Industrial relations
ANSWER
Section 91(1) gives employers the freedom to apply to the board if they feel that a strike is unlawful. The strike could have already happened, could be happening or could be happening in future following authorization by the employees trade unions (Department of Justice Canada, 2010).
Following this, the board may require that the trade union calls off the strike or it may prohibit the employees from taking part in the strike. Section 92 ensures that the employers do not abuse this right by giving the trade unions the freedom to present their complaints to the board if they feel that the prohibition is unlawful (Department of Justice Canada, 2010).
Following this the board may request the employer not to interfere with the strike. These prohibitions and remedies are sufficient since they ensure that the interests of employees and the employers are balanced.
Legislators and the courts have ruled that trade unions require an enormous amount of discipline over their members in order to create and preserve the collective strength required to maintain a truly balanced bargaining relationship with employers. It has been argued that without this strength, employees freedom of association would mean little. Do you agree with the legal machinery they have provided Or is there some other legal format in which these policy objectives could have been achieved
ANSWER
The provided legal machinery does not give the trade unions enough powers to be able to discipline their members. For the trade unions to achieve their objectives, the legal provisions should be revised. The trade unions should be given powers to go into employees workplaces to persuade them to become members.
Employers should also be required to dismiss the employees who do not participate in strikes that the trade unions have authorized (Department of Justice Canada, 2010). This way, the trade unions would get the collective strength they need to bargain with employers.
3. Considerable public debate has taken place over the right of the state to seek special restrictions on the right to strike for its own employees, loosely defined as public sector workers. The debate also focuses on the extent to which alternate dispute resolution procedures actually provide a fair and viable substitute for industrial action. The sanctions that the state can employ to impose its will in this area naturally become a factor in real lifeand this becomes part of the argument. Where do you stand in this debate Pick one issue and present your view.
ANSWER
In the absence of unions and with prohibition of strikes, the state will be able to oppress its workers. The workers will have no avenues for presenting their grievances.
Whereas industrial action acts as a good way of presenting grievances, unions are usually the best option. Avenues such as formation of social clubs as are being imposed by state on its employees will never be as effective.
Collective bargaining is based on the premise that the two major workplace parties can effectively create and administer the rules governing their relationship, with the collective agreement serving as the major instrument for this. Based on your knowledge of the workplace, and conditions of employment, do you believe that this is realistic
ANSWER
No, this is not realistic. In majority of the workplaces, the employer has total authority and there is usually no room for negotiations. Even with unions, the workers are never able to really have a say in making of the rules that govern how they relate with their employers.
This is usually because the employer is usually the determinant of important issues such as pay, working conditions and can declare demands of employees as unreasonable. Since the employees need the jobs, they are usually forced to accept the terms of the employer.
There is much debate over the merits of the peculiar collective bargaining institution that has developed over the years in Canada. What do you think about the deal as it was struck in 1944 and has developed since How good do you think it was for employers For employees
ANSWER
Following the 1944 deal which is also known as Wartime Labor Relations Regulations, both employees and employers benefited greatly (Black Silver, 2008). The employees benefited due to shielding from labor practices that were unfair.
This means that their rights as employees were recognized and upheld. It also benefited the employers in that they also got a chance to be able to form trade unions which would represent them. This would protect them from the effects of unlawful strike by their employees.
What are some of the primary features of the parties, process, and outcomes typical of collective bargaining that distinguish it from other forms of contract making in Canada today
ANSWER
The parties to a collective bargaining are varied and could include employees and employees, employer and employer or employee and employer. A primary feature of the process of collective bargaining is that its continuous. This form of contract is usually permanent and never temporary unlike other forms which can be temporary. A typical outcome feature of collective bargaining is that it protects all the interests of its members. These interests could be economic, social or political unlike others which deal with a single interest of their members (Black Silver, 2008).
What are some of the major changes and trends that are shaping modern workplaces and work processes What implications do they hold for the future of collective bargaining
ANSWER
The modern work processes and workplaces are being shaped by major trends and changes. One of these is that there has been an increase in the costs of premiums for some of the benefits (Black Silver, 2008). This has been forcing the employers to find ways to control these increases. If the employers impose more deductions on the employees, it would be a basis for bargaining by the trade unions which would be opposed to such a move.
