Human Resource Management - Essay Example

Q Distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining Labor negotiators (company & union) do use different methods to negotiate employee wages, benefits, working hours, staffing levels, promotions and transfers, layoffs and termination among other working terms and conditions. They may either choose to adopt distributive bargaining or integrative bargaining but according to Phillips and Gully (2013) distributive bargaining is the traditional and most commonly used negotiation method. This is because employee relations are viewed as adversarial as opposed to collaborative. Furthermore, the management often frames the issue of pay as a fixed-sized “pie” to be shared (Bamber, Sheldon & Gan, 2010, p.612). Distributive bargaining involves “dividing the pie” situation whereby the amount of resources are fixed such that if one wins, the other loses; it is a zero-sum game. It is used where the parties have little concern over maintaining relationships hence it is appropriate for unions especially due to the competitive and adversarial nature of relations. The union thus makes its demand to management and expects to get favorable results for employees. Integrative bargaining on the other hand is used whereby the parties want to maintain relationships for future engagements and where cooperation ensures a win-win situation for parties involved (Phillips & Gully, 2013). In this case, there are mutual issues to be looked into and it involves expanding the pie by looking for alternatives that can benefit both parties. However, it requires a degree of trust and honesty for the negotiations to be successful. The approach involves focusing on the interests of the parties concerned rather than sticking to initial positions, separation of people from the problem and use of objective criteria. Due to the nature of the negotiations, it is difficult to switch from distributive to integrative bargaining. These approaches vary in regard to what is at stake, the outcomes possible and notions of success (Bamber et al. 2010). Union negotiators must get approval from members to a set of bargaining demands hence making it difficult for them to adopt a collaborative approach. Their aim is to get maximum share of resources available especially on pay, hence they must win or else the employees will view them as traitors pursuing self-interest. Besides, more wages means a loss to employers hence it is difficult to cooperate on this issue since the resource is fixed. On the other hand, the lower management may also view the upper management as being compromised by the union hence distrust (Phillips & Gully, 2013, p. 431). This makes is difficult to shift from distributive to integrative bargaining. Union members must adopt a hard-line stance to have their demand met or to get highest share hence it is more difficult for them to switch than the management. However, for those trying to make this switch, I would advise them to consult with their members so that they can understand why it is beneficial to adopt an integrative approach hence get their approval and support. I would also advice them to develop trust for each other rather than adopting an adversarial attitude as this approach ensures all parties win and get higher share than in distributive bargaining as they can enlarge the pie. Q 2: Strike replacements in the United States The collective bargaining agreement is the one that stipulates the employees terms and conditions but if the these terms are not agreed upon by the union and management, then the union or collective bargaining agent may call for a strike to compel the organization to heed their demands. In the U.S all concerted activity must be channeled through a bargaining representative although a group of workers not represented by the agent have a right to act in concert (Jacobs, 2010). The employees thus have a right to strike but the strike may be unlawful depending on its purpose and the conduct of strikers. There are two groups of strikers: economic and unfair labor practice strikers. Economic strikers demand higher wages and shorter hours or economic gains. These cannot be discharged but can be replaced by employer through permanent replacements although they can be re-instated in future if openings occur and they or their bargaining representative makes an unconditional request for reinstatement (National Labor Relations Board, 2014). Unfair labor practice strikers protest against unfair labor practices by the employer. They cannot be discharged or permanently replaced hence are entitled to their jobs after the strike regardless whether replacements had been found. However, if the strikers engage in serious misconduct during the strike, they can be refused reinstatement. Q3: Advantages and Disadvantages of using seniority to allocate employment opportunities Seniority according to Phillips and Gully (2013, p. 432) refers to “the length of time the employee has worked for the employer.” Many private and public sector unions in the U.S negotiate for job opportunities in union contracts to be allocated based on seniority. Seniority thus becomes the basis for job assignments, shift preferences, promotions and layoffs. As such, the last employees to be hired are the first to be laid off if need arises. The advantage to employers