Read the below peer discussion board posts and provide your classmate with feedback on your opinion of their position.

Class Member Discussion Topic Responses

Grading Criteria

You are required to respond with depth, breadth and insight to the discussion question(s) as well as one of your class members. Your response to the discussion question(s) must be tied back to the chapter material and outside research is expected. When I ask you to support your answer, you are expected to combine opinion with, minimum 2, citations, insight from your experiences, observations of others experiences, analysis of the facts/information and a conclusion. PLEASE do not limit your citations to just the book! Find other supporting material outside of the class structure.  You are also required to answer the question posed by the instructor and class members’. (Please note: The guidance outlined above will contribute to you “meeting the expectations” for the discussion. Additional participation will contribute to a grade that will “exceed the expectations” for the discussion

The combined original reply and two responses are worth up to 20 points per student. The criteria used to determine the point distribution will be:

Cite examples, textbook material, or your own supporting material to back up your opinion.

Action: Read the below peer discussion board posts and provide your classmate with feedback on your opinion of their position. Do you agree and why? Do you disagree and why? Replies to your class members’ are intended to move the discussion forward. Telling them that they simply did a good job is not acceptable. Statements like “I feel”, “I believe” and/or “I think” are difficult to measure and, highly, subjective. Asking a question or two about the position they took will move the discussion forward. Replies are 200 word minimum

Action: Read the below peer discussion board posts and provide your classmate with feedback on your opinion of their position. Do you agree and why? Do you disagree and why? Replies to your class members’ are intended to move the discussion forward. Telling them that they simply did a good job is not acceptable. Statements like “I feel”, “I believe” and/or “I think” are difficult to measure and, highly, subjective. Asking a question or two about the position they took will move the discussion forward. Replies are 200 word minimum

Peer Reply #1

Case Study 4-2: Exclusive Representation

by Timothy Zimmer – Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 9:18 PM

If the court ruled that the union had no duty to represent these former employees I would say that is a fair result for all parties. First, for the company, based upon the details given, they abided by their agreement. They offered employment to the laid off union members. The case study information does not say if there were position that these 16 former employees would have been qualified for; a lot of skills can change in eleven years.

From the unions’ perspective, they were acting fairly as well. The union negotiated with the company that the company would provide additional benefits after these 100 plus members were laid off. They negotiated for those members to be offered positions and some were. Nowhere is there a guarantee given to the former union members that they would have employment eleven years down the road. Also, some unions are looking to do away with exclusive representation. “International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150 (“IUOE”)—a labor union in Illinois—filed suit earlier this year to challenge the state’s exclusive representation statutes” (Wanner, 2019).

From the employees perspective this would be a fair ruling as well. These former union members may not agree with or like the ruling, but it is fair. Realistically these 16 former members cannot expect a lifetime guarantee of employment because they were laid off at one time when they were a part of a union eleven years prior. If they do have that expectation, that is the major reason many don’t support unions. The sense of entitlement is not well received and that is what this situation is. Also, how did these 16 individuals go eleven years without finding work? Were they counting on the jobs to re-open at the company so they did nothing to advance themselves? If that is the case, an employer is not going to find them to be qualified candidates potentially.

Wanner, L. (2019 August 16). Union argues for end of exclusive representation. Retried from https://www.fairnesscenter.org/blog/detail/union-argues-for-end-of-exclusive-representation

Action: Read the below peer discussion board posts and provide your classmate with feedback on your opinion of their position. Do you agree and why? Do you disagree and why? Replies to your class members’ are intended to move the discussion forward. Telling them that they simply did a good job is not acceptable. Statements like “I feel”, “I believe” and/or “I think” are difficult to measure and, highly, subjective. Asking a question or two about the position they took will move the discussion forward. Replies are 200 word minimum

Reply #2

Case Study 4-2

by David Alcenius – Thursday, October 10, 2019, 10:20 AM

The results of the agreement between the union and the company seem pretty fair to me. From the perspective of the company, it offered the laid off employees continuous service credit for five years following the lay offs. Eleven years after the lay offs, the company returned to the laid off employees and offered some of them jobs based on the current employment needs of the company (Carrell, 2014). I would argue that, even though 16 employees did not get rehired, the company did fulfill, or, at least, tried to fulfill, its obligations to rehire employees, even after eleven years.

If the court rules in favor of the company, then from the perspective of the employees, it seems less fair. The 16 employees feel as though the company as forfeited the deal it made with the union following the lay offs. And, one could see where that perspective comes from since the company only hired a few of the former employees back after eleven years. And, these employees feel as though the union is shirking its duty to represent their interests.

But, the facts seem to indicate that the company is still fulfilling the terms of the agreement with the union. After eleven years, it is still rehiring former employees that were affected by the lay offs. Furthermore, while the case study gives no indication, it appears that the company did fulfill the “continuous service” clause of the agreement for the laid off employees. With these facts in mind, it appears that, while the employees were not rehired, it does not preclude that they will not be rehired if more openings occur at the company. Furthermore, the agreement cannot be an “in perpetuity” agreement between the union, the company, and the former employees. Contracts with no negotiated length can be terminated after a “reasonable period of time” has passed between the two parties (Upcounsel, 2019). After eleven years, most former employees are likely to have found new jobs, and the company has made attempts to rehire old employees. Therefore, it seems fair to all parties that the union should not represent the 16 former employees in a case against the company.

References

Carrell, M. & Heavrin, C. (2014) Labor relations and collective bargaining: Private and public sectors. Tenth Edition. Pearson Education, New York.

Upcounsel. (2019). Perpetual Contracts Enforceable: Everything You Need to Know. upcounsel.com. Retrieved from: https://www.upcounsel.com/perpetual-contracts-enforceable