with employers, in matters concerning their pay increase and working conditions.

Several workers have benefited from these movements, i.e., by having their salaries increased and also realizing a favorable working condition. However, labor movements have taken a different direction following the introduction of EFCA, which immensely impacts on not only impact on employees but also on businesses.

Works cited

Chicago tribune. Labor dispute. Chicago tribune. Web.

James, Sherk. Executive Summary: How the Employee Free Choice Act Takes Away Workers’ Rights. James Sherk and Paul Kersey. Web.

US chamber of commerce. The Employee Free Choice Act – the “Card Check” Bill. US chamber of commerce. Web.

Bill, Fletcher and Fernando, Gapasin. Solidarity divided: the crisis in organized labor and a new path toward social justice. California: University of California Press 2008 6.

Gloria Skurzynski. Sweat and blood: a history of U.S. labor unions. Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books 2008 1.

Caisley, Thompson. Collective bargaining. CCH New Zealand Limited, 2007 6.

Silver, Beverly. Forces of labor: workers’ movement and globalization since 1870. New York: Cambridge University press 2003.

Committee on Business and Corporate Liti. Annual Review of Developments in Business and Corporate Litigation. 2007. Chicago: American Bar Association 2008 (2) 1171.

Collective bargaining entails a series of negotiations between employers and the representatives of workers with the major aim of arriving at an agreement to regulate, improve, or enhance the conditions of working. In the current labor market, Marczely (2008) is of the view that trade unions are charged with the role of ensuring workers are not subjected to inhuman conditions that degrade them.

Through the process of collective bargaining, the writer notes that the two parties usually agree to set out a wage scale, working hours, the training needs, healthcare issues, overtime, conflict resolution, mechanisms, rights, freedoms, and safety of workers as they undertake their normal duties in their respective stations.

The author’s views are valid and credible in the sense that he captures the most important aspect of trade unions since they are expected to engage in talks with a single employer or group of employers representing various businesses. He further observes that the country’s laws usually determine the terms and conditions of negotiating, but the aim is always to reach at a consensus in order to prevent conflicts, as they have the potential of bringing down the performance of the organization.

In this regard, his ideas are reliable because the negotiated agreement serves as the labor contract between the employees and business owners. In many countries, workers in various sectors, including both public and private sectors, are supposed to present their grievances through the trade unions.

The United States is one of the countries that witnessed a complex collective bargaining process. Some analysts are of the view that the country has the best trade unions with the capacity to fight for the rights of workers appropriately. The paper looks at the developments of collective bargaining in the country with the aim of drawing a conclusion on whether the process has been successful.

In their view, Haber, Malin-Adams, and Khamalah (2008) observe that employees of any country are allowed to present their issues through unions. Again, they analyze the idea suggesting that the US constitution allows members of any trade union to force their employers to provide for them what they want. They trace the activities of unions to the National Labor Relations Act (1935), which talk about the relationship between the employed and the employers.

They further note that the bill was introduced specifically to address the issues of employees in the private sector who were often oppressed. In the 1935 law, the researchers note that the employer was prohibited from spying on the worker, discriminating them based on gender, race, and age, harassing them, and firing workers without giving sufficient reason and following the due process.

At the time, employers were concerned with the rate at which trade unions were being formed in the country forcing some to develop strategies to counter the trend. The ideas of the scholars are reliable because organizations formed trade unions that served their interests, something that the 1935 law attempted to address.

Unfortunately, the article tends to suggest that the law protected the employer as well because it was against antitrust in the sense that members would not fix high wages and salaries for their services. Again, they observed that it was illegal to force an individual to belong to a trade union or hire them based on the opinion on labor organizations.

Klein (2014) noted that workers were empowered further in the subsequent years because voting was made free and fair particularly to reflect the national presidential and local elections. In his analysis workers were influenced to vote for particular members, especially those believed to represent the interests of employers. The owners of the means of production understood that trade unions existed to empower and enlighten workers on wages, conditions of work, and benefits.

Electing radical leaders to high offices was considered disastrous since organizations would not have the power to determine salaries, which would have an effect on the profitability and financial performance of organizations. On the side of employers, the author noted that it was determined that the senior management was supposed to negotiate with worker’s representatives on behalf of stakeholders.

The ideas of the scholar present accurately the demands of workers at the time, as he noted that the main issues that affected workers were setting up of commensurate wages, establishing the required work hours, calculation of benefits, the conditions of employment, and the issue of inappropriate firing.

He also captured an important aspect on the development of collective bargaining claiming that individual negotiations have never been allowed since the organizational management is likely to cajole a single worker to accept a faulty decision, something that validates his study. The process of designing a contract between workers’ unions and managements of various companies is bureaucratic since a team sits down with the management before approving the new contract.

Each worker has the chance to participate in the process by voting to the already formulated policy. Once the policy or contract is approved through a simple majority vote, it is expected to serve its purpose for a specified period upon which reforms are undertaken to ensure it meets the current needs of both parties.

Memoli and Semuels (2011) conducted a study concluding that, in at least twenty-eight states in the country, each employee is expected to contribute towards the trade union account since it facilitates of the effecting handling of issues. The researchers note that, even though no specified amount is set, many states suggest one or two percent of the salary. The expenditure of union dues has been a cause of disagreement in the country prompting the Supreme Court intervention.

In Ohio for instance, the scholars note that the judges ruled that the workers unions do not have the authority to utilize an individual’s dues without consent because leaders tend to misuse resources in facilitating political debates that do not bring benefits to workers. Before industrial revolution, the issue of collective bargaining was never coordinated since workers in each organization had to fight their way.

However, the enhancement of the industrial sector was a blessing to the trade unionists since it facilitated the formation of various labor organizations throughout the country. In the late 19^th century, Kiely (2007) observed that the American Federation of Labor was created, which improved the bargaining power of many employees in the country.

