An Impact on Collective Bargaining - Case Study Example

College: What Actions in the Past 20 Years by Federal ities have had an Impact on Collective Bargaining? To bargain in this context implies to agree or to come to terms of a contract by two or more parties. Therefore collective bargaining will not be mistaken when referred to as a collective agreement in terms of labor laws or labor relations. In this poignant case it is an issue between the American employees or workers and the actions of the Federal Authorities like courts, ministers, legislative authorities and the Executive orders among others with regard to effectiveness of the controversial right-to-work (RTW) state laws and by extension collective bargain. The RTW laws are those laws that protect an individual from forceful subjection to join unions or pay them terminal dues as an employment condition. On the other hand a labor relation is the engagement between the workers and the employers with main regard to the terms and conditions of work. Disputes usually arise between the Federal Authorities, a major employer and the labor unions with respect to honoring any form of agreement made so as to protect and safeguard against any form of employee abuse, notoriously common with employers in America hence need to discuss how collective agreement is often achieved. As a matter of action or policy formulation or even implementation, in many ways federal authorities usually impede the development of a country at large or individual employees’ personal growth and empowerment. To some extent employees have felt unduly exploited, wasted and dumped. As a result there have emerged labor unions and laws to fight for, govern and protect the rights of workers so as to curb probable exploitation by the employers who disown pertinent agreement which they consciously signed. These laws are mainly contained in the labor relations act. However, in the United States the laws governing workers’ welfare, mainly government employees and those working in the private sector are in the labor laws which are federal and not in the state right to work laws. In brief the state right to work laws merely forbids employees or potential employees to be subjected to conditions, in most cases of payment by unions or the employer to either attain or maintain a job. Incidentally, the state right to work laws are just applicable to around 22 states that have adopted it whereas labor relations laws specific crop of workers entirely in the United States of America. The 22 states that have subscribed to the state right to work laws are Kansas, Alabama, Wyoming, South Dakota, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Iowa, Utah, Idaho, Virginia, South Carolina, Guam, Oklahoma, Georgia, North Dakota, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Nebraska. Since labor relation laws are made and influenced by the federal state, they are intended to operate in the interest of the workers or simply the American people and at the same time within the federal government’s policy frame work. This objective is, however, unachievable since in most cases it compels the workers so intended to be assisted to register as members of various unions yet they necessarily might not be residences of right to work states. Since the unions thrive on levies from workers, commonly referred to as agency fees, for purposes of collective bargaining on behalf of workers with employers on very wide issues affecting them at work like minimum wage to be paid, working duration of an individual, etc, some workers feel exploited since they do not understand the rationale of arriving at such fees. Controversy also arises when certain individual workers feel that they do not need any form of representation accorded to them by the unions even if they reside in states that have not adopted the right to work laws. As a result many people feel deceived by some of these instituted labor laws. A good number of Americans also do treat most of these laws with great contempt. For example the agency fee collected by these unions is quite exorbitant, actually to a tune of billion dollars annually. They end up making the unions stronger, financially hence influence policy made by the congress as they have been perceived to do to the detriment of the workers’ rights, a fact that has put the workers at loggerheads with the unions. This threatens the stability and independence of other closely related institutions. In his book Public Sector Labor Relations: analysis and readings, Lewin (10) states that, “In other words, although the formal bargaining process continues to be the dominant mechanism for exchanges between public unions and public employees, economic pressures and public opinion changes have often caused politicians to become more actively involved in labor relations matters in ways that have reduced or altered union influence.” It is an indication of how dependent policy making is, to an extent that they are massively influenced by varied factors and institutions and or individuals. In their joint view both Goldwater and Will (49) in their book The conscience of a conservative, share that the unions exist or are made prominently to confer economic merits on their members and not to engage in or perform political activities for them. These statements elaborate how the unions together with their compulsory unionism principle impact on the government policies and vise versa. It can not impress upon the workers if such are the way policy formulation are influenced especially by the unions through political engagements that are quite prone to corruption. Using the workers contributions to make or help make policies with negative effects on them is just an expression of being a great ingrate on the part of the union officials whose purported collective bargain however successful might not necessarily benefit its members. It is an act equivalent to biting the fingers that feeds you. Quite a betrayal! On very important national issues like that of supporting the presidential candidates either of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party during the poll, the top union officers never consult. Union members see evil on this since the officials do not allow the members to vote or make a decision. These are some matters that have made of late the unions unpopular amongst the American of cause together with some other equally important factors as emerging trends and federal laws that are newly established. Collective bargaining for unionized workers has also been questioned with regard to their effectiveness, efficiency and by large capacity to handle grievances of the workforce. For instance, despite making dismal contribution to the welfare of workers, their monthly or annual collections have more than doubled in the last 30 or so years. Such performance that mainly favor the union officials registers a great dissatisfaction to workers who feel exploited for no apparent reason even though the union wage premiums is low and might not as a matter of substance warrant any query. However, even if the performances of the unions meet the expectations of the workforce they should be subjected to thorough check or some form of regulation to make them function within their mandate and achieve their objectives practically. Certain principles on which the right to work laws operate for example the ‘Exclusive representation` is usually coercive, and yet they come to function as federal policies. It empowers union officials to represent their entire employee in a company’s bargaining unit whether or not one is willing. The evil here are twofold. First, the fact that they are compelling the workforce is in bad taste. Secondly, the law or policy does not provide for the evaluation of their outcome at the bargaining table. Such laws are largely viewed as skewed, narrow and shallow in terms of usefulness and can not serve the people for which they are intended