Mini Case page 147. "Is body language protected activity?"
1a) & b)
The following could be the possible reasons why the three nurses were fired:
The nurses had expressed their dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Heartland Hospital was being managed
Yes, the right to free speech is protected by section 7 of the Wagner Act and thus, punishing these nurses merely based on expressing their views on conditions of work is against the provisions of this Act.
The Hospital’s management under Barbara Young failed to listen to the nurses’ concerns about the shortage of staff aides and the quality of healthcare services rendered to residents
Yes, section 7 of the Taft-Harley Act protects the right of employees to have their concerns regarding working environment addressed by their employer.
The nurses were allegedly not cooperating with the Hospital’s management to improve the conditions at the facility
This reason is not protected by section 7 which prohibits concerted activity by employees that is likely to compromise the employer’s business operations.
There was poor communication between the Heartland hospital’s management and nurses which paralyzed operations and effective delivery of healthcare services
No, this reason is not protected by section 7 of the Act since employees are under duty to cooperate with their employers and to show loyalty as supervisors.
The supervising nurses were planning to agitate other employees and influence them into forming a labor union by meeting with Bob Custer and the Heartland Hospital’s President
This reason not a right protected by section 7 of the Taft-Hartley Act since the Act excludes supervisors from its protection. They can try to unionize, but the employer can legally fire them for this.
2a)
Mini Case page 209 - "Ethics in Action: A Union Avoidance Consultant Tells All".
1.
The type of union bursting described here is unethical in a number of ways. Firstly, some of the labor union consultants are reportedly harassing labor union officers. This is unethical since it frustrates efforts by these officers to effectively represent the plight of their members. Also, as evident from the case study, some of the labor attorneys and union consultants are engaging in the unethical conduct of influencing the course of labor negotiations and forcing workers to go on strike. Through these union busting practices, these labor consultants are preventing and disrupting the formation of labor union s by workers to fight for their labor rights. Such practices are against the ethical theories that apply to businesses and labor unions. These theories should govern the behavior of employers, labor union officials, labor attorneys and labor union consultants. According to Eigen and Sherwyn, it is unethical for labor union representation decisions to be made on behalf of workers but they should be free to choose to be organized (3). The major ethical theories that would be used to describe the unethical nature of this type of union busting include the ethical egoism theory, the ethics of care theory, utilitarianism theory, the theory of justice and the rights theory. Thus, this practice whereby the labor union consultants are harassing labor union officials in order to intimidate them into ineffective representation of workers is against the theories of rights and justice. This unethical behavior unfavorably denies the workers the opportunity to have their interests and labor problems addressed effectively by their labor unions and officials.
Moreover, by arranging for counter organizing drives and battling the workers who have no union representation is unethical as a union busting practice by the labor consultant and attorneys. According to the case study, Martin Levitt describes how they considered a collective spirit as an enemy, chocked and poisoned it in order to ensure that there would never be a united workforce. These activities targeted mainly the rank and file workers and their supervisors. They would take them hostage and send them into anti-union boot camps where they were taught to fear and despise trade unions. They were persuaded to believe that forming a trade union was against their personal interests and hence were to defeat any move to organize themselves into unions. This is unethical because it goes against the fundamental principles of human rights in relation to labor and labor relations that demand that workers be left to decide on their own abut union membership. It flies in the face of the utilitarian theory of ethics. According to Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarianism ethical theory is based on the premise that an act is considered unethical if this does not have the consequence of producing maximum pleasure for a majority of people. Thus, under this theory of normative ethics, any act that aims only to cater for the interests of a few people is unethical. In this case, the labor union consultants’ union busting activities are against the utilitarian ethical principles because they only serve the interests of a few attorneys while bringing pain to the workforce.
Furthermore, from the perspective of the ethics of care, these attorneys and union consultants are supposed to be caring for the labor interests of the workforce. However, instead, they are busy trying every means available to ensure that workers don’t for unions. Most of them also resort to lies, which from this perspective of ethics is unethical since it goes against their moral duties and responsibilities of representing and advising the workers. In addition to this, because the union consultants are conspiring to wring their clients dry and hence left them in poverty, it is unethical because it is unjust. Moreover, as Martin Levitt states, the unethical conduct of these consultants has not only had impact on the working people by creating an intolerable working environment, but also on the companies they work for.
Hence, using the theoretical perspectives of the right and justice theories of ethics, it may be argued that this practice is unethical because it violates the workers’ right to decent working environ, representation and pay. Also, virtue ethics theory by Aristotle may be applicable to describe these union consultants’ behavior as unethical. According to Dobson, virtue ethics is all about human flourishing, happiness and certain attributes or character traits that should define one’s conduct and behavior towards others (3). A report by Logan states that anti-union consultants are undesirable in labor relations as they lead to the invasion of employees’ privacy, unworkable workplace relations, precarious collective bargaining processes, affect job security, and represent union coercion (6-8).
-2.
Given the unethical nature of these consultants’ conduct or behavior as given in the case study, it could be argued that some managers hire such consultants for a number of reasons. To begin with, such managers hire union consultants genuinely to advise them on labor related activities and how they could avoid labor related law suits by employees. Further, some managers would hire the consultants to help them continue harassing workers and workers’ union officials so that they don’t face criticism for violation of workers’ rights. Such managers also help company managers to deal with their employees who intend to join labor unions because they fear such employees will influence others to form a united front against them.
According to Logan, union avoidance industry and union consultants have contributed a lot to the US labor and industrial relations. It “has not only enabled employers to resist unionization; it has also allowed them to undermine union strength, or upload existing unions” (Logan 651). On the other hand, it could be argued that some people become union busting consultants in either due to their unethical nature or due to some other reasons. For instance, somebody may decide to be a union busting consultant in order to gain power and influence so that they can shape the course of labor movements. With such power to influence major decisions in the labor market, they have the ability to influence major labor related decisions. It could also be because of the desire to prevent the labor unions from winning representation elections as was the case with Marty Levitt. Lastly, and most importantly as evident from the case study, one would become a union busting consultant in order to enjoy the benefits that come with it since it is a big business.
Works Cited
Dobson, John. "Appkying virtue ethics to business: The agent-based approach." Electronic Journal of Busines Ethics and Organizational Studis 12.2 (2007): 1-10. Print.
Eigen, Zev J and David Sherwyn. "Using the ethical principles of union organizing to avoid card-check neutrality and corporate campaigns." Cornell Hospitality Labor and Employment Law Report 1.1 (2013): 3-13. Print.
Logan, John. U.S. anti-union consultants: A threat to the rights of British workers. Employment Relations. Great Russell Street, London WC: Trades Union Congress, 2008. Print.
Logan, John. "The union avoidance industry in the United States." British Journal of Industrial Relations 44.4 (2006): 651-675. Print.