In 1926, the scholar clarified that employees in the railway industry participated in the formulation of the Railway Labor Act forcing each employee to channel his or her grievances through the trade union, which was a turning point in the activities of workers aimed at improving their welfare. The court reaffirmed in 1931 that its previous decision prohibiting employers from interfering with the process of electing union officials, as this had a direct impact on the employee’s bargaining power.

In 1962, the administration in the US bowed down to pressure when the president, F. Kennedy, issued a directive order permitting workers in the civil service to form unions that would play a role as far as bargaining collectively was concerned.

References

Haber, L., Malin-Adams, N., & Khamalah, J. (2008). Labor negotiations, misconceptions, and repeated prisoner’s dilemma: a simulation. Journal of Collective Bargaining, 2(1), 329-341. doi: 10.2190/CN.32.4.f.

Kiely, T. C. (2007). Collective bargaining. Auckland, N.Z: CCH New Zealand.

Klein, G. (2014). College football players have right to form a union, NLRB rule. Los Angeles Times, p. 6.

Marczely, B. (2008). The contractual Diminishing of FMLA employee Rights. Journal of Collective Bargaining, 32(4), 279-286. doi: 10.2190/CN.32.4.b.

Memoli, M. A., & Semuels, A. (2011). Ohio votes to overturn new collective bargaining law. Los Angeles Times, p. 18.

There is no use denying the fact that the issue of labor relations could be taken as one of the most important for the functioning of our coherent society. The thing is that all relations that exist within the society are based on money and labor. That is why, it is extremely vital to create remedies that could regulate this sort of bond.

Collective bargaining is one of these remedies. Nowadays, it is taken as a certain type of negotiations between the group of employees, which is given the right to represent the rest of workers, and a group of employers, which also has certain authorities, in order to determine the main conditions under which people will work. It could be taken as a very powerful remedy that helps workers to struggle for their rights and control the functioning of a company.

It should also be said that there are four components of collective bargaining, which are compensation wages, personnel policies and procedures, workers and employers rights and arbitration (Ales 95). It is obvious, that all these components are very important for the functioning of any company, however, it is possible to assume that the aspects that regulate rights of the staff and arbitration could be taken as vital. The thing is that these aspects guarantee a certain level of independence and security for workers and officials at the same time. Schelzig, it his article devoted to the protest of the workers of Volkswagen group, underlines the fact that due to the main concepts of collective bargaining and the issue of arbitration, the staff managed to protect its rights and guarantee certain advantages (para. 2). With this in mind, it is possible to assume that the issue of collective bargaining has a great impact on the sphere of relations between employees and employers.

It is obvious that to be powerful and have a great impact on employees and their relations with workers, collective bargaining should be supported by certain laws. That is why, the government managed to create the acts which describe labor relations and collective bargaining. With this in mind, the following three documents could be mentioned: The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)of 1935 and the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (Townsend and Wilkinson 112). These documents could be taken as the very important remedies that control the functioning of the sphere of labor relations and guarantee protection both of the rights of employers and employees.

However, it should be said that some employers still try to follow some unfair practices in order to increase the level of incomes at the same time infringing the rights of workers. There are several unfair practices that are used by employers more often. First of all, they can dominate the labor union. Another variant is the initial refusal to find a compromise with the help of collective bargaining. Finally, they might punish an employer because of this active participation in the Labor Board or the workers turning to the law (McCammon 141).

McCammon, in her article, discusses these last two cases of unfair relations, underlining the fact that nowadays the practice of strikes becomes less popular, while more and more workers prefer to go to the court (143). However, this very issue is given little attention by sociology and various institutions and very often employers manage to use their unfair practices in order to achieve some benefits and make employees work under poor conditions.

Thus, taking into account great importance of the issue of collective bargaining and its impact on the sphere of labor relations, it is possible to say that creation of a bargaining unit is a very important process which helps demands great level of responsibility, A bargaining unit is a group of workers performing the same kind of activity that helps another workers to struggle for their rights and that acts on behalf of the rest of employers (Townsend and Wilkinson 110). That is why, the process of creation of this very unit should be organized in accordance with certain laws. First of all, the workers of a company should have an organized union that is connected with their industry. According to Townsend and Wilkinson, this fact is very important for the whole process as only formed and legal union can suggest the creation of a bargaining group (115). Thus, only in terms of existence of a union, creation of a unit could be analyzed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). First of all, NLRB should take into account several criteria, such as working conditions, wages, training protocols and the number of hours in the week and worker groups history (Townsend and Wilkinson 111). However, after the NLRBs examination the group still does not have the official status. The chosen group must register with the Federal Labor Relations Authority which is the department of the NLRB. This organization should take into account all factors and determine whether to give the certificate to a group or not. Townsend and Wilkinson state that all these conditions are needed to provide official status for a bargaining unit and, as a result, give it more authority (117).

With this in mind, it is possible to state the fact that collective bargaining deals with the various spheres of activity of a company and helps all participants to obtain the needed solution. Resting on these facts, one could say that the process of administering a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) becomes very important for the functioning of the whole company or organization. First of all, according to Ales, CBA is the negotiated contract between an employer and a certain union. This contract deals with the wages, vacations and a great number of other conditions important for the functioning of workers (97). That is why, being a very important process that creates the basis for the functioning of a certain company, it should be controlled and well organized. Ales also outlines several stages of the process of administering of CBA. The thing is that usually, this process contains the grievance procedure. That is why, it is very important to be able to find the competent supervisor who that will be able to control the process. Moreover, depending on the flow of the process and claims, some outside organization might be chosen as the arbitrator (“A Practical Guide to Grievance Arbitration” 4). This arbitrator could be given a great level of authority in order to be able to find a good solution to the existing problem. Additionally, in the article Ales states that this role or the arbitrator is very important as it has a great impact on the whole process and determines the way in which solution could be found (99).

Works Cited

A Practical Guide to Grievance Arbitration. n.d. Web.