using seniority as a basis for promotions or layoffs is that it makes it easier to make such difficult decisions. Such promotions or job opportunities are also not subject to debate especially if seniority is the sole factor in employment decisions. This is profitable to the company as it minimizes costs of advertising posts and recruitment process. Furthermore, the qualifications of such individuals are known hence can be used to make decision when a group of employees are equally qualified for a position. The advantage to the employees is that they have higher chances of advancing in their career ladder as opposed to when new employees are hired to occupy such posts when they arise. Besides, it gives them a sense of job security since those who are hired last re the ones who are laid off first. There are also disadvantages for both employer and employees in using seniority bases. First, employees are promoted on basis of seniority and not merit thus denying those highly qualified but with less working period a chance to advance. This is a loss to the company in terms of qualified staff not forgetting that such employees may lose morale hence low productivity. It is also unfair to the qualified employees especially the newly hired (Phillips & Gully, 2013). Seniority also denies supervisors the influence they have on employees based on rewards. This is because the supervisor loses reward power needed to motivate staff since such rewards and incentives such as job assignments are already decided through union contracts. Besides, job fit and merit are not considered hence a loss to employer. To strike a balance between interests of employers and employees, seniority should just be used to make difficult decisions. Qualifications should be considered first and if they are very close, then seniority could be used to make decision. Q4: What are the advantages and disadvantages of having the workplace governed by a legally enforceable contract supported by rights arbitration? Is this a good model for the workplace of the 21st century? The advantage of such an enforceable contract is that employees in the workplace are aware of the guidelines of conduct and the consequences of violating such guidelines and the employer is aware of the right action to take in case of violation. This is even more effective when it is supported by rights arbitration. Rights arbitration in this case, involves hearings by a third-party who is non-partisan hence can make unbiased decisions (Phillips & Gully, 2013). The disadvantage of using such contracts is that this system is inflexible and slow to change. As such, this model is ill-suited for the workplace of the 21st century which operates in a competitive global environment hence prone to changes and consequently needs flexibility. Q5: Full-fledged labor-management partnerships are rare. Why? Be sure to identify reasons why a variety of stakeholders (shareholders, managers, employees, and union leaders) might resist the formation of labor-management partnerships Strategic labor relations involve both labor and management deciding on shared goals and developing the best strategy to accomplish them and also defining how interactions between both parties will take place (Phillips & Gully, 2013, p. 430). This enhances effective communication and allows for better decision making and harnessing opportunities since union members are involved in the process from the beginning. However, this does not mean taking away management decision making rights; rather, the union just helps in the process. Despite the advantages of collaboration between labor and management, full-fledged labor-management partnerships are rare. This is due to the fact that although the partnership only involves union and management, other groups do affect the success of this relationship such as the shareholders, employees, managers and union leaders. For example, the shareholders always demand a return on their investments among other demands that make it difficult for both parties to reach a compromise (Budd, 2012). Customers on the other hand, demand high quality and low prices thus influencing labor-management decisions and hindering a “win-win” situation to be arrived at. Unions also though part of the partnership do resist such a partnership. Decisions made by national leadership for the sake of union employees may be rejected by local union leaders who interact directly with members thus hindering progress. When it comes to top managers, their success is hindered by low-level and middle managers who feel that the top managers have been compromised by the union (Phillips & Gully, 2013). These managers often see no need to cooperate with unions thus fail to give the much needed support to their seniors. Supervisors often lose their ability to influence employees through incentives while on the other hand; their performance is demanded by management. They thus have misgivings that make it hard to achieve a climate of trust thus hindering labor-management partnership. The employees cannot also be left behind. Most times, they feel that the union is letting them down by cooperating with management hence pile pressure on union leaders adopt an adversarial attitude. Q6: Escape, forcing, and fostering strategies of dealing with the union If I was the HR manager at a small