Collective Bargaining at West University - Case Study Example

? Collective Bargaining at West Due Does the labor law encourage or discourage unionization? Arizona is a right-to-work state, which means that no one can lose their job for wanting to join or form a union and if they should choose to leave a union they are already a part of they cannot be fired or penalized (Hedding, 2013). This means that the law comes across as rather neutral to the subject of unions. In states, like these, because you are not forced to join and cannot be forced to stay the laws neither encourage potential employees from wanting to join or choosing not to be a part of any labor union. In this case it seemed that the school was the one opposed to allowing the workers to unionize or allow another union to speak on their behalf. As employees there is another disturbing aspect to living and working in a right-to work state. Under that law a company can terminate an employee without cause, wrong-doing, or explanation; being part of a union would allow for a level of job security that many businesses may be disagreeable with. After all if the majority of their employees become part of unions then their freedom to down size their staff becomes more and more limited. A survey conducted showing that more than 50% of employees not presently in any kind of union, suffer from feelings of vulnerability, which negatively effects their efficiency and productivity in the workplace (Larsen, 2011). In this case the law found in favor of the RAs and CDAs, so in this case the law seemed to be on the side of the union. 2. Do you think teaching assistants should be considered employees? Yes, even if their labor is exchanged for credits, school related funds, and because it looks good on their transcripts and resumes in the future, student workers should still be qualify as employees. The contention involves the necessity of employers to allow employees to freely unionize. However by proving that teaching assistants, RAs, and CDAs are not, actually, employees then the laws regarding unionization and collective bargaining would, simply, not apply to them (McHugh, 2011).The time that they spend is not their time, they are given schedules, duties, and responsibilities that they must complete in order to complete their job. However, they are still required to be treated with respect, consideration, and in ways conducive to the rules and policies that apply to all employees. If they are not considered employees then there are no realistic protections for how they are treated and the condition under which they may work. They are employees and just because they may not always be paid via actual monies they should still have the right to question how they are treated and have the right to negotiate the duties of their job expectations. According to the research the turnover rates of RAs is quite high, the hours, lack of perks, the aggression, and retaliation of disgruntles students who do not respect their authority makes the job unbearable and not worth it, essentially. The University may save monies in the long run by listening to the demands of the staff members, making changes to solve issues, and limit the turnover and wasted training costs over the course of the school year. 3. Do you think management's reaction to employee interest in unionization differs if the employer already has a high union density among other employee groups? Yes, I think that it does make a difference. In today’s modern society right-to-work states have the freedom and privilege of terminating their staff without any reason or cause, which relieves them of any responsibility to their employees. When employers already have a number of involved unions it limits their ability to thin out their staff as they see fit. They may become eager to discourage further unionization for that reason. In the case presented, and as mentioned before, the school is working so hard to verify that the segment of their staff that wants to unionize cannot and they cannot be represented by another union because they are, in fact, not actual employees. This of course grants the staff greater job security, greater benefits, and greater representation when issues with their employers arise in the future. All of these perks would, ultimately, be provided, predominately, by the employer. When unions are involved the employers have less power over their staff than average right-to-work state jobs, where they can hire and fire people on a whim, without consequence or justification. When employees, rightly or otherwise, breaks rules or is seriously reprimanded, where they job may be at risk, and they belong to a union, they can ask for representation and arbitration before they can ever be fired. Employers must show they have good cause to fire the employee in order to do so (Keller, 2012). If there were a limited number of unions, then an employer may not feel their “power” is threatened by their presence; after all there are plenty of non-union workers that they can fire for no reason if they have to. In this case it is clear that the school definitely was willing to go to any length to prevent these students and employees from seeking union representation. 4. What are the key factors that led some RAs to have interest in union representation? Do you think that RAs have legitimate job-related concerns, or are the RA complaints overstated? In fairness the turnover experienced by the school of the RA positions is the clearest indicator that the RAs have some justifiable issues. Many people cannot all be overreacting to the same job problems; problems that are severe enough to quit. One of the worst issues that they are mentioning is that they are often put into the position of confronting students with rule enforcements. Sometime the students are displeased by this and react badly. They often retaliate against the RAs and without protections and incentives there is not a lot keeping them in the position, making it worthwhile. Essentially these working students, on top of their academic responsibilities, they, also, take on a job that has no security, no real perks, where they may or may not be treated well in the course of their day. However, as student workers, if they want the position then this is what you have to put up with. Hence why so many students quit the position once they get a taste of what it is like. These workers are inspired by the same concepts that have inspired workers to rally under the call of unionization for generations. They want better work conditions, better benefits, and better pay, in some cases (Larsen, 2011). That said the RAs in the case study certainly have a complaint in the area of work environment and, potential benefits or incentives. After all the only “promotion” available for RAs is based on GPA and student standing. They can then become CDAs, however in this position the job and the pay is exactly the same. 5. Do the RAs opposed to unionization have