The pros and cons of collective bargaining show that there can be several trade-offs that workers must accept in order to have such a structure. Here are some of the key points to consider. 1.C pro-employee. Proponents of collective bargaining postulate that collective bargaining will make it easier for workers to fight for their rights as hard workers. By being members of unions, they will have a voice through union representatives whose goal is to work to improve the members of their workers, such as higher wages, shorter working hours, safer jobs and better health care. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of NLRB cases that deal with the issue of the duty to negotiate in good faith. In determining whether a party hears in good faith, the Commission will consider all the circumstances. The obligation to negotiate in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations in order to indicate the current intention to find a basis for an agreement. This involves both an open-mindedness and a sincere desire to reach an agreement, as well as a sincere effort to reach common ground. In Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. __ (2014), caregivers who provide home care to participants with disabilities (as part of a state-created program) decided to unionize.
The collective agreement between the union and the state contained a provision on “fair share”. Like an agency provision, this required that “all personal assistants who are not unionized pay a proportionate share of the costs of the collective bargaining process and contract management.” Workers who had spoken out against it complained, saying the provision violated their freedom of expression and association. What rules govern collective bargaining of a contract? 3. Collective bargaining requires governance obligations. Employees involved in the negotiation process have governance tasks that are performed outside of regular work tasks. This means that parents are asked to take time from their children, the spouse and partner spend more time away from each other, and sometimes these tasks are unpaid positions. This can cause some people to speed up the negotiation process, which can lead to the conclusion of a bad contract. 7. Collective bargaining can change the work environment. For many people, trade union organization is a politically charged issue and has been for some time. Many employers will actively discourage workers from taking steps towards unionization. Union members can actively encourage workers to take the necessary steps to join the union.
This creates an environment that is more than just unpleasant. This means that the workplace may be more focused on who is or is not a member of a union than on productivity for the employer. 3. Collective bargaining creates uniformity in the application of the law. Non-unionized workers are often hired “at will.” Unless there is a problem of discrimination, whistleblowing or any other reason protected by law, an employee may be dismissed at the discretion of the employer. This means that there is no real job security in such an arrangement. Collective bargaining not only provides this security, but also puts everyone on an equal footing. Each employee and the employer are bound by the negotiated contract. 1. It is prone to inequality.
Critics of the collective bargaining agreement can make employers or employees get less of what they earn. If representation on the employer side is low, there is a chance that the company will lose a significant amount of money due to overcompensation or excessive benefits. On the other hand, if workers` representation is low, they may not receive the employment benefits they should enjoy. 8. Collective bargaining does not guarantee a good deal for both parties. There are many stories of unionized workplaces highlighting employee bad behavior and an employer`s inability to eliminate problematic workers. There are also stories where a poor ABC on the union side has limited workers` ability to fight for better wages or benefits. Without a quality negotiator and an attentive support group, it is possible for a group to reach a unilateral agreement that does not balance the needs of all. 2. It can be biased against employers. Some groups that are not in favour of collective bargaining argue that this process gives too much power to workers and leaves employers with their hands tied when it comes to running their businesses.
Given that unions can demand collective bargaining from employers, critics fear that this practice will become a habit, even though in reality there is nothing irregular about the way these employers conduct their business. 1. Collective bargaining gives workers a greater voice. When employees are individuals, it can be difficult to negotiate with an employer. Many non-unionized workers face a “take it or leave it” offer. If an employee does not take it, the employer will hire someone to do so. Collective bargaining allows workers to unite into larger groups and create a stronger voice that can help each other achieve mutually beneficial results. If, after sufficient efforts and in good faith, no agreement can be reached, the employer can declare the impasse and then implement the last offer submitted to the union. However, the union may not agree that a real impasse has been reached and may lay charges of unfair labour practice for non-bargaining in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether a real impasse has been reached based on the history of the negotiations and the understanding of both sides. The National Labour Relations Act prohibits employers from interfering, restricting or coercing employees to exercise their rights relating to the organization, education, membership or support of a work organization for the purpose of collective bargaining, or from cooperating to improve conditions of employment, or from refraining from such activities.
Similarly, work organizations may not restrict or compel workers to exercise these rights. Behaviour away from the negotiating table may also be relevant. For example, if an employer were to make a unilateral change to the working conditions of employees without negotiations, it would be a sign of bad faith. 5. . . .