Ales, Edorado. “Transnational collective bargaining: Another (problematic) fragment of the European multi-level industrial relations system” European Journal of Industrial Relations. 18. 2(2012): 95-105. Web.

Schelzig, Erik. “UAW Taking ‘Micro’ Approach to Unionizing Volkswagen Plant”. abcNews. 2015. Web.

Townsend, Keith and Adrian Wilkinson. ” Is Enterprise Bargaining Still a Better Way of Working?”. Industrial Relations & Labor, 2013. 55.1(2013): 100-117. Web.

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of collective bargaining to the educational institution, on the one hand, and to the general public and students.

A discussion on the operation and management of higher education is substantially incomplete if it fails to touch on the importance and role of collective bargaining. A lot of research attention has been given to the aspect of unionization of faculty staff and management. Collective bargaining has gained ground in advocating for employees rights. It has become the most successful and common tool used by employees of all wage levels who attempt to advocate for better or increased pay, status and environment.

Collective bargaining bears its roots to the trade union movement of the nineteenth century. It hails from a series of informal methods such as strikes and go slows that characterized the trade union movement in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The industrial revolution however increased the level of activity in the labor sector and the informal methods were no longer economical and practical. This therefore paved the way for the advent of collective bargain arrangements. In the first half of the twentieth century it was popular among the laborers up until the second half when professionals and white-collar workers began to unionize. It slowly crept into institutions of learning including those of higher education. Due to the nature of the sizes and number of higher educational institutions at the time, collective bargain took longer to be incorporated into the professional field than it did in labor organizations.

Collective bargain seeks to address two main rights, the right to a good salary and access to necessary benefits. these two roles are embedded in the professional requirements and contract of employment and form the basis and justification for the collective bargain arrangement. Clearly there is a tendency to adopt a defensive approach between parties to the employment contract once the unionized agreement has been signed. This has often led to impaired communication between the faculty members and the administration. In effect there are certain pertinent advantages and disadvantages that accrue to the administration on one hand and the students and the general public on the other.

To the administration collective bargaining leads to a high level of performance since the worker is confident in an equal standing in matters of problem solving and addressing issues. The collective bargain defines the confines of the employment relationship. It therefore creates negotiated bilateral terms that are agreed on by both parties.

The bilateral agreement spells out the managerial rights and obligations. This therefore provides a clear flow of command to the advantage of the management. Some collective bargain agreements provide for budgetary predications of the total amount that the management will pay over a certain period. This acts to benefit the management on making strategies and planning of resources. It facilitates making of financial decision in the organization. A collective bargain agreement also provides for the compensational due for the termination of employment prematurely, this allows the management to make replacement decisions for instance to take advantage of fresh talent and better skill. this also guarantees the employee security in their employment by placing a mode of resolution for forced termination. The collective bargain also guarantees the employee benefits after such termination (Duderstadt 2000, p 58-90).

The public and student fraternity benefits substantially form collective bargains. The use of informal methods such as strikes and go slows in the mid and late 1990s caused by the economic slowdown after the world wars affected learning heavily with students having to go without classes for days. Collective bargains therefore ensure that the students and public are protected form economic conditions and slow down.

The public from the employee base for the higher education institutions. In effect the existence of a fair and consistent standard in the terms and conditions of employment acts to motivate hard work and standardized service delivery. Employees also receive unionized representation as part of the collective bargain agreement. This therefore ensures that the minority interests receive adequate representation and voice. Collective bargains also act as adequate mechanisms of dealing with workforce development concerns. They place an obligation on the employer to offer the relevant training to embrace technological revolution. This therefore ensures that the employees remain relevant to the job.

Disadvantages

To the management the collective bargain arrangements act as a threat to the authority and freedom of administration. The limited exercise of power often restricts the management’s ability to fully exercise their authority over and above the negotiated rules of work. Similarly it develops the potential for polarization between he employees and managers the bargained agreement generates a since of defensiveness that often leads to polarization of the management.

The collective bargain also limits the potentials and capacities of the employees. This is the case if the collective bargain is a compromise between the most active and least active employees. This causes a disproportionate effect on the labor force quality and aggressiveness. The most active members are forced to compromise for relative aggressiveness since the reward is limited to relative hard work. Those who are least active on the other hand benefit from the higher than worked for bargain and therefore operate at the expense of the administration.

The collective bargain agreement increases the level of bureaucracy that translates to time wastage in decision making. Any adjustment even if positive requires negotiation and re evaluation through lengthy procedures. It also increases the interference from external bodies and individuals in higher education management and decision making affairs. The involvement of arbitrator’s labor representatives and relations boards increases the level of exposure of the management to the outside world.

The rigid nature of negotiated agreements serves to inhibit innovation and change. The management cannot deal with the employees directly and therefore limits the communication infrastructure. This translates for higher management costs.

To the public and students the collective agreements increase the level of dependence on the private sector for quality education and service since the competition in the private sector causes a competition for service and content and an effectual increase in the cost of quality facilities and services in effect it compromises those who seek to gain technological competence by limiting their access to experience and practical lessons.

Inadvertently it is clear that management and the public have more gains than loses in the use and application of collective bargains. I therefore suggest that collective bargains are ether better alternative to normal contracts of employment. The guaranteed sense of stability and consistency acts to the benefit of the administration and the public as well as the students.

References

Corry, J. (2000). Negotiations: The Art of Mutual Gains Bargaining.Aurora: Canada Law Book.

Duderstadt, J. (2000). A University for the 21st Century. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.

Fogg, P. (2002). “Bill in Washington State Would Allow Professors to Bargain Collectively, If….” Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A12.

Introduction

The new proposed changes to the law for collective bargaining for workers proposed by the ACTU has a lot to recommend it. However, it is asking for a lot all at once, and some portions are problematic. However, the Issue paper from the ACCI uses flawed logic to support its opinions. One has to take a close look at both association documents before making a decision on which portions to support. The ACTU proposal is good for the worker for the most part, but it may be pie in the sky as far as getting it introduced into law. While Australian workers certainly need many of these changes, there are far too many arguments against them to hope for easy adoption.

