Title: Labor Relations, Collective Bargaining, and Employee Rights
Decentralization of Unionization
Q1. Within the decentralization of unionization and essentially an increase the in the union membership. From local memberships only to state and national memberships of unions, there are a variety of agendas. The union has a state or national agenda. The local union, lodges, locals, etc., which typically has a local leadership as well have local agendas. You would think both the national and local union agendas are the same. However, there may be a vast array of different issues that impact different locations based on a variety of topics. How does this complicate the issue of collective bargaining when most of the time it is accomplished at the higher level?
The Challenges Between Management and Unions
Q2. I often find the union leadership executing the negotiations might not have the same agenda or priorities as the majority of their constituents. As a result, the individual union leadership agenda motivates the negotiations and often increases challenges between management and union employees. Might these challenges be mitigated by management in a transparent disclosure of the union leadership position (which is typically held in confidence during and after negotiations)?
Q3. does one union represent its constituents better than the others? If so, why would that be? Do employees “compare” benefits and allowances between each other or is it simply I do this job and as a result, my union representing me is what it is?
|Subject||Law and government||Pages||3||Style||APA|
Labor Relations, Collective Bargaining, and Employee Rights
Decentralization of Unionization
Accomplishing collective bargaining at a higher level will be affected whenever lower trends emerge since there will be relatively low coverage on bargaining at the ground level of unionization. Such levels range from local membership to more established state union membership, therefore, union density decreases further following a prolonged trend in bargaining coverage (Fanti & Meccheri, 2016). A union can also fail to analyze the withdrawable amount from employer’s association for bargaining coverage contraction. This whole situation, therefore, complicates collective bargaining within decentralization of unionization.
The Challenges between Management and Unions
Yes, such challenges can be mitigated and managed in a transparent disclosure to eliminate irregularities since members will be in a position to tell what is real and true. Challenges between the union employees and management are a recurrent issue and, therefore, people are willing to creep minds with all decisions made for fostering relationship (Kornhauser, 2015). This idea will also create job security and advancement in career opportunities since it is the duty of union leaders to foster negotiations which must be done transparently regardless of whether they have the same negotiation agenda or priorities constituted by majority of union members. Transparency will also pave way for future developmental plans and strategy setting.
Yes, a union can represent its constituents better than the others especially in the case where a union organizer identifies a preliminary bargaining unit of his members. This helps in unionizing a given unit and gather employee signatures which clarifies if at least thirty percent of the entire population is interested. A union’s constituents can also be independently represented through establishment of collective bargaining strategies on pay rates, amount of payable wages, hours of workers employment or the set working conditions (Chan & Hui, 2014). Comparing benefits and allowances among members is a practice to determining number of shares one owns in a union. It also encourages members to maximize their opportunities by virtue of employee participation for reflecting on each other’s needs and objectives set by union members. It amplifies power of voting through fostering solidarity among union members.
Chan, C. K. C., & Hui, E. S. I. (2014). The development of collective bargaining in China: From “collective bargaining by riot” to “party state-led wage bargaining”. The China Quarterly, 217, 221-242.
Fanti, L., & Meccheri, N. (2016). Unionization Regimes, Capacity Choice by Firms and Welfare Outcomes. The Manchester School.
Kornhauser, A. (2015). Psychology of labor management relations. Members-only Library.