Human Resources and Collective Bargaining Agreement - Assignment Example

Collective bargaining agreement Collective bargaining is an accord between a proprietor and the union of personnel. According to Buidens (2004) collective bargaining agreement specifies conditions of the agreement between the employer, and every member of the union. The employees utilize the union’s control, to bargain with their bosses. In addition, they utilize it to derive the most perfect working conditions for their workforce. The agreements mostly focuses on salary scales, operational hours, reimbursement, cover, job-related risks, overtime and the liberty to take part in the workplace accomplishments (Namit and Larry 2007). Conditions are set and coded in a CBA. The CBA unites the administrator and the union associates. The union may bargain with a single commissioner from the company, or with an assemblage of businesses. This paper will highlight a recent situation, describing a collective bargaining situation. On 1st July this year, the NBA sealed out its players on expiry of its CBA. This was the second pro sports shut down, executed by the labor strife. This dispute has its roots back in 1956. During this time, NFL players formed a union. This union was referred to as the NFLPA. The union entered into a CBA with the holders of all NFL players. In this case, the NFL poses as a single firm, though they are independently owned franchises. Ever since the first CBA, the union and NFL have been making more CBA’s. The latest was made in 1993, and amended double (1998 and 2006). The CBA was meant to expire in 2012. However, the owners chose to hasten its expiry to the end of the 2010 season. The CBA covers five main areas of concern. These include the least possible player’s salary, draft guidelines, free agency guidelines, waiver rules, and the salary cap. The skirmish between the owners and the players is primarily due to revenue sharing. To be more specific, the main area of concern is the salary Cap. The players are supposed to get a preset maximum percentage of the sum league revenue, annually. This maximum percentage is what is referred to as the salary Cap. This does not equate the player’s share of revenue. This is because some teams will tend to spend less and fail to reach their salary Cap. Since the NFLPA is not in a position to control the amount an individual team spends on their players, the sole way of increasing the player’s collective income is by raising the wage’s Cap’s percentage of league revenue. The owners preferred dropping the CBA, since they wanted a greater portion of the pie. The most recent CBA signed did not meet their expectation, and so they opted to drop it, as soon as possible. The reason for them finding it unfavorable is because they did not expect the booming growth of the league. If they had expected it, then they would have chosen a flat fee, or would have gone for the flat fee to be a bigger percentile of the total revenue. They would also have chosen the salary Cap to be lower percentile of revenue. The main problem is that as much as the owners want a bigger share of the revenue, the players are not ready to deliver this to them. The owners have been demanding an additional $1 billion every year, but all in vain. The NFLPA is not ready to give whatsoever back to the league. They want to retain the most possible revenue, for the players. This is the root for all the problems. From the information above, we can elicit that the owners have a selfish desire. They want to manipulate the players and make a great profit from them. On the other hand, the union protects the players and wants them to gain most of the profits. However, we cannot overlook the fact that the owners tend to make minimal profit from the players, and yet play an important role in their success. After the expiry, of the CBA, the owners and the NFLPA continued negotiating. They went as far as seeking mediations. Both sides have strong weapons. The NFLPA are capable of calling for a strike, while the owners could decide not to pay any of the union’s players. The owners have a great financial weapon, which they can use against the players. This is because their financial status is better than that of the players and so, they can outlast them. Apparently, the union and the owners could not come to any agreement. It appeared as though the owners were ready to lock out the players. The NFLPA dispersed itself. The most likely solution for all this is going to court, and allowing the law to decide who is right or wrong. The players are protected by the antitrust law. By NFLPA disbanding itself, they gave way to a victorious war against the NFL. This is NFL is a franchise. Once they decide not to pay the players then they commit a criminal offence. The players can sue them of antitrust violation. In conclusion, this dispute is not dissolved. However, it can be dissolved in an admirable and civilized manner. This includes calm talks between the union and the owners. The owners can be influenced through participation of a third party, to be more thoughtful and stop being selfish. In addition, the owners can go to the court, and come to a decision to accept the anti-trust contravention. To their advantage, they can seek for an anti-trust exemption. The court can grant them this, due to the fact that they have their own privileges to confer league-wide broadcasting conformity.   References Andrew G. (2011). Why Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining. US News. February, 2011. Buidens, W. (2004). Collective Bargaining: A Bargaining Alternative. Phi Delta Kappan 63 (2004): 244-245. Namit, C. and Larry, S. (2007). "Prescription for Labor Pains: Combine Bargaining with Problem Solving." The American School Board Journal 174 (2007): 24. Read More