This paper will examine the documents from the ACCI and the ACTU and compare their points along with some of the current literature on collective bargaining. We will examine the pros and cons of each of the main proposed changes to the law as far as benefits and costs to our communities, and the arguments proposed against them.

The Current State of Affairs

The current state of affairs for workers and unions in Australia are woefully out of date. Collective bargaining and union organization is hampered by a collection of law and circumstance. The most affected workers are the low-income unskilled workers.

“Throughout most of the twentieth century, awards of the industrial relations tribunals were the major source of legally enforceable conditions of employment in Australia. Since the late 1980s, enterprise bargaining has been introduced in federal and state jurisdictions but has continued to operate alongside the more traditional, although altered, award system.” (Mortimer and O’Neill 2007).

The “Work Choices” reforms of the Howard government did no favours for the workers, and the situation and standard of living for the lowest-paid unskilled workers are worse than ever. Many workers are just making the legal minimum wage and their benefits are practically non-existent. In addition, home workers and part-timers can be paid on a piecework basis. Instead of progress, we have rolled back the law concerning the rights of workers. ‘From award restructuring in the 1980s through to the 1996 Workplace Relations Act, the goal of greater productivity has dominated the workplace and called into being continuous reforms’ (Morris, 1999:3). What few laws of protection exist have no teeth. It is definitely time for some change, but how much?

The Proposed Changes

Collective Bargaining

This is the major area for proposed changes. The ACTU wants to establish a new system for collective bargaining protected by legal rights of association which would include:

• The right for employees to bargain collectively for wages and benefits over and above the minimal safety net provided by law.
• A system to enforce good faith bargaining on both sides
• The rights for employees to be represented by a union
• The rights of the union to represent all workers in the workplace who so desire and should benefit accrue non-members the right to require the collection of representation fees in lieu of union dues

Rights to Good Faith Collective Bargaining

In the issue article by the ACCI, there are numerous objections to this part of the proposed legislation. They allege that the ACTU document is trying to imply that there has been no collective bargaining. In reading the document it is very clear that the ACTU is merely proposing a new system of collective bargaining, not as they say, “proposing the new system be rebuilt on the old blueprint.” (ACTU 2006) There is clear evidence that this is needed. The ACCI also complains that the new proposal could force people to accept collective bargaining. This is true, but only as called for by an umpire. The ACTU cited Canada’s successful practice of calling for collective bargaining and added that they wanted to make sure that the law had teeth by adding penalties if they refused good faith bargaining and that not liking collective bargaining was not to be considered sufficient reason. The ACCI claims that “Bargaining under compulsion, under forced disclosure of information and under threat of arbitration denies an employer the right to only reach agreements that they consider to be in their interests.” Well, fancy that! Of course, it prevents the company from only reaching agreements acceptable to them. That is the point of the proposal. The companies have been only accepting deals that are agreeable to them, and the workers are left out in the cold. This merely gives workers a say. (ACCI Issues Paper 2006).

There is also a provision that would prohibit companies from making separate deals with non-union members in order to bust the union and private or one on one meetings would also be prohibited. This sounds extreme until you read the ACTU’s description of why it is needed and how it will work. Then it becomes totally logical as a way to prevent the companies from using these tactics to intimidate workers or to break the union. Even the UK provides for prevention of using these tactics, and it punishes offences as it did in 2006. “Retailer Asda was recently ordered to pay £850,000 to 340 employees when it was found to have unlawfully tried to persuade employees to give up collective bargaining rights (Davies and Ors v Asda Stores Ltd; 2006 ET 2501510/05) Setting and enforcing penalties that induce compliance will be important.

McCallum deplores the Howard changes to the law as they rolled back workers rights and gave all the power to industry:

“These laws, which are set out in the Workplace Relations Act 1996,5 facilitate employer control in several ways: by curtailing the powers of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (the federal Commission); by the establishment of freedom of association provisions that outlaw all forms of trade union security; by making it easier for employers to make arrangements directly with their employees free from trade union interference; and by providing for statutory individual agreements known as Australian workplace agreements (see Australian Journal of Labour Law 1997; Riley 1997; Mac Dermott 1997, 1998; Coulthard 1999; McCallum 1997, 2001).” (McCallum 2002).

The ACCI document warns that the outcomes of collective bargaining can be compelled by third parties. This is, in fact, true. The law in Canada allows for the umpire to compel the parties to accept a decision reached by an arbitration committee, which has been used to decide the first contract after a deadlock was reached. So yes these are third parties, but the plan for the make-up of the arbitration committee would follow the Canadian pattern with members from all interested parties is included. This simply prevents protracted strikes or bad faith bargaining. The ACCI also complains that the new legislation would decide how employers to bargain. This is a good thing, since it prevents unfair labour practices, employee intimidation and compels good faith bargaining.

The Rights of Workers to be Represented by a Union

The ACCI opposes compulsory recognition of unions as representatives for collective bargaining. It complains that the union only needs half of the workers to be members in order to force collective bargaining and force the company to accept them as representatives of the workers. This is another point that makes one a little tempted to sarcasm. Well yes, that is the idea of the proposed legislation, to stop companies from ignoring the wishes and needs of the workers. The ACCI complains that companies will then be compelled to accept the union as the sole representative of the workers and that it will also be prohibited from making separate deals with non-union workers. This again is preventing union-busting. In fact, the workers who do not join the union will be assessed a fee equivalent to the union dues as compensation for this representation. They get the benefits won there-by, the negotiator has the right to be paid. Otherwise, it kills the union even though good bargains for the workers were achieved. So what is to prevent the employers from reverting to the old wages after it kills the union? Recognition of the union by employers is key to equitable power for the workers.

