Decentralization of Collective Bargaining in Australia

TOPIC – The major issue today facing the Australian trade union movement has been the decline in union density. What have been the causes, and how have the unions responded to the challenge.

Collective Bargaining is important in the employment relationship as it recognises the TU’s right to represent its employees for consultative or bargaining purposes and represents a fundamental and irreversible change in the employment relationship (Trade Union Recognition Institute of Personnel Management 1977, p24).

See also Ron McCallum, ‘The Australian Constitution and the Shaping of Our Federal and State Labour Laws’ (2005) 10 (1) Deakin law Review 461-463.

The government used monetary policy over demand management, and concentrated on the control of the rate of interest in an attempt to stop low levels of unemployment causing inflation. The government decided to use collective bargaining as a means of setting rates of pay for the first time, the government no longer required Trade Unionists as negotiators of pay, because private negotiating bodies were now used. It was now assumed that in the present economic climate, in accordance with interest rates and government objectives that the price which was set would be reasonable, and if not then the government assumed that the employers knew better, this being one indication of Mrs Thatchers non-tolerance towards Trade Unions, also shown by Mrs Thatcher passing control of pay structures to private bodies and employers. This attitude is very different to the present day ‘New’ Labour government, who sees government interaction in the wage structure as being very important. For example, the introduction of the National Minimum Wage.

Employers within the private sector organizations in these provinces do not want First Contract Arbitration imposed on them, as this takes away their management rights and power. They have capitalistic mentalities and employees are a cog in the wheel of monetary gain. ()

During our negotiation with D.G. Barnhouse (DGB), we intend to utilize an integrative bargaining strategy with management. Before coming to this conclusion, we weighed the advantages and disadvantages of a distributive approach, however, we eventually decided to take an integrative and predominantly interest based stance versus a position based stance in our negotiations after assessing internal and external environmental factors. In addition, we settled on this strategy because we ultimately believe that management and the union share at the very least, one fundamental common interest, which is the firm’s financial stability. That being said, even with our plans to use integrative bargaining, we still plan to negotiate assertively to achieve

At 1981, The George A. Hormel Meatpacking Company cut wages from $10.69 to $8.25 to claim the need to remain competitive. Companies threat workers that they either close one plant and then open it at lower wage places or exit the business directly. Local unions like P-9 firstly request that all the workers should stick to $10.69 an hour in ten or fifteen years that we could call its target point. The company didn’t agree, they asserted new member workers the company recruited would be paid two dollars less for the same work, which is different from the P-9 decision. Union P-9 refuses any concessions in the negotiation process at first, which proves it is an over-aspiring negotiator. It reveals its reservation point that keeping the $10.69 at least three years too early because it has absolute confidence to win the negotiation. But actually P-9 Local wrongly assesses the counterparties interests and BANTA and lead to final negotiation failure unavoidably.

The two hardest components in any collective bargaining negotiations is wages and health care. Finding a balance between both is even harder and for a company to stay competitive in the long run. The best strategy in negotiations is for the union to know and weigh the pros and cons of both sides and understanding the legislation affecting the issue to properly negotiate. This paper will first look at the pros and cons of the union fighting for health care or an increase in wages, the impact of legislation, and provide the best argument for the union against GMFC.

- Focus statement: This paper will focus on the opposition between western Canadian labour unions’ resolve to play a larger role in politics and industry and employers’ objection to comply with them.

Being part of a union gives members the benefit of negotiating with their employer collectively, as part of a group; giving them more power than if they were to negotiate as individuals (Silverman, n.d.). Overall, unions demand fairness which can lead to the unions influencing and changing ‘managerial decision-making at the workplace level’ for decisions in which employees are affected (Verma 2005). Unions are also beneficial to have present in the workplace because their bargaining of better condition will often benefit non-members as the conditions negotiated with management are implemented across the organization with no regard to membership status. Management is also able to avoid union disagreement by benchmarking conditions to that of an already unionized workplace.

During 2011 employer associations in Australia conducted an active lobbying campaign to introduce legislative changes with respect to industrial relations. Predominantly they were seeking to diminish the power of collective bargaining and increase managerial control under the

How does the history of unions and the collective bargaining process impact negotiations today? What are some of the current trends or problems in labor relation practices?

Throughout the twentieth century collective bargaining was the most significant means of regularity relationships in UK between employers and employees via trade union. In continental Europe there is more emphasis on

Collective bargaining is the process by which conditions of employment are negotiated between management, and the labor organization representing employees in the bargaining unit. However, “collective bargaining refers to a situation in which union members and officials meet with an intent to resolve any issues or conflicts, in an attempt to maintain relationships” (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012, p. 243). The collective bargaining process relies on four aspects: recognition of the meeting, meeting with appropriate parties, bargaining in good faith, and incorporating the reached agreement (Adam, 1997). Nevertheless, collective bargaining activities are governed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA requires bargaining

David Brody argues that the rise of contractual or collective bargaining relationships during the post WWII era formalized the relationship between employers and unions. The use of collective bargaining agreements to resolve workplace disputes weakened unions and the power of workers. Other actions, such as using collection bargaining as a form of substitution for direct action and using it instead of the strike for grievance and arbitration procedure served , also has weakened the unions and the power of workers. The rise of contractual or collective bargaining relationships changed the dynamic of the workplace, shifting the power from the union side to towards the employers. The perspective could best be argued suing Weber’s theory and