Collective Bargaining Fair

One of the principal acts occurring during the 1980s and early 1990s as a result of Republicans stepping in and extending their authority over unions involved the NLRB saying that unions were no longer able to force an employer to bargain with them as long as it did not represent the largest part of the individuals within the company. This practically meant that unions were left with little to no power to act in some situations and employees simply had to accept laws that their managers imposed, regardless if they were justified or not. Matters were especially confusing because it had only been a few years since the NLRB

Change in union payroll deduction was another item taken away from members. This means that  all public-employee unions would be barred from automatically deducting union dues and political contributions from members’ payroll checks. People  in support of this feel that public employees are paid through state money and state funds should not have a role in compiling political funds. Proponents defend that unions should have no problem coming up with ways of guaranteeing payment from their members. According to The Des Moines Register, “Unions say automatic deductions, which are not mandatory, ease administration for workers and unions, and that political donations collected by the union from their members gives them a voice in public policy.

According to the Chicago Suntimes, the article “Illinois Public-Employee Union Members Vote To Authorize Strike”, the author John O’Connor reports tens of thousands of government workers starts a strike against governor Bruce Rauner. The main reason for the strike was caused by two-year budget cut. There is a big difference between first term governor’s budget and current governor’s current budget. Since the last year’s contract expired in June 2015, “ Rauner wants a four-year wage freeze, increased employee contributions to maintain current health coverage, and a 40-hour workweek instead of a 37 ½-hour one”(Connor). Therefore, the Illinois Public-Employee Union wants to protects employees’ right.

Roughly 62 percent of state employees are union members, meaning that law makers in the GA are generally wary of pushing too hard on publicly unpopular policy reform that affected unionized labor.

Historically, unions have made major improvements in workers’ conditions and wages. There has been legislation in favor of support to unions and worker needs and there has been legislation to restrict union power. The Wagner Act, commonly referred to as the National Labor Relations Act, and the Taft-Hartley Act are two of the many laws created to balance union power. This paper will look at both Acts, the impacts they have had, and what changes could be made to make them more relevant to today’s society.

The controversy behind this is that the people of Wisconsin believe that if the Governor takes away collective bargaining, he will take away the rights of the people, especially public sector workers, such as teachers and nurses. Governor Walker though is correct in taking this drastic measure because the state currently has a $137 million deficit. They need some way to bridge this deficit, so why not take out collective bargaining? Not all people agree with this way of thinking. Representative Jan Schakowsky from Illinois wrote a statement on February 17, saying that “under the guise of addressing state

Many people say compromise is fair. Others say it isn’t but, is compromise always fair? Compromise isn’t always fair but most of the time it is. Compromise was needed in the past to form a strong government which we have now. The Articles of Confederation helped determine representation in Congress. The New Jersey and Virginia plans helped build our government and the Connecticut Plans facilitated compromise.

Prior to the 1950s, American public sector workers could not join unions. Because of job security and reasonable benefits, it was considered unnecessary for public sector workers to unionize and collectively bargain with their government employers. However, in 1958, Robert F. Wagner, then mayor of New York City, signed an executive order granting city workers the right to unionize. Other local and state legislators followed suit, allowing public sector workers the right to join unions. In 1959, the state of Wisconsin passed the first state law granting the right to public sector collective bargaining after extensive campaigning in the state by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Fraser & Freeman, 2011). And in 1962, President John F. Kennedy granted federal employees the right to unionize and collectively bargain. Since then, the expansion of union activity in American government has closely mirrored the decline of union influence and strength in the American private sector (Masters, Albright, & Gibney, 2010)

Unequal access to employees—employers can meet with employees informally, conduct captive audience meetings, enforce no solicitation rules against union organizers, and limit employee use of company e-mail while unions merely get a list of employee addresses after the election date is set; possibilities for reform include banning employer captive audience meetings, giving unions the right to hold captive audience meetings, requiring a certain number of campaign debates, or allowing unions to send e-mail messages using the company’s system, making Excelsior lists available at any time, or after a union collects 30 percent signed authorization cards, or to include employee e-mail addresses as part of the Excelsior

LEWIN, D., KEEFE, J. H., & KOCHAN, T. A. (2012). THE NEW GREAT DEBATE ABOUT UNIONISM AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN U.S. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. ILR Review, 65(4), 749-778 Retrieved from https://web-b-ebscohost-com.bethelu.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=71a03270-ad95-41f9-a574-414b59891617%40sessionmgr103&hid=101

The Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill had limited the essence of labor unions. The bill prevents them from collectively bargaining for anything, except wages (Act 10). Though they take circumstances and situations under

The unions duty of fair representation as stated in (FLRA, 2016)is the obligation set forth in the second sentence of section 7114(a)(1) of the Statute is commonly referred to as an exclusive representative 's duty of fair representation. The Authority has interpreted this section to require an exclusive representative to represent the interests of all bargaining unit employees: 1) without discrimination; and 2) without regard to whether the employee is a dues paying member of the exclusive representative. The duty of fair representation is grounded in the principle that when a union attains the status of exclusive representative, it must use that power to fairly and equally represent all members of the unit. The union has met its obligation of fair representation when it has represented the employee fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. In my opinion the union in the case cited did not meet its fair representation obligation due to not representing Green in good faith or without discrimination possibly on the grounds she is a non-dues paying employee. Therefore, her rights under the LMRA have been violated due to unfair labor practices. To reinforce my statement under the NLRB (NLRB, 2016) a union which represents you cannot refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union. In the case cited Green was under the assumption when meeting with the Union Grievance committee she was participating

The struggle for fair pay has always been a hot topic in the workplace, and it will continue to be just that. Speaking up is a great way for co-workers to ensure they are being treated fairly. Underpay in its entirety must come to an end, I understand it will take a long time or some type of movement-but something must be done. Build your case by preparing factual data to support your argument. Afterwards, address your concerns with an Executive as soon as the opportunity presents- better yet create the opportunity yourself. Fair and equal pay are important, it is a mutual benefit for Corporations and its Employees. Through fair pay, companies gain the benefit of retaining and motivating talented workers also resulting in a desirable workplace environment, consequently enough, eliminating the risk of a potential unfair treatment lawsuit.

The question ‘does the provision of fair benefits counter a claim that communities have been exploited in the context of international research?’ opens discussion to a complex topic on ethics in international research. The question asks whether the provision of fair benefits protects research communities, defined as communities on whom the research is conducted, from exploitation. In order to discuss this question, it is necessary to first understand what constitutes fair benefits and exploitation in the context of international research.

Women earn 77 cents to every dollar a man makes. The most common jobs/occupations in the country are segregated by gender some examples are truck driving, construction worker, firefighter nursing, and secretarial work. There are a few occupation that require a degree but they are still heavily skewed towards men some examples would be law and medicine. The reason is because women are more likely to do jobs that are similar to what they do at home and in the olden days like taking care of the family and kids, keeping the inside the house clean and teaching. Men are seen as the muscles more like construction and engineering.