Even the US, which is woefully behind in acceptable protection for workers compelled a company to bargain with the union after it acquired a plant because it hired all union members who had worked for the previous owner. The company had thought that the Burns rule exempted them because it says that new employers can set the conditions of hire. However, the US Court ruled that there was no provision allowing the company to ignore the union when it was plain that all of its workers were members. (Monthly Labor Review 4-2000) The Organizing Improvements Bill of 2007 in the US finally eliminated the protracted vote for the recognition of the unit once it has a majority of workers signed. (Organizing Improvements Bill 2007) The U.S. also enacted a “Secret Ballot” Act for union membership voting in order to combat industrial intimidation of workers in 2005. (Almond et al 2005).

New Tribunal Powers

The ACCI is opposed to the establishment of a tribunal that will have the power to order good faith bargaining and when that fails, order arbitration. This need seems a bit obvious since it is a remedy for the possibility that companies could let negotiations go on and on forever otherwise. It is certainly far less costly to keep a few people in endless meetings than to grant fair wages and benefits to all workers. If the company had to pay all workers double wages while negotiations continued, the unions and workers would be eager for negotiations to continue with no intention of reaching an agreement. That is what the establishment of a tribunal with power will prevent.

The ACCI cited bad decisions by the current system as a reason for keeping it. “Decisions of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission after the introduction of enterprise bargaining in the early 1990s (such as the Asahi Case) confirmed the right of an employer to say ‘no’ to over-award bargaining demands and to not have them arbitrated by an industrial tribunal. This new approach turns sensible decisions like that on their head.” (ACCI Issues 2006) They also imply that the forced decision in the case of bad faith bargaining would be made by the tribunal: “The new power of an industrial tribunal to determine the outcome of a disputed (forced) negotiation is the most regressive aspect of the policy announcements.” (ACCI Issues 2006) The truth is that the tribunal can only require binding arbitration and the arbitration committee would be made up of representatives from all the stakeholders, including the company.

Another citation of existing wrongs followed in the ACCI paper: “Giving increased power to unions and industrial tribunals to compel bargaining above minimum standards ignores modern labour market realities. Only one in ten workplaces have union members. Less than one in five private-sector employees are union members. Over one million non-union agreements have been made between employers and employees over the past ten years and more than half a million of those still exist.” (ACCI Issues Paper 2006) Yes, this is true. It shows just how powerful the companies have been in keeping workers from joining unions and in preventing the negotiation of new contracts. Workers have been forces to accept the status quo in fear of losing still more. That some wrong has existed for a long time does not make it less wrong. It does show how successful employers are under current law in intimidating workers. They claim that forced collective bargaining would cause more strikes, but that has not been shown as the case where equitable and enforceable laws are in force.

Collective Bargaining Flexibility

“Allowing pattern bargaining means that the right to strike would be able to be applied against all employers in an industry – resulting in industry-wide close-downs for which there could be no sanction against the union for the economic damage caused.” (ACCI Issues Paper 2006) This is actually not the case. The proposal sets out a set of circumstances when this type of bargaining will be sought, but the interests of all stakeholders must be considered.

“Consistent with the principle that parties should be free to determine the level at which they bargain, multi-employer collective agreements (a single agreement binding more than one employer) should be available where the parties agree to bargain at that level. Where a multi-employer agreement is proposed but the claim for such an agreement is contested, the Commission should have the power to determine whether a multi-employer bargaining process should proceed, and determine who the bargaining parties will be.” (ACTU, 2006).

In such cases, the unions would apply to the commission and the criteria for decisions by the commission are clearly set out to cover all the interested parties, including the community. This is far from the arbitrary rule that the ACCI implies.

Rights for Protected Industrial Action

One concern that the ACCI mentions that may have some basis or scrutiny of this proposed legislation concern the expansion of protected industrial actions. This seems not to be clearly defined in the ACTU proposal. Therefore, there is no real definition of what “Protected Industrial Action” is, nor is there any real restraint on the unions for calling for it. There should be a provision for union members to vote and a prohibition of strike while a tribunal judges that the initial collective bargaining is proceeding in good faith. Since the proposal makes provision for trained union representatives among the workers, one of the duties of these stewards could be to ascertain the will of the workers, not the unions or the employers. This is what should govern any legal actions. However, as in Canada, other types of actions, besides strikes, are available, such as “work to rule” actions or refusal of overtime and even partial rotating strikes. Actions that qualify as protected industrial action should be defined for both the unions and the companies and there should be clear rules on when they can be applied.

Conclusions

There is a definite need for reform. The careful analysis of both the ACTU proposal and the ACCI objections put forth shows that the majority of the proposals are not only logical and lawful but also very necessary. The ACCI mostly cites that the status quo has existed for a long time as a reason to refuse change. If we follow that reasoning, then we will eventually be back to the sweatshops of two centuries ago. Corporations are interested mostly in their profits, and few care a great deal about their workers. Money seems to drive the power to take actions that are clearly wrong. This paper has shown that the ACCI objections are, for the most part, without merit. In the one place where the ACCI may have a point, this can be remedied by making clear and carefully considered definitions and regulations to govern the use of protected industrial action.

It is agreed that these proposals would, indeed, make Australia possibly the most regulated country in the world for labour relations. However, this is not necessarily bad. It is not the degree of regulation that counts, but the quality of regulation and the tools in place to make the implementation of this regulation smooth and timely. The more clearly one defines the rules which govern adversarial actions, the more productive they are likely to be.

References

ACCI Issues Paper, 2006, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Web.

ACTU, 2006, A Fair Go at Work, Web.

ALMAND, M.R., 2005. Employers and Unions Face Off on Capitol Hill Over Secret Ballot Elections. Venulex Legal Summaries, , pp. 1-2.

Australian Journal of Labour Law. 1994. Special issue containing articles examining the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 (Cth) which amended the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth). 7 Australian Journal of Labour Law, 105–226.

Australian Journal of Labour Law. 1997. Special issue containing articles examining the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Cth). Australian Journal of Labour Law, 1–157.

BLOOM, H.M., EGAN, P.L. and PAYSON, M.F., 2000. Unions Can Organize Temporary Employees Along with Regular Workforce. Venulex Legal Summaries, , pp. 1-4.

COULTHARD, Amanda. 1999. “The Decollectivisation of Australian Industrial Relations: Trade Union Exclusion Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).” Employment Relations, Individualisation and Union Exclusion: An International Study. S. Deery and R. Mitchell, eds. Sydney: The Federation Press, 48–68.

LAMONT, S., 2002. Time to change law on union members rights. Personnel Today, , pp. 20.

MAC DERMOTT, Therese. 1997. “Industrial Legislation in 1996: The Reform Agenda.” 39 Journal of Industrial Relations, 52–76.

MAC DERMOTT, Therese. 1998. “Australian Labour Law Reform: The New Paradigm.” 6 Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal, 127–145.

MCCALLUM, Ron. 1996. “The New Millennium and the Higgins Heritage: Industrial Relations in the 21st Century.” 38 Journal of Industrial Relations, 294–312.

MCCALLUM, Ron. 1997. “Crafting a New Collective Labour Law for Australia.” 39 Journal of Industrial Relations, 405–422.

MCCALLUM, Ron. 2001. “Introduction.” Butterworths Industrial Law Federal. Sydney: Butterworths, 1011–1025.

MORTIMER, D. and O’NEILL, B., 2007. Is Enterprise Bargaining Meeting the Needs of Employers and Employees? The Case of Family-Friendly Working Conditions in the Australian Retail Industry. Employment Relations Record, 7(2), pp. 63-84.

Organizing Improvements Bill 2007, Pipeline & Gas Journal.

RILEY, Joellen. 1997. Workplace Relations: A Guide to the 1996 Changes. Sydney: The Law Book Co.

SPOONER, G., 2006. Persuasion Doesn’t Pay. People Management, 12(6), pp. 21-21.

The evolution of human society, tools, equipment, and technologies contributed to the establishment of a sophisticated model of relations between individuals and organizations. Moreover, the shift of priorities towards the respect of an individuals basic needs also preconditioned the appearance of certain regulations and laws needed to protect a common person and guarantee an appropriate reward for a certain amount of job performed by him/her. In this regard, any relations between an individual and organization, government, or two different companies are nowadays documented and supported by a certain law basis that helps to distinguish duties, responsibilities, and outline rewards. The adherence to the given pattern results in the improved efficiency of this sort of cooperation and conditions better outcomes.

Therefore, if to analyze a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that is provided for the analysis, it is possible to admit several important aspects. First, the given document tends to highlight all significant concerns related to the cooperation between the trustees of Columbia University in the city of New York. That is why there are 42 subjects that are given attention and analyzed within the given paper (Columbia University, 2015). In such a way it determines the main points related to the functioning of employees, their recruitment, dismissal, rewarding, etc. It should be considered the most important document that guarantees the efficient functioning of the institution and its further growth.

Besides, the document obviously adds value to a workplace as it provides the detailed description of the most crucial points of the cooperation between agents within the Columbia University. A new employee who wants to understand his/her duties and responsibilities should use CBA to acquire the needed information and become an efficient worker. However, at the same time, the document also offers the description of guarantees provided to a worker by the Union and the terms of the agreement. Numerous details related to the reasons for dismissals, penalties, etc. are provided. It means that the existence of the given document adds value to a workplace by protecting employees and at the same time providing a certain list of restrictions and limits that should be minded to become a responsible worker.

The given document could be taken as similar to those which exist between management and labor. In other words, the basic aspects of the cooperation are discussed and fixed with the help of the main points of the act. When analyzing the way in which the document is written, it is vital to admit several important details. First, it could be considered broad enough for an individual to be able to interpret it and understand the main assumptions and ideas provided there. Moreover, this CBA is written in accordance with the existing norms and regulations. This fact contributes to its increased importance and significance. Additionally, there are no unnecessary details that might complicate the documents understanding or result in the appearance of numerous misunderstandings. For instance, all sections have clear and understandable titles that contribute to the better navigation. Yet, wages section also offers the detailed description of the most important aspects of payroll accounting for a worker to be able to understand it (Columbia University, 2015).

Altogether, the document could be considered an efficient tool that contributes to the better understanding of the basic terms of the cooperation between various agents, their duties, responsibilities, and rewards. It adds value to a workplace by providing a certain level of security to workers.

Reference

Columbia University. (2015). Collective Bargaining Agreement between the trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. Web.

Collective bargaining makes it possible for employees to negotiate with their employers on issues related to working conditions. Namit & Larry (1987) explains that among others, wage scale, pension, working hours, overtime, safety and health, are set through collective bargaining agreements.

In the United States, the state of Wisconsin was one of the first to introduce collective bargaining rights to its majority public workers. However, the introduction of the Budget Repair Bill (on February 11, 2011) proposed taking away these collective bargaining rights of public-sector unions. The Budget Repair Bill was introduced by newly elected Governor Walker to close a perennial budget deficit. Earlier, the deficit had been filled three times by former governor Jim Doyle (2003-2010) by taking $1.257 billion from transportation fund. Walker’s bill was passed by the Wisconsin Assembly, On March 10, 2011, with a vote margin of 53-42.

According to the bill, state employees are required to pay more toward their pension in an attempt to help the state raise up to $ 180 million a year in order to close the state’s $137 million budget gap. Thus, the budget repair bill makes it almost impossible for public sector unions to bargain collectively for its members over pension, wage scale and healthcare. The bill also limits public employees’ pay rise in response to corresponding rise in rate of inflation, arguing that such cuts are necessary to prevent massive job losses.

According to the 1996 pension plan collective bargaining agreement, the districts paid for employees a total of 13% to the pension scheme. But the recent legislation presented by Walker requires employers to contribute 6.8%, with another 6.2% contribution coming from the employee. Another provision in this bill to reduce the capacity of the legislative oversight of the state Medicaid program was also strongly opposed by the workers’ union.