Another trend is the increasing need for job security (Black Silver, 2008). Employers will be forced to make agreements with the trade unions which will see this issue dealt with without restricting the future options of the employers.
Lesson 1 asserted that some of Canadas greatest legal and political minds have tied the goals of collective bargaining to the goals of democracy, in response to the fact that the governments of most Canadian workplaces are really autocracies. Many Canadians would regard this statement as contentious, and some might even find it offensive. As a student of industrial relations, how would you respond to
ANSWER
One of the outcomes of collective bargaining is democracy and this is supposed to benefit workers. In majority of the workplaces in Canada, the workers have no right to negotiate about the conditions of working or their pay with their employers. This is contrary to the principles of democracy and so the trade unions should seek to have this changed.
However, the labor movement has not been serious in seeking democracy for employees and so its not right to equate democratic goals to goals of collective bargaining especially in Canada.
9. When the two workplace partiesmanagement and the trade unionmeet at the bargaining table, which of following statements more accurately describes their relationship The parties are united by convergent interests (i.e., by what they have in common). The parties are divided by divergent interests (i.e., by what makes them different).
Pick one point of view, and explain your reasons for choosing it.
ANSWER
When the trade unions and the management are bargaining, they are usually united by their common interests. They are both interested in seeing businesses succeed. For this to happen, a satisfied productive workforce is mandatory.
The trade unions helps the employers to create a productive workforce by negotiating for better salaries, better working conditions as well as helping to improve communication between employees and the employers (Black Silver, 2008).
10. The common law governing employment, arguing that it reflects and reinforces the employment relationship as one of subordinationcharacteristic of the relationship between master and servant.Considering your experiences and perspective do you agree or disagree with such an analysis
ANSWER
I totally agree with this analysis. During the time when this employment relationship was coined, failure of workers to comply with the terms of their work contracts led to punishments (Black Silver, 2008). This still happens today in the workplaces. The employees are also supposed to totally submit to the employer and in most of the places they are not supposed to voice their opinions. They are expected to accept whatever pay is offered even though its little compared to the volume of work done.
Another thing is that mistakes are usually punished in some workplaces. For example in some workplaces employees are fined if their mistake causes the company or the employer to incur losses.
11. Unit 6 seeks to explain the nature of modern trade unions by showing how, as organizations, they develop an existence and rationale of their own, apart from, or even contrary to, the expressed wishes of their members. Most significantly, trade unions have developed into forces for moderating and even suppressing members demands and overcoming members resistance to the employers agenda.Considering your experiences, and your perspective do you agree with this theoretical position
ANSWER
Currently, unions are not very member oriented. The economic changes in Canada have made the unions to lose their earlier luster. This has also decreased their bargaining power and so currently all they are doing is to make sure that the members remain employed.
They are more concerned with remaining relevant in a society that is fighting to phase then out than serving the needs of their members.
Read the following lyrics and answer the question accordinglyWhen the Unions inspiration through the workers blood shall run,There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun.Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of oneBut the Union makes us strong.Solidarity foreverSolidarity foreverSolidarity foreverFor the Union makes us strong.Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasiteWho would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his mightIs there anything left for us but to organize and fightFor the Union makes us strong.chorusIt is we who plowed the prairies built the cities where they tradeDug the mines and built the workshops endless miles of railroad laid.Now we stand outcast and starving, midst the wonders we have madeBut the Union makes us strong.chorusAll the world thats owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.We have laid the wide foundations built it skyward, stone by stone.It is ours, and not to slave in, but to master and to own,While the Union makes us strong.chorusThey have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.We can break their haughty power gain our freedom, when we learnThat the Union makes us strong.chorusIn our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded goldGreater than the might of armies, magnified a thousand-fold.We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old.For the Union makes us strong.