properly. As a result of some of these events less and less people tend to join the unions, especially with present open working environment where there are several laws that protect workers. The ‘exclusive representation` is widely viewed as targeting to force the workforce to make without missing monthly contributions to the unions as a matter of commitment. The policy or law does not auger well though with the workers. It does not only demoralize, but also denies workers their fundamental right to self representation. The union officials perhaps are not the best bargainer; an individual might make a better bargain than the union representatives. It amounts to denying people right to make choice on touching issues. Some people have found that the principle of compulsory union representations conflict with their religious ideals. In a situation as such a court intervention is usually sought. Courts in such instances have assisted disinterested workforce to withdraw from union, a situation that brings conflict between the state right to work laws and the federal laws. But fairer that way since the workers are given some freedom of choice in this case. Generally the membership of union is declining to date such that their major role to bargain collectively with employers on the workforce’s behalf has been associated with several occurrences some of which are above mentioned. “Why membership is declining is open to debate. Perhaps unions are less necessary today because of the growing array of laws that protect workers. Perhaps the changing nature of work plays a role” (Steingold, 254). Indeed time has changed such that today’s worker unlike his or her earlier ones enjoys a lot of protection and cover. Some are adequately empowered to an extent that the can hire their attorneys if they feel aggrieved by an employer. There is massive awareness achieved so far that the earlier crave for unions and rush for their formation has drastically dropped. This is not to say that the workers’ unions have failed in their mandate, but rather it is more about change in actors or actresses when the stage actually remains the same. In the twenty-first century, things must have their own way of doing or they need to be done in some specific ways. These days even the employers have devised various methods of problem resolution. In fact they are very observant with respect to workers’ privileges and rights. They practice what we call ‘self regulation` to evade unnecessary lawsuits. The most agreeable method of solving problems is through dialogue, which has recently emerged as a strong management tool. It has been found to be effective to avoid possible strikes, boycotts and any form of industrial disobedience or unrest. Most workers think that employers too do not have rights thus end up merely flaming theirs. Employers too have laws that protect them, be it government business companies. In his The Employer’s Legal Handbook, Steingold states, You can try to dissuade employees from forming or joining a union. You can, for example, use letters, poster, brochures, and speeches to tell employees that they currently enjoy many job benefits and that their wages and benefits compare favorably to those of other workers in your industry. Make sure you can document your claims (256). The valid legal statement gives the employers a kind of room to voice their point of concern. Furthermore, the unions otherwise referred to as organized labor also suffer from their own hard to control nature. Several factors affect their formation and ability to operate. For example, the homogeneity issue. This arises from factors such as sex, age, race and ethnicity. The members of a given union who are homogeneous are easier to represent than those that are heterogeneous due to commonality of their interests. “…the more homogeneous a unit, the more likely workers will have common interests. The more heterogeneous a unit, the more likely management consultants will be able to rally dissidents against the union” (Clark, 247). When an employer gets an avenue to weaken the organized labor, they immediately take and explore such a rare vital chance. The collective bargaining also impacts positively a lot on employees in terms of benefits. The needs as well as issues affecting employees at the workplace are quite enormous. They include hiring and firing, amount of wages and working hours, employee benefits, workplace health and safety concerns, discrimination and dismissal and layoffs. Employees need to get the best favor out of these possible grievances. The best channel to get all these truly are through joining unions to collectively bargain on their behalf with the employers. The unions usually keep the employers on their toes. Any form of agreement disobedient on the employer side is dealt with by the union officials legally. The workforce is not therefore compelled to represent him or herself in courts with additional court charges. This gives the unionized workforce a financial freedom from such situation in case they occur. In some notable situations the labor unions have been made success. For instance in his book, The state and the Unions: labor relations, law, and the organized labor, Tomlis (14) says that, “Provisions limiting working time to fifty-seven hours per week establishing that an overtime penalty would come into effect during specified periods were major gains for the union, …….” Such milestone achievement was actually encouraging aspects of unions, especially in earlier days when the employers conspired with the state to exhaustively exploit their workforce. So adamant were the employers that they were even employing force and dismissal threats to dissuade workers from participating in any form of industrial strife. Management then was mainly concerned with production and not issues touching workers’ welfare. The union was ever reminding the employers to raise wages when their evaluation showed that the company or business has made tremendous progress in terms of profitability. And they subsequently called on the table the employers for purposes of negotiations. It is also worth noting that some states, especially those workers that are within the right to work states or those so-called have been found to have higher living standards and that even their income are comparatively high. Even though they do not compulsively pay dues to the unions those that are unionized or whose interests have been catered in the collective bargaining, are usually required to pay their proportionate part of the union’s bargaining costs. They are actually considered the passive union members. There is consensus that Right to work states have economic vitality and that they do experience low unemployment and that those residing in such states have higher purchasing power. Critical check of both collective bargains and the effects of right to work state laws indicate they both have merits and should be adopted by all states. But interchangeably the right to work state laws usually affects the union density and their effectiveness. Could be this is due to the fact that it leaves the employees on the loose end. Works Cited Clark L. George. Unions and Communities under Siege: American communities and the crisis of organized labor. NY, NY. C U P. 1989. Goldwater. C. C and George F. Will. The Conscience of a Conservative. U S. Princeton University Press. 1998. Labor Relations Definition. Labor Relations. 2004-2009. November 14, 2009. . Lewin, David. Public Sector Labor Relations: analysis and readings.3rd ed. U S. Lexington Books. 1988. Right to Work Frequently-Asked Questions. International Right to Work. 2008. November 14, 2009. . Right to Work State and Laws. Right to Work. 2003-2009. November 14, 2009. . Steingold S. Fred. The Employer’s Legal Handbook. 9th ed. U S. Nolo. 2009. Tomlins, L. Christopher. The State and the Unions: labor relations, law, and the organized labor. NY, NY. C U P Archive. 1985. Read More