Since the bill became effective as law on June, 29, 20011, the State has recorded positive change. In Kaukauna, for example, school officials project that at end of the financial year they will make a surplus of $1.5 million, up from a $0.4 million deficit. However, the policy has also recorded setbacks. For example, the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) announced a 40% workforce layoff as a result of loss of revenue.

Wisconsin’s collective bargaining issue generated a heated debate with some organizations supporting Walkers’ legislation and others condemning it. Public and private unions joined hands in solidarity to oppose the Governor’s measures. These included the largest police union whose members are not affected by this legislation. Democratic state senators made all attempts to thwart the passing of the legislation by mobilizing demonstrators during the protests but failed to stop its passage.

On the other hand, organizations (mainly the Tea Party) supporting walkers’ legislation were led by a conservative activist group called American Majority. The activist group has very strong ties to the conservative Republicans and is thought to be financed by the Koch business tycoon brothers. Conservative media baron Andrew Breitbart was also among those who led the counter-protest.

Davey & Steven (2011) shows that long after the passage of the bill in March 2011, several issues still remain unresolved and major points are still being negotiated. A lawsuit filed by Dane County Executive challenges the constitutionality of the budget repair bill, stating that the bill still contains fiscal provisions. This means that it requires a quorum for it to be regarded as law. A number of lawsuits have also been filed by individuals and workers’ unions alleging that the bill is not legally enforceable as it contains unlawful budget provisions. These are some of the points being negotiated and which are yet to be determined.

References

Davey, M., & Steven, G.,(2011). Wisconsin May Take an Ax to State Workers’ Benefits and Their Unions. The New York Times,10 (8), 22.

Namit, C., & Larry, S., (1987). Prescription for Labor Pains: Combine Bargaining with Problem Solving. The American School Board Journal,74 (24), 102.

Labor relations entail the managing unions of employees; it covers organization bargaining under the Human Resource Management (HRM). Organization bargaining, which is also known as collective bargaining within an organization touches on the ability of workers to associate freely with each other in negotiating for proper working relations.

Notably, the employer and employees have an equal share and bargaining power in the negotiations in order to ensure that the outcome is fair and equitable (Collective Bargaining, 2009). Fairness in the employment relationship averts scenarios of costly labor disputes, rampant workers strikes, and persistent unemployment.

Collective bargaining is a joint work done between one or many people who take sides thus resulting in a collective agreement in their terms and conditions as well as recognition. For example, in North America, the government is the only body entitled to issue a certificate of recognition to the workers union (Boivin, 2012).

The certificate shows the support that the union has towards the absolute majority it presents in collective bargaining. The government offered mediation services to facilitate consensus-building process at the workplaces. North America gives the collective agreement a period, which is usually more than one year. The government recognized unions after a colossal strike by workers in 1947.

The establishment of the Rand Formula that led to the recognition of workers’ unions paved way for the introduction of medical insurance and universal pension plans for employees. In other countries like Canada, the provinces contain jurisdiction towards labor issues excluding federal government regulated factories.

According to Boivin (2012), collective bargaining involves two conflicting parties with separate interest concerning workers with the urge of getting income and job security. This allows the union to have successful pluralistic goals since it is not pathological; none of the parties can attain its goals minus the other.

It is a formalized process where employers and trade unions agree on the terms and conditions in the working premises. However, the public has the power to allow as well as encourage collective bargaining to assist the conflicting parties to make up their minds on their differences hence giving room for reconciliation.

Collective bargaining increases the workers’ strength thus creating a sense of self-respect and responsibility among the employees. Moreover, it raises the workers’ production morale as it increases their level of bargaining at any negotiation meeting. Additionally, it limits the freedom of the management in case of arbitrary actions towards the employees (Collective Bargaining, 2012). This motivates the employees on working relations whenever they consult the management.

The managers of the union are able to sort out issues in the level of bargaining rather than forwarding complaints to the employees. It creates security towards the work, therefore, reducing the cost of labor turnover within the management. In addition, it creates a channel of communication between the employee and their employers hence resolving the industrial disputes (Collective Bargaining, 2012).

Further, collective bargaining creates peace, therefore, establishing a harmonious environment that helps in pacing the efforts of the nation in developing the economy. Collective bargaining checks the exploitation of workers hence regulating employment conditions to the concerned parties. Evidently, collective bargaining can minimize striking among workers, as they will be able to air their grievances through their unions.

Collective bargaining assisted South Africa to conduct a peaceful transition during the post apartheid era and even assisted the Republic of Korea move through the Asian financial crisis. Notably, good labor relations benefit all stakeholders in a business enterprise. Under the labor standards, the 1949 Collective bargaining convention encouraged relations and negotiations between employees and their employers within the stipulated conditions and regulations of collective agreements (Collective Bargaining, 2009).

Further, the Geneva Conference ascertained the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining with no interference from any quotas. The 1978 Convention on Labor Relations recognized and aided the collective bargaining for public employees and the inclusion of their representative in determining the employment conditions. It went a head to outline various methods and processes of settling disputes between parties; some of the methods include arbitration and mediation.

Collective bargaining took into concern the problems that can arise at the workplaces, especially among the high-level employees who are considered as policy makers (Collective Bargaining, 2009). In 1981, the Collective Bargaining Convention clearly defined the term collective bargaining and ensured that all sectors of economic production adopt it in order to improve their images.

Article 5 of the Geneva Convention of 1981 holds that collective bargaining ought to be made achievable to all workers and their employers. Clearly, the International Labor Organization (ILO) has promoted the comprehension of this labor term among the workers and their employers. Collective bargaining modifies the terms of employment and the working conditions of employees and an organization in order to reach an amicable agreement that serves the interests of all the stakeholders.

Collective bargaining has different forms that one can take to engage in a collective agreement. The process has intra-organizational bargaining, integrative bargaining, distributive bargaining, and attitudinal restructuring (Boivin, 2012). In distributive bargaining, economic parameters like salary and bonus form the core issues of discussion; in it, one party loses while the other party gains in the entire negotiations.