Question What problem do these lyrics identify in the employment relationship And what solution(s) do they propose Setting aside the rhetoric in the lyrics, do you agree with this assessment of the employment relationship Why or why not
ANSWER
The problem identified in these lyrics is poverty among workers while the employers continue to get richer yet it is the employees who work to make the money. The solution the workers are proposing is formation of a union which will help them to fight for their right. With a trade union, they will have a stronger voice and thus will be heard better than if each were acting on their own.
Away from the lyrics, the same issues addressed here do take place in real life. In most of the workplaces, the employees work tirelessly to make millions yet they are paid peanuts. This makes the employees to continue wallowing in poverty while the employers get richer and richer.
Read the following lyrics and answer the question accordinglyTumble out of bed and I stumble to the kitchen Pour myself a cup of ambition Yawnin, stretchin, try to come to life Jump in the shower and the blood starts pumpin Out on the streets the traffic starts jumpin And folks like me on the job from nine to fiveChorusWorkin nine to fiveWhat a way to make a livin Barely gettin by Its all takin and no givin They just use your mind And they never give you credit Its enough to drive you Crazy if you let itNine to five, for service and devotion You would think that I would deserve a fair promotion Want to move ahead, but the boss wont seem to let me I swear sometimes that man is out to get me Mmmmm...They let you dream Just a watch em shatter Youre just a step On the boss mans ladder But you got dreams hell never take awayIn the same boat with a lot of your friends Waitin for the day your shipll come in And the tides gonna turn And its all gonna roll your waychorusNine to five, yeah They got you where they want you Theres a better life And you think about it, dont you Its a rich mans game No matter what they call it And you spend your life Puttin money in his wallet
Question What tension do these lyrics identify in the employment relationship Is this tension recognized by the unitarist perspective on industrial relations What are the implications of ignoring this tension
ANSWER
The tension recognized in this relationship is one where an employer will promise a worker a promotion which will never be. This makes the worker to really work hard in the hope that the employer will notice and promote him but this never happens. This tension exists in majority of workplaces where employers will hint about promotions to make employees more committed.
This makes the employees to work harder each day hoping that their dreams of being promoted will come true. When the employers continue to ignore this tension, the employees can become demoralized and this may lower their productivity. Another implication is that the employees may leave the workplace in search of a place where they will realize their dreams.
14. With only 1 year unionized work experience I have not really seen union democracy. Looking at the present legal policy of non-intervention of internal union affairs I think is reasonable to some degree. I believe as long as the union is following proper legal legislatings and treats everyone who is part of the union with the same respect, rules and regulations, then there is no reason for the law to get involved. Unions members agree to a collective agreement (a negotiated agreement) made between employers and employees covering issues such as pay and terms and conditions of employment. In cases where a collective agreement is being negotiated, employees are able to see what they are agreeing to so I dont feel it is necessary for the law to then step in and get involved when in the first place they did not agree to the terms and conditions of the collective agreement.If an organization has a union in place and the unions is looked at as an open shop then employees are not required to be part of the union and support the collective agreement that is in place employees have the option to join the union or not. In this case if you dont agree with the unions views then dont join.If an organization has a closed shop union, employees have no choice if they join the union or not. If employees dont agree with what the unions collective agreement says then dont join the company.I believe employees have choices and for this, I dont see it necessary for legal policy intervention of internal union affairs to take place. If law representatives are not involved when companies are putting together their collective agreement, then why should they get involved if something goes wrong between employer and employeeunion
ANSWER
The trade unions are more powerful when membership is compulsory. The members also become more active in its affairs. Its important to note that internal affairs of trade unions just like any other affair require legal intervention. This is to solve any problems that may occur when one party breaches the terms of the contract (Black Silver, 2008).
I do agree with the legal machinery provided. I find a common theme running through labour law is that employers are in a much more powerful position than unions. Why exactly is this The most obvious reason is that employees are dependant on the employer for their wages. I think the most important reason for an employers power is the absolute unity that exsists within mangement.
