The Pros And Cons Of Bargaining

Bargaining vs. going public was covered in class during lecture seventeen as well as in the Pika and Maltese text in chapters three Public Politics and five Legislative Politics.

Collective bargaining is a negotiation process between employers and employees on the terms and conditions of work which form the enterprise agreement (Natalie 2010, p.199). Good faith bargaining on the other hand, generally refers to duty of the parties to meet and negotiate at reasonable time with willingness to reach an agreement on matters within the scope of representation (Riley 2012, pp.22-29). According to Fair Work Act 2009 “To bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hour and other terms and conditions of employment”.

When it came to creating a collective bargaining agreement section for employee safety, the main challenge was the initial confusion on where negotiations were to take place for both the Union and Company sides. From here the friction that existed had to do with what costs should be allotted for boots and gear and whether or not these items should be simply provided by the company or a certain amount allotted for employees to purchase the necessary items themselves. Having been part of the Union side, when it came to the Company side, it appeared as though they were able to create a good draft of what they would like the collective bargaining agreement should look like for this section. They tried to appeal to the Union, while still being able to maintain company interests. This enabled them to come to a group decision in a timely

I am always scared that my manager is going to look at the cameras after every shift and she would find a moment in which I was not working to my fullest potential, and would reprimand me. I also feel like surveillance systems can be used as a defense for the worker whenever they believe that or accuse a customer for shoplifting. All the worker would have to do is quickly go back and review the cameras before making their statement. If a customer feels that they are being harassed or discriminated by a worker, all the customer would have to do is make a request for the manager to review the surveillance tapes and then the customer’s claim will either be justified and taken into consideration, or it will be discarded. Cameras mounted on street signs can log cars by license plate number, scan facial characteristics, and take notes of vehicles repeatedly circling or driving above or below the speed limit. About two summers ago, my friends and I took a day-trip down to Washing D.C. I decided to drive down there since my car was the safest and out of all of the other cars, my car had the most gas in it. While we were down there, I accidentally ran a red

Historically speaking, authorities of the law were never in a position where their professional duties and their character as a public servant of the law were demeaned in a way that there needs to be constant surveillance of them and the people whom they come into contact with. There was never a need of documenting every encounter you had with a civilian before. In this day in age, things have certainly changed, and the past has always been something society likes to change and make better even if it raises concerns. Due to all the violent police stories that has surfaced in the past decade, the idea of having police officers wear video cameras as a part of their uniform while on duty has resulted in a radically divergent account of society’s future. The law may uphold cops to wear cameras while working, but is this really the best decision? This topic is very controversial and may create issues with cops and the civilians they try and protect in the future.

a) In a 2012 study, it was found that officers that were required to wear cameras while on the job were more cautious and their use of excessive force fell by 60 percent, while public complaints dropped by 88 percent. (Rory Carroll, 2013)

A career in front of the camera is the dream job for numerous Americas. Little do they know they may have already been on camera. Every day people in the United States of America are caught in the lens of law enforcement cameras. These cameras sound nefarious due to their constant watching of people. However, law enforcement cameras are anything but nefarious as their intent is to stop actions that may rightly be deemed nefarious. The cameras the law enforcement use may be on the street, a member of the law enforcement, a police car or a traffic light. With all the cameras, their purpose is for the good of the people and to enforce laws. However, there is controversy surrounding the usage of the law enforcement cameras due to how some people

This could be solved through some big manufactures or through many small ones, which can help these companies out and also add to the peace throughout the communities. Another claim is that these cameras are unmanageable, they take too much storage up, which also leads into the most controversial element, privacy. Turning these cameras on and have them always running is subject to invade the privacy of our citizens in some way at the least. A solution to this is not having the cameras always run, but when an officer gets a call or when a circumstance comes up. Also, is vital and timing is everything, and it needs to be heavily implemented in teaching officers about these body

Eric Katz (2015) explains that Customs and Border Protection still have worries about body cameras; they state the technology needs more time and further studies. Privacy concerns is something they must address first before they start using the body cameras outside of training environments in the beginning phase (p.1). CBP Commissioner R. Gill Kerlikowske explained that CBP is not against body cameras and that they will be coming up with a plan to renovate and increase the amount of cameras the CBP uses (Katz, 2015, p.1). CBP officials stated that the agency came across problems with both the cameras and labor. The Border Patrol union, the Nation Border Patrol Council has opposed the adoption of the body cameras. Kerlikowske and the officials

The article mentions that the cameras will eliminate the “he said, she said” and that if officers use it properly and effectively it will be a vital tool but as with everything else there will be some issues with the cameras that officers will discover after they’re being used. Officer McGreevy has said multiple times that it will be a great piece of evidence if and when it needs to be used as evidence and that it’s hard to argue with a piece of evidence such as a video. The only complaint he has about the cameras is the size of the screen when he plug it into a computer to see what was being recorded. He demonstrated to me what he meant. What he did was he recorded me talking to him in two different videos. The first video he stood in front of me with about 12 inches in between each

In this negotiation exercise, I was assigned as the Seaborne Governor’s negotiator as part of a six member party meeting to negotiate a deal with Harborco to build and operate a deepwater port off the coast of Seaborne. The Governor on the whole was very interested in seeing this deepwater port built in Seaborne as she believes that the size of the project would provide the stimulus for a dramatic recovery in the state.

The United States government should not under any conditions negotiate with terrorists because the fact of terrorist trying to overthrow the government shouldn’t be up for negotiation, and due to the fact it shows weakness. I feel that entertaining the notion of giving into terrorist demands is unwise because they are likely to kill whether the government complies or not. For example, when terrorist realize the government will not endure in negotiations, perhaps it will cut down the amount of people who are taken hostage. When it comes to the US government negotiating with terrorists, there is a clear disconnect between what the government proclaims and what they actually do. The key objective for any government contemplating negotiations is

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

The main problem with this type of bargaining is they are harder to quantify as these negotiations are largely private talks that have taken place between representatives of the EU institutions. The considerable number of amendments gives credence to the view that the EP has an at least some influence during the co-decision procedure, as it has managed to alter the proposal even to a slight degree. Showing the key flaw within assessing the EP’s power owing to amendments ranging from corrections on technical grounds to seismic political differences. Michael Shackleton a former senior official in the Parliament administration perpetuates this view as the number of amendments does not directly correlate to the power of the EP (Hix and

Surveillance is usually a two-step process. Employers first install a camera that employees can see then add a hidden camera. Management also employs video monitoring to record employee work habit such as movement on the assembly line.