Since distributive or conjunctive bargaining involves economic issues, it is more competitive than other forms of bargaining. Secondly, integrative bargaining may involve negotiations that can lead to gain by all the parties or no forfeit for all the parties in the negotiation. Attitudinal bargaining involves reshaping different attitudes that exist between the management and the workers. It aims at creating a favorable bargaining environment where there is trust, cooperation, and friendliness.

Intra-organizational bargaining on its part tends to resolve internal managerial and non-managerial conflicts. Trade unions can use this form of bargaining to demand equal rights for its women and the skilled personnel who may feel neglected. Evidently, collective bargaining tends to instill equality and discipline on employees, the union and their employers.

Collective bargaining has a process that it adheres to when discussing the terms that enhances equality between the workers union and their employer. When the concerned parties follow this procedure of collective bargaining and reach an agreement, the result of the negotiation is known as the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

CBA can take the form of substantive agreement or procedural agreement, which tackles the relationship between the management and employees and the procedure that they have to adhere to when settling disputes between the concerned groups.

Some of the issues that substantive agreement handles include basic pay, working hours, overtime premiums among others (Collective Bargaining, 2012). Most firms have fixed time scale agreement, and through a collective bargaining initiative, they audit the procedural agreement in case there are negotiations on reimbursements. There are five key steps in the collective bargaining process.

The first step is the preparation phase; it is the step where negotiation team that includes representatives of all the concerned parties is composed. The employer and employees’ representatives present their issues that they feel are extremely essential. Markedly, the representatives should command vast knowledge and skills on negotiation of numerous activities so that they can accommodate diverse views during the collective bargaining process.

The second step is the discussion stage, where the negotiating parties design rules and norms that will act as a guide in the entire negotiation process. This phase assists in creating a favorable environment of mutual trust in order to facilitate the finalization of the collective bargaining agreement. The third phase is the proposal or brainstorming stage.

Here, the issues and their possible solutions are outlined. The members give their opinions on how to handle the sensitive issues that may affect the employees, employer and the business. After the opinion seeking stage, there is the bargaining phase where the problem-solving attitude is encompassed in the process. The parties ponder on various solutions to the issue and their repercussions.

They weigh the options and settle on one of the options that have favorable returns to all parties. The point at which they settle on an option marks the last phase of collective bargaining. The parties through consensus unanimously reach an agreement that all of them strive to implement (Collective Bargaining, 2012). The termination of the collective bargaining process results to a collective bargaining agreement, which can either meet all the needs of the parties or partially meet their needs.

References

Boivin, J. (2012). Collective Bargaining – The Canadian Encyclopedia. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web.

Collective Bargaining. (2009). International Labour Organization. Web.

Collective Bargaining. (2012). Industrial Relations. Web.

Types of Bargaining Strategies

Bargaining strategies are needed to resolve a financial or proprietary conflict and establish communication and negotiation to resolve a problem. In the case of collective bargaining, there are two main strategic approaches, distributive and integrative. Among the factors to consider when choosing a strategy are information, timing, and power. Distributive bargaining implies that each of the opponents seeks to get the largest possible share of the resources being discussed. This type of bargaining means that it involves limited and fixed resources. Traditionally, in the case of such a bargain, one party receives the full amount, and the other receives nothing, which is why such a bargain is also called “zero-sum” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). Often distributive bargaining is used in the purchase of such important goods as real estate or vehicles, when the high price, which is the main factor, is in the discussion.

With this type of bargaining, the previous or future relations of the adversaries turn out to be unimportant. However, it should be borne in mind that despite this anonymity of relations, in collective bargaining there may be cases of attempts to equalize the scores by asking for unrealistic demands next time. Integrative bargaining includes collaboration between the parties, the search for joint solutions on certain issues. Thus, new sources of value are born.

Tactics and Issues

Acceptable tactics include collecting information about the opponent, data on his contacts and associates. Manipulation of the stated requirements is also considered a suitable tactic. It makes sense to make an unrealistically high initial request, but not to communicate a lower threshold of consent when bidding. A pronounced lack of haste is also a useful psychological tactic. One should not make false promises or distort facts, try to blackmail or threaten an opponent, or collect confidential information about an opponent. One of the main problems in bidding is the prohibition of workers to negotiate in most US states. Despite the growth of the public sector of bargaining statistically, in many states this type of bargaining is eliminated with zeal. Bargaining can be capable of pitting two labor unions against each other, which is all the more exacerbated when the number of jobs is limited.

Trends in Bargaining

In modern realities, there is a whole trend of devolving bargaining at the level of an entire enterprise. While earlier the employer negotiated with individual workers, at the moment there is a bargaining with the whole group. The reason for this trend is the inability to meet the needs of individual companies and the inability to accommodate the employer. Such a trend is able to save time and finances for the management group, and also makes it possible to adapt to changing market conditions. The US private sector, for the most part, tends to trade exclusively at the level of the place of work. An attention-grabbing trend is also sectoral bargaining, which is considered the modern standard of doing business (Cohen, 2022). With sectoral bargaining, the likelihood of the worker being included in a labor union and active self-organization is much higher (Opute & Mahmoud, 2022). Among the new processes included in this type of bargaining is sectoral dialogue, the search for a collective agreement. Sector bargaining is looking for a solution that would satisfy every worker in a single sector of the economy. This trend is in sharp contrast to the entrepreneurial bargaining, in which agreements cover entire enterprises and the role of the boss is decisive.

References

Carrell, M. R., & Heavrin, C. (2013). Labor relations and collective bargaining. Pearson.

Cohen, L. (2022). U.S. Bargaining and organizing rights trail every other democracy. New Labor Forum, 31(1), 8-10. Web.

Opute, J. E., & Mahmoud, A. B. (2022). What sort of collective bargaining is emerging in Nigeria? Personnel Review. Web.