unionized manufacturer of auto parts located in a small town in South Carolina which sells nearly all produced parts to one major automaker who is demanding a 10% price cut, I would use the fostering strategy with the union to reduce labor costs. Since the production work is repetitive and routine, and there are no educational requirements for the production employees, it would be advantageous to negotiate with union on ways to improve staff performance hence efficiency. Fostering involves use of integrative bargaining strategy leading to win-win situation as opposed to forcing strategy that leads to win-lose strategy (Walton, Cutcher & McKersie, 2000, pp. 269-297). If forcing strategy was to be used to reduce wages or labor costs, it could only lead to conflicts with the union hence strikes and increased costs. Furthermore, it would lead to weakened solidarity as it involves ‘divide and rule’ strategy, a legacy of distrust and a probable defeat or stalemate for management (Walton et al. p. 269). It is also not advisable to use escape strategy which involves abandoning negotiations altogether leading to a lose-lose situation. Fostering is better as the union and management can sit and find solutions to the problem. For example, they could decide to have fewer workers, use technology to improve efficiency and productivity, or train workers to be more efficient hence high productivity and improved performance. This would mean using fewer resources to produce high volume of products hence reduced production costs. They can also agree to reduce wages instead of laying off workers hence job security and if it doesn’t work, a little forcing can be applied. This would enhance the relationship between labor and management and maintain solidarity in the workplace. Q 7: How does increased globalization affect U.S. managers, labor leaders, and workers in a unionized workplace? Does labor law need to be reformed because of these effects? If so, how? Globalization has led to increased competition, capital flight and shift from manufacturing to service economy. This has in turn affected the U.S managers, labor leaders and workers in unionized workplaces in different ways. First, managers have found reason to transfer labor and operations from the U.S to other countries mostly in the developing countries where labor is cheap, human rights are few and labor regulations are minimal and not tightly enforced like in the U.S. For example, Nike operates in countries with cheap labor like Asia and is often accused of employing child labor (Budd, 2012). Management also now focuses on increasing returns on investments (ROIs) and low-cost procedures hence outsourcing, contracting, and use of casual and temporary employment. As such, the management has gained a lot of power over employees and unions especially for the multinational companies. It is not only the managers who are affected by globalization but also workers. The strategies adopted by management such as outsourcing and labor contracting have immense effect on them in terms of less benefits and lack of job security. Workers are hired on temporary basis or in shifts hence have no security of tenure but have to contend with it or the management outsources labor overseas (Budd, 2012). However, globalization has also enabled workers to organize transnationally hence have more power in negotiations and address global issues that affect them. Furthermore, most organizations have adopted humanistic approach to labor relations thus giving employees more voice instead of using union representatives. Employees are also involved in making decisions that affect them in organizations that want to compete effectively in the global market or risk losing out to competitors. The unions have been on the decline due to globalization and consequently adoption of human relation approach. The Bureau of labor statistics (2014) indicates that union density was 11.3% in 2013 compared to 20.1% in 1983 in the U.S. This means that the power of unions in collective bargaining has also declined even if unions are prevalent especially in public sector. Union leaders thus are forced to adopt measures to deal with the powerful MNCs such as organizing transnationally and carrying out global campaigns for worker’s rights. Some unions have also become very powerful and have the ability to negotiate high benefits for members such as the United Auto Workers Union. Union leaders also have been fighting for adoption of ILO labor standards to protect workers and developing corporate codes of conduct to regulate labor. Q8: Compare and contrast labor relations systems in Japan and the United States The labor relation system in Japan is very different from that of the U.S as it entrenches harmony and cooperation while that of U.S is adversarial in nature. Japan adopts enterprise unionism whereby members are permanent employees; both blue-collar and white-collar are organized in a single union (Budd, 2006). U.S adopts industrial unionism whereby different workers in the same workplace are represented by different unions and mostly it is the blue-collar employees who are unionized and not white-collar. Furthermore, the U.S unions do not represent supervisors as they are considered part of management by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) while Japan’s unions’ represents even higher level managers like the directors. Another major difference is that enterprise unions in Japan are sovereign therefore not controlled by federations like in U.S where local unions are under union federations hence have no authority to make decisions. Wages and promotion in Japan are seniority based and reflect current business conditions of individual enterprises whereas in U.S, wages are based on specific jobs and have fixed promotion schedules and terms and conditions are laid out in a collective bargaining agreement (Budd, 2012). Q 9: Compare and contrast labor relations systems in France and the United States The U.S practices industrial or business unionism hence focus more on labor and management relations and are based on collective bargaining agreements. On the other hand, France adopts social unionism and focuses on social and political representation. As such, the union federations in France have a distinct political or ideological perspective hence unions are aligned to political parties. For example, the General Confederation of Labor (CGT) is aligned to communist party while Workers Strength (FO) is aligned to socialist party (Budd, 2006, p. 214). In this case, workplace-level representation by unions in France is weak and fragmented. Workers are also covered by sectoral collective bargaining agreements and work councils but this is just 10% of union members as most unions prefer political activity and strikes. This is unlike U.S where CBA is central to labor-management relations. Social unionism in France also means that unions are involved in joint administration of social security, health insurance and unemployment funds. Another major difference is that employers in France are represented by one body (the French Employers Association) while in U.S they are represented by trade associations as employer organizations are not well developed. Moreover, large corporations in the U.S do not need intermediaries to represent their voice as they can do so on their own. What is common between the two countries is that labor-management relations are adversarial in nature. Q10: Many argue that U.S. labor relations are broadly characterized by adversarism. In what ways is adversarialism the result of U.S. labor laws? In what ways is adversarialism caused by the behavior of companies and unions rather than by the legal system? Adversarism in U.S labor relations is framed by labor laws as stipulated in the Wagner Act and National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and administered and regulated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Wagner Act dictates union organization and collective bargaining in the private sector while public sector relations are regulated by state statutes (Budd 2012). It protects the rights of workers such as right to a hearing and arbitration. A “just clause” is stipulated in the collective bargaining agreement which deters unlawful workplace practices and describes employees’ protection. By using this CBA, the unions engage in distributive bargaining thus enhancing adversarial labor-management relations. Adversarialism is also a result of behavior of companies and unions as opposed to the legal system. The companies’ especially multinational companies use threats to force unions to accept terms and conditions. For example, most of these companies threaten to relocate overseas where labor is cheap and labor relations less regulated such as in third world countries (Budd, 2012). In response, unions have to adopt an adversarial attitude to get workers’ demands met. Some unions like the Auto workers Unions are very powerful hence demand high wages and other benefits for workers which impact on company profits negatively. This is thus met with adversarial attitude by the management for the sake of shareholders who demand returns on their investments. Unions and companies both want to have the largest share of fixed resources hence engage in hard-line bargaining and forget that cooperation is more beneficial than adversary. References Bamber, G.J., Sheldon, P and Gan, B (2010). Collective Bargaining: International Developments and Challenges. In: R. Blanpain and J. Baker (eds). Comparative Labor Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies. Netherlands: Kluwar Law International. Budd, J.W (2006). Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice. New York: Cornell University. Budd, J.W (2012). Labor Relations: Striking a Balance. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill Education. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014). “Union Membership Summary”. www.bls.gov Jacobs, A.T.J.M (2010). The Law of Strikes and Lockouts. In: R. Blanpain and J. Baker (eds). Comparative Labor Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies. Netherlands: Kluwar Law International. National Labor Relations Board (2014). “The right to Strike”. Retrieved 28 October, 2014 from, http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes Phillips Jean, M and Gully Stanley, M (2013).Human Resource Management. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage. Walton, R.E., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J.E and McKersie, R.B (2000). Strategic Negotiations: A Theory of Change in Labor-Management Relations. New York: Cornell University. Read More