legitimate concerns? How could unionization change the culture of Residence Life? Keller and Larsen Yes it is true that the RAs that are not interested in the unionization process that their peers are promoting have legitimate concerns, as well. Even though we all know that there are amazing advantages to unions, like benefits, job security, protection, and better working environments. However, for certain individuals there are some disadvantages to joining unions that cannot be ignored. Firstly, there are dues required by members that must be paid to the union. Next, when one joins a union they lose their autonomy. They become one of the larger group; unified. Unions operate on a seniority scale, which means that new workers face a larger disadvantage (Larsen, 2011). The culture of resident life would change. In most unionized work environments the relationship between union workers and their supervisors lack camaraderie. In some cases union workers have said that they feel like they are not trusted by their employers. Union worker relationships with employers have not always been great. In this case study the school was opposed to the unionization and the union representation they were seeking. They wanted the RAs categorized has non-employees so that their union aspirations would be void. Once they were deemed legally employees the school may behave rather begrudged against them. In fairness, the nature of the changes to the RA and CDA positions would change; in fact, they would improve. Because the school would be wary of how the RAs and CDAs are treated by other staff and the resident students out of feat of entanglements with the new union (Keller, 2012). 6. How does the law regarding union recognition for public employees in this state compare with the NLRA rules regarding union recognition for private-sector employees? The Wagner Act of 1935, also called the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), established that all American citizens have the right to engage in both unionization and or collective bargaining with their employers in order to secure improved wages, working conditions, or benefits (McHugh, 2011).They believed that this was necessary legislature because employers and employees have an inherent conflict; they both are out to improve their own interests. Employees want what they want to benefit them and their employers would prefer results that favored their interests; they are seldom looking out for the interests of the other. Employees have a right to seek individual employment or to join together for the same end. This has been the reality of unions for generations. The ability of people working together to better their work quality and quantity. Lastly, because employees are at a disadvantage when negotiating with employers, collective bargaining helps to even the odds (McHugh, 2011). However the recent Arizona legislature is working to limit private sector employees from being able to engage in collective bargaining. Limiting the rights of any employees, or rather citizen of the United States is a direct disregard for the existing NLRA perspectives on the rights of all employees. These intentions have not set well politically with many Americans and many democrats in the state have vowed to fight these bills (Pasternak, 2012). In this case study it would no longer matter if the RAs at the school were successful in proving themselves employees because they would still face the challenges that these new bills would institute. When any employer is that opposed to unions one has to ask themselves what is it that they are doing that they do not want to have to start doing right? 7. Why did the LRC determine that RAs and CDAs were employees? Do you agree with the LRC decision? Why? Why not? The LRC likely found that they RAs and CDAs were in fact eligible to engage in collective bargaining and seeking an outside union to represent them because their demands were not specifically financially based. The employee wants involved work conditions, the issues of dealing with disgruntled students, and unwarranted terminations. Because the students have likely made multiple complaints directly to their supervisors and employers and received no actions or changes made on their part likely had some bearing in this case for the LCR, as well. Again, as stated previously, according to the Wagner Act of 1935, all Americans have aright to engage in the making of unions and implementing of collective bargaining in order to gain certain needs or wants from their employers (McHugh, 2011).They, also, likely favored the side of RAs and CDAs because the school so easily dismissed their issues and dismissed them as employees; they essentially inferred that as student workers they have no rights as workers. This is completely illegal and un-American. However, again, the new legislature that some are attempting to see passed would limit private sector employees, like those in the case study, from being able to seek unionization and collective bargaining rights (Pasternak, 2012). I completely agree with the LRCs decision to favor the endeavor of the RAs and CDAs in the case study. They are clearly working in a hostile environment created by their peers that they are employed to reprimand and enforce rules upon. The school is not protecting the staff that they are assigning these jobs because they are just students not employees. There is negligence involved here. In today’s society people will go to greater and more heinous extremes to avenge themselves upon others. If one of these student employees were to be seriously injured or attacked by an angry student then what would they do? Had they had addressed the issues of the student workers than potential situations like that could be avoided all together. Fortunately, the outcome will help to encourage and may lead to positive change, which is the best thing that anyone can do. References Hedding, J. (2013). Right to work. Retrieved from http://phoenix.about.com/cs/empl/a/righttowork.htm Keller, L. (2012, April 10). The pros and cons of joining a labor union. Fox News Business, 1. Retrieved from http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/04/10/pros-and-cons-joining-labor-union/ Larsen, M. (2011, June 28). Who seeks union representation in modern corporations. Recruiter, 1. Retrieved from http://www.recruiter.com/i/who-seeks-union-representation-in-modern-corporations/ McHugh, P. P. (2011). Employee and labor relations society for Human resource management. , 1-38. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/education/hreducation/documents/mchugh_collective bargaining in dorms_student workbook_final.pdf Pasternak, D. B. (2012). Arizona introduces legislation to prohibit public sector collective bargaining . The National Law Review, 1. Retrieved from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/arizona-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-public-sector-collective-bargaining Read More