Organizing and Elections in Unions - Essay Example

?Organizing and Elections in Unions INTRODUCTION This particular study will focus on describing the interferences made by Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) against firms that illegally sought to disrupt employees’ rights to join a union in a firm. Taking two instances as examples, this paper further intend to discuss about the failures of ULP protested violations of firms in the aforementioned ground. To be precise, the discussion henceforth will be comprised of the activities in which firms did not allow its employees to join unions and construct a case analysis on ULP’s failure. THESIS STATEMENT The discussion of this paper will also include recommendations that could have been initialized for avoiding conflicts that resulted in turnover of the employees in the firm and the union’s defeat. This study mainly intends to reveal two real life occurrences in which two firms provided real time hurdles to the employees related to their joining unions; however, despite of ULP’s protest against the firms, it proved to be of no use. SOME OF THE INSTANCES WHERE ULP’S CHARGES WERE OF LITTLE OR NO USE The top retail chain in the world i.e. Wal-Mart suffered negativity as the regional National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) directors issued as sum total of thirty-nine complaints against the company during the periods of January 2000 to July 2005. The most disturbing fact was observed to be that out of the thirty nine complaints, thirteen complaints were totally resolved by way of various settlements outside the Court of Justice, two cases are still pending for settlement and four of them were withdrawn. The remaining twenty cases were heard by the US Labour Law. However, while settling thirteen of the complaints, the company complied with all the necessary changes that needed to take place for restraining itself from practicing Unfair Labor Practices but did not hold itself in guilt for restricting its employees from participating in trade unions. In all the cases, the company seemed to hold itself for violating the broad rules and regulations of NLRB. A majority of the cases that were filed against Wal-Mart constituted complaints from its employees. The company was continuously engaged in the violation of labour laws during the period of January 2000 to July 2005. It was also observed that the company had exercised upon many unfair law practices in the organization, violating legal obligations concerning complete rights to its employees such as right to freedom of association which is internationally considered to be allowed to workers1. The reports published in this context further revealed that since the year 2000, the company has been practicing discrimination against unions along with the sympathizers of the unions within its workforce on different occasions. The company officials were not only charged with the allegation of harassing junior employees on the grounds of race, ethnicity and gender. The company also took many extreme steps where it hired and fired employees in small frequencies without any firm cause which can be justified under the provisions of relevant Court of Law. The top most reason for firing of employees was further observed to be the willingness and efforts made by the employees to join associations or created unions. For instance, it was noted that in April 2000, in one of the stores of the company, which is located in Florida, Wal-Mart unlawfully fired a union supporter named Edward Eagen. The reason for firing him was only because of the fact that he signed a ‘union card’ for supporting unionism within the organization. It has also been noted that the company was engaged in keeping a close look at the employees with the help of surveillance cameras which hindered employee confidentiality within the workplace. With reference to these facts, it can be stated that the rights of the employees were exploited at almost all levels by the company. Such interventions practiced by the company as against the rights and interests of employees also affected the company’s working environment hindering its reputation not only as an employer, but also as a Multinational retail brand all around the world. Increasing stakeholders’ dissatisfaction can also be observed as one of the major consequences of such practices executed within the working environment of Wal-Mart. It can also be argued in this context that the rising conflicts between Wal-Mart and its employees on the grounds of racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bias operations of the management were much encouraged with the absence of a union which could have ensured a healthy working environment within the company2. Apart from the alleged criticalities laid down against Wal-Mart by its employees, the NLRB reports and allegations further revealed that Starbucks, another multinational company engaged with coffee brewing and beverage product marketing had been engaged in breaking the law nearly 30 times concerning its employees’ rights. These incidents were further observed to be primarily caused in the major outlets of Starbucks in Manhattan. According to reports published by NLRB, it was found that the labor board's regional office, which is located in Manhattan, issued specific charges against the company when it was noticed that the company made many efforts for restricting the formation of unions within its organizational structure. However, Starbucks had restrained from making any aggressive or direct attempt to discourage employees to unionism such as Wal-Mart. Although, similar to Wal-Mart, it has also been found that the company retaliated and even fired many managers who were involved with the formation of unions. This particular instance depicted that the company did not support the formation of unions at any level of its working environment. Above all, the company was also reported to restrict employees to have discussions on topics relating to unions and their formations even on breaks which apparently violated the rights of employees to freedom. According to reports, the higher level managers of Starbucks were actively involved in performing almost every possible illegal activities relating to the ban of unions3. Based on a finding, it was recorded that Daniel Gross who was an active member for organizing unions and an employee of Starbucks was fired unjustifiably as he requested for a ‘living wage’. Mr. Gross wanted requested for the instigation of many policies for the employees in the company in order to support the rights of the employees but failed as the organization did not let him to continue with the company and fired him on the spot, despite of having served the company for three long years with integrity and proficiency4. According to one of the complaints lodged by NLRB, it was suggested that Starbucks is a company which does not entertain worker’s rights at all and has been thus deciphering abundant amount of disrespect for it. The organization was also found to make several efforts to quash unionism within the organization. Apart from that, the company did not even allow the employees to share written information relating to the formation of unions. All kinds of surveillances were surrounded in the organization and along with that repeated threats of job dismissals were given to those employees who tried to practice unionism. The company did not even allow its employees to wear T-Shirts which reflected unionisms and its values which depict the organization’s determination to discourage any kind of unionism within its workplace. Not even a single activity relating to the development of unions was entertained by the organization. Those employees favoring unionism were definitely on a losing streak as their efforts for building unions was proving to be all waste where protests made by ULP was also observed to be of minimum effects5. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above studies, it can be analyzed that, that the employees should have stood up with their rights and demands in a united form. The employees of Wal-Mart could have held discussions amongst each other for making unions and could have influenced other employees also to join the unions through which they could have been widely benefitted in protecting their rights. Also, the employees of Wal-Mart had restrained at the ground level to protest against such unjust conduct of the organization which in turn boosted the determination of the organization to restrict the employees from joining or creating any kind of unions. Apart from that, other initiatives could have also been taken to impart the importance of unions in the organizations. The employees could have contacted the NLRB directly reported about all the problems they are facing relating to the development of unions and following unionists rules. All the problems that the employees were facing were needed to be highlighted by the employees to the board in accordance to which, specific measures would be taken if all the problems of the employees got addressed accordingly within the appropriate time. CONCLUSION Not only the employees, but the responsibilities to comply with the rights of employees also reside on the shoulders of authoritative bodies of the companies. Analyzing the aspects observed in this study, it can be affirmed that greater awareness must be generated among employees regarding their rights in the workplaces along with maintaining a continuous observation to such aspects by concerned legal bodies. Additionally, it is also suggestible that strict regimes be developed which can ensure prompt settlement of such disputes ensuring the rights of the employees at large. Works Cited Greenhouse, Steven. Board Accuses Starbucks of Trying to Block Union. The New York Times. 2007. Friday. 24 May. 2013. Web. “Unfair Labor Practices Settlement with Starbucks”. Home. IWW Starbucks Workers Union n.d. Friday. 24 May. 2013. Web. National Labor Relations Board, Decisions and Orders of the National Labor Relations Board: New York: Government Printing Office, 2009. Print. Read More