Obiedence to company directives is absolute and there are no competeing interests. A union is often made up of very different people, doing different jobs, with different interests. A union must have the enormous discipline granted by legislation and the courts or its inherent divisions would be ruthlessly exploited by management. During collective bargining, the employer must bargin with the union, and not its employees, for the process to be fair. If the employer barginined with its employees, without the current legislation, it could cut seperate deals and pit one group of employees against each other. Collective bargining works because of union discipline, at the bargining table it is one hiearchy negotiating with another.
ANSWER
Trade unions offer the best avenue for the employees to present their grievances without fear of discrimination. Individual employees are less powerful than the employers but when presented as a group by the trade unions, they become at par with the employers. This requires discipline of the individual workers.
Thoughts on the Rand FormulaI find the Rand formula to be the most contentious guarantee in our collective bargaining legal regime - I dont necessarily find it the most unusual (or unfortunate) personally, but it seems to have the longest reach of the guaranteed provisions, and to have brought about the most debate, particularly since the introduction of the Charter. The mandatory enforcement of dues amongst employees has the dual effect of ensuring benefits of union membership are directly linked to contribution -preventing bias, favoritism, or perceptions thereof - and of maintaining the collective bargaining notion that employers cannot bargain with individual employees outside of the unit once the unit has been established. To do so would, after all, completely destabilize the unit and giving employers such a right would render the establishment of any union a moot point. The mandatory contribution of union dues is unavoidable anywhere the Rand legislation is in place, with voluntary automatic check off being a standard in the places where it is not, being avoidable only under religious circumstances, and a payment for recognition (to a charity of choice or designation) still being a requirement for employment in the unit. People seem to take objection to this in two ways the most common is the actual deduction of dues, easily the most widespread objection to unionization. The second is the alleged restriction that laboring under a mandatory dues contribution system places on ones freedom of association by forcing a personal association with an organization upon an employee in order to stay employed. Though this may not infringe upon a persons degree of association within an organization (and has been determined not to - Lavigne 1991 decision), the same cannot necessarily be said of the union-employee association beyond the workplace. This has become increasingly true as unions have grown more politically and socially active in an effort to broaden the reach of their social policy. Though restrictions on coercion, intimidation, and other methods used by organizations to control individuals restrict unions from unduly influencing the actions of its members, the taint of association is often enough to rankle members, with the necessity of dues being an added insult, and its a broad problem across all jurisdictions in one form or another.
ANSWER
The things accomplished by trade unions cannot be if there was no unity of the workers being represented. By making contributions compulsory, the workers become more united and they feel as part of the union. This gives the union the powers it needs to represent the employees.
While the collective bargaining process does result in rules governing the employee employer relationship, the process does not exist within a vacuum. Socio-political and economic conditions can and often do have a dramatic effect on outcome of the final collective agreement.As competition arising from an ever increasing global economy becomes prevalent in Canada companies have had to restructure employee compliments and increase efficiencies wherever and whenever possible. As was observed over the past year with the Canadian auto manufactures, collective agreements had to be reopened and modified to suite the needs of the organization for its very survival. A very strong message has been sent out to unions particularly within exporting in Canada which indicates leaner times to come. In the public sector unions are faced with permanent exceptionalism having access to collective bargaining stripped via back to work legislation. The government of BC recently imposed a contract on the Ambulance workers with social pressures mounting due to the upcoming Olympic games and increased demands on health care services due to the spread of H1N1 throughout the province. The aforementioned are but a few examples of how external forces can impact the collective bargaining process and in most cases these forces act to the detriment of the unions bargaining strength. In many cases unions are entering into negotiations at best trying to hold onto the gains of past but more commonly accepting concessions in the hopes they will be enough to keep the organization viable and thus keep their membership employed. Collective bargaining implies a negotiation where parties involved give and take to achieve agreed upon conditions. Unfortunately due to realities of the socio-political and economic climate in Canada the equity of this process exists more in theory than in practice.
ANSWER
There are a lot of external forces that influence the bargaining ability of the unions. In the recent past, the political, social and economic environments in Canada have been making the union to have less bargaining power (Black Silver, 2008). This means that the unions are in most instances agreeing to the conditions of the employers.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment