Discussion Questions
1. How have replacement workers been used in the past?
Replacement workers have been used in the past to fill the void of those that went on strike. Back in the early 1900s, strikes were a cause for concern for many employers. Things had gotten so bad that many employers hired "strikebreakers" to also feel those jobs. Most of the strikebreakers were college students, for they were educated and were willing to work. There were also strikebreaking agencies willing to provide strikebreakers when employers were faced with a strike.
2.Do you believe that the use of replacement workers during the PATCO strike as well as other strikes were equitable? What do you see as the lingering effects of this practice?
I do think that it can be viewed as not equitable. A lot of people lost their job because of this strike. I think that they should have had better wages and benefits. They basically used those people they had and got the FAA back up and running, so therefore, they felt that the lose was not going to hurt them. Some other strikes were brutal, and employers sometimes hired criminals, and thugs as strikebreakers. I think the lingering factor was how easy employers felt it was to replace their workers. They would rather replace them, than negotiate fair treatment, and reasonable wages and benefits.
a. Why do you think union membership rose during that period of increased rival competition? Do you see the same thing happening today?
I think union membership rose because of how people were being treated. Employees were not being treated fairly on the job, and they were being paid poorly. They did not have a voice, so the union allowed them to have that. There were also members of unions that were harmed because they were trying to represent employees. Congress had also passed the Wagner Act, which welcomed unions. People now felt a little better because they could now fight for what was fair, and they had laws put in place for them. I do not see the same thing happening today. People in today's society do not go on strike as mush. They would rather find a better job, or find other ways of dealing with it. Employees today are going to college, and gaining experience in many things, and this gives them options to where they want to work, and how they should be paid.
b. How can CTWF identify what nonunion workers want to reshape their image and service offering?
I think that one way this can be done is by talking to the union representative of the company. They will know what is going on in the company and what issues workers have. Employees do voice their concerns to union representatives, and they in turn make sure that it is within regulation. If it is, they can make a move on things. Knowing what their competitors are offering will also be a good start to reshaping things.
c. Decline in young workers. Why do you believe this is happening? If you were appointed as president of the CTWF, what would you do to boost participation of these workers?
I think that younger workers have a bigger and better selection of jobs than they did back in the 1900s. Not only that, these young workers have multiple degrees, and some of them even have the experience needed to do a lot of jobs. They can be reluctant to participate in unions because they may feel that their talents and skills already speaks volumes for them. Most of them are able to speak for themselves, and they know their rights. I think they are better equipped from those back in the past. There are also union dues in which union members have to pay, and a lot of younger workers will not pay for something they feel is not worth. They may not want to pay for a service they can do for themselves. Education on how the union can be beneficial to employees is where they should start. If they do not know the ins and outs of the union, then they will not want to be a part of it. Depending upon the company, being a part of the union will be a good decision for them.
Thank you, Doris, for your response. I agree with you that the replacement workers were spoilers for the striking employees. The strikebreakers gave unions a hard time in the attempt to create a better working environments. The employers to mistreat the workers with impunity became they could not strike for fear of losing their jobs. Do you think that it was morally right for the strikebreakers or their agents to replace the striking workers? On the case of equity on the PATCO strike, I concur with you that it was not equitable. I believe that it was an abuse of fundamental human rights to replace the striking workers instead of improving their working conditions. Fundamentally, productivity in most jobs depends on the workers motivation and experience. The new employees did not have prerequisite knowledge and motivation leading to losses. It is the mistreatment of worker that resulted in the rise of union movement in the 1930s and 1940s. The current economies require many unions due to the high specialization and diverse needs. Young people do not participate in unions because of the dismal performance of the organizations in the recent past. The union can attract young people if they improve their performance and terms of service.
1. How have replacement workers been used in the past? (Chapter Three)
Replacement workers have been used since the nineteenth century. One particular case which stood out to me was the Homestead strike of 1892. As per (Budd, 2013) Andrew Carnegie was the steel mill owner in Homestead, Pennsylvania which employed 3,800 workers of which the 8000 most skilled belonged to the Amalgamated Association of Iron Steel Workers. Upon the expiration of a union contract these union members did not accept a wage cut. Consequentially the mill was forced to close. As per (Budd,2013), after management announced the mill would re-open on July 6th, hundreds of skilled and unskilled workers gathered on the mill property armed with rifles, pistols, and rocks to meet 300 armed Pinkertons which were called upon to protect strikebreakers. This confrontation did not end well with a few deaths on either side. Eventually the mill was reopened a few months later with strike breakers. The replacement workers who were brought in to replace the strikers put their own lives at risk.
2. In Chapter One, we discussed equity as one of the three cornerstones of employee relations. Do you believe that the use of replacement workers during the PATCO strike as well as other strikes is equitable? What do you see as the lingering effects of this practice?
The use of replacement workers during strikes is many times necessary. As per (Budd, 2013) equitable treatment might reduce flexibility and therefore efficiency might make decision making more cumbersome and therefore less efficient. The PATCO strike replacement workers was necessary. President Regan gave the strikers an ultimatum which many of them refuse to accept. One of the main points which stood out to me was the illegality of the federal sectors right to strike and negotiate wages. The union members were breaking the law by going on strike. For this reason, I do believe the PATCO strike was equitable. The lingering effects of bringing in replacement workers for strikes would be the weakening of a unions negotiation ability. These workers go on strike to force the hand of the employers, if replacement workers come in to do their jobs it loses effectiveness.
1. The article states, that labor's greatest period of growth was between 1935-1954, when there were two rival federations fighting for market share. Why do you think union membership rose during that period of increased rival competition? Do you see the same thing happening today?
I believe the rise was due to employee wants and needs be very similar in the past. The benefit packages we have today were un heard of in those times. I do not see the same growth which we saw during the 1935-1954 period. Partly because in our modern day world employee benefits differ greatly. What one employee may want as a benefit another may not see it as a benefit at all. Child care is important to those with children but for single employees this is not important. As per (Estreicher,2006) CTFW may offer this promise of renewed competition, but for organized labor to make substantial inroads it will need to figure out what nonunion workers want from a workplace representative and reshape not only its image but also its package of services. Workplace representatives find it difficult to package all of the union members wants see they do vary.
2. According to the article it’s necessary for CTWF to figure out what nonunion workers want from their workplace representative and reshape its image and package of services. How can CTWF identify what nonunion workers want and reshape their image and service offerings?
In order for CTWF to identify the needs of these nonunion workers they need to interview them individually or conduct surveys. This is the only way they could change the services they offer. Presenting packages to the employer with the actual wants of the employees and being able to negotiate these terms for them would be the only way to reshape their image. Union member fees is also a sore topic with nonunion members. Many of these workers believe they are wasting their money paying these dues when they are not getting in return any benefits they truly desire.
3. Union participation is declining among younger workers. Why do you believe this is happening? If you were appointed as president of the CTWF, what would you do to boost participation of these workers?
I believe the decline in young workers is directly correlated to union dues. Young workers want to make money and may view union dues as an unnecessary expense for the service they are receiving. As president of the CTWF I would implement exactly what they are implementing which is lower dues for union members. As per (Estreicher, 2006) CTWF will be charging 25 cents generating approximately $16 million per year; the rebels promise that 75 percent of these taxes and any savings from what it would have paid over to the AFL-CIO will be devoted to organizing drives. Having lower union dues will bring in many younger workers.
Hello Elizabeth, thank you for your excellent views. I concur with you that the replacement workers were ready to take up jobs of the striking employees. As you noted, that did not come without losses since the investments could close down for months. The losses the companies could make during the closure period and adjustment were more than the cost of improving the workers’ wages. However, you indicated that the PATCO strike was equitable basing on the illegality of the federal sector rights to strike. In your opinion, is right to follow unjust labor laws? It is true that the economies of 1935-1954 had almost similar issues and the unions also faced uniform problems necessitating the rise of union with the same goals. However, that is not the case today. Besides, companies can gather information from non-unionized workers through interviewing them. Young employees may not join unions because of the cost implications of the modern times.
1. How have replacement workers been used in the past? (Chapter Three)
Employees had used strikes as leverage whenever they got into management-labor conflicts. They withheld their roles to obtain better treatment from their bosses. Ronald Reagan supported the private sector; hence, he instituted that the skilled workers who went on the strikes were to be replaced by others (McCartin, 2011). The replacement workers were used to punish those who strike instead of heeding to their negotiations. The aspect led to a rise in inequality in the workplace and fewer walkouts.
2. In Chapter One, we discussed equity as one of the three cornerstones of employee relations. Do you believe that the use of replacement workers during the PATCO strike as well as other strikes is equitable? What do you see as the lingering effects of this practice?
The utilization of replacement workers was not equitable since it shut off any opportunities for negotiating for better pays and working conditions. The laborers were afraid to conduct a strike since they would lose their jobs in the process. However, the replacement assisted the private sector that did not have to give in to the demands of the workers (McCartin, 2011). The stripping of the rights of workers to bargain with the management pushed inequality to higher levels.
1. The article states, that labor's greatest period of growth was between 1935-1954, when there were two rival federations fighting for market share. Why do you think union membership rose during that period of increased rival competition? Do you see the same thing happening today?
The union decided to organize the labor sector that was unorganized and present a global theme of the unionism of all employees under one firm. The orderliness also resulted in the prioritization of resources to obtain union presence. The phenomenon cannot happen today because there is the need to enhance competitiveness in the job representation services. One union is susceptible to misuse by the management. The several groups will ignite a great period like the one experienced in 1935-1954 (Estreicher, 2006).
2. According to the article it’s necessary for CTWF to figure out what nonunion workers want from their workplace representative and reshape its image and package of services. How can CTWF identify what nonunion workers want and reshape their image and service offerings?
The organization should incorporate into their negotiations and strategies. They should listen to them more keenly instead of focusing on more resources for their workers with each strike. The company should get its priorities right and begin to devote real energy and resources to formulating a presence amongst the nonunion members. Through this, it will expand its density and organization.
3. Union participation is declining among younger workers. Why do you believe this is happening? If you were appointed as president of the CTWF, what would you do to boost participation of these workers?
The company no longer has a strong presence with more firms springing up unlike before when they were the only union. The organization should mark the employees who have a significant density in the core labor markets and industries. CTWF should also develop better standards that eradicate interference and develop long-term initiatives that protect its members (Estreicher, 2006). They should create separate entities for each group of workers in a particular industry to facilitate an organized initiative.
RE: Week 2 Discussion
Thank you for an interesting post! I believe replacement workers were utilized to continue business and not risk losing profit as seen during the PATCO strike. The replacement workers were able to get the organization functioning up to 70% of its normal operations. However, one question that lingers for me is whether or not workers temporary workers will secure the positions for which they were replacing or if the organization has to begin the hiring process from the beginning in order to acquire talent for the organization. With respect to Unions not being the same as before, it may also deal with the fact that manufacturing jobs (industrialization) are not in high demand as seen during the period of 1935-1954. I strongly agree with your statement on the fact that CTWF strongly incorporate and reconsider their negotiations and strategies in order to make sure what nonunion workers would like to see from their workplace representative. I strongly believe it is necessary to also give them a voice.
Thank you for your feedback!
Hello Pricilla, thank you for your comment. I agree with you that authorities used replacement workers to punish striking employees in the past. As a result, the government never solved the problems the workers raised. In this respect, the rich exploited the poor creating or amplifying inequalities and the government could not address the fundamentals issues that ailed the economy (McCartin, 2011).
The use of replacement workers was not equitable. Fair policies would allow authorities to listen to all concerned parties and find common ground. The violation of employees' rights rendered them susceptible to mismanagement, poor wages, and working environments and promoted apathy for agitation of better terms of service among the workers. The effects of Regan’s administration decisions caused more losses than the workers demanded an indication that it was not the best move (McCartin, 2011).
I concur with you that between 1935 and 1954, the labor unions were not organized allowing for a swift growth of the labor movements. Besides, during this time, there was tremendous economic growth that led to more employees and the need for orderliness was paramount in workplaces. However, the current economic trends are not similar to those of 1935-1954 making it impossible for a single union to flourish. As Estreicher (2006) stated, the presence of several unions may trigger growth in unions due to the competition among them in offering services to their members.
Listening to what workers want by interviewing them is the right way to incorporating nonunionized employees in the CTWF. It is impossible to make significant changes in the workplaces without the input of the employees. Therefore, knowing the priorities of the workers would increase productivity.
Whereas I agree with you WTWF needed to eradicate interference, I would add that reducing participation in unions among the young employees may indicate that the CTWF was failing in its mandate. In this respect, the CTWF needs to reorganize its strategies to attract young workers.
References
Estreicher S., (2006). Disunity within the House of Labor: Change to Win or to Stay the Course? New York University School of Law, New York. Retrieved on March 20, 2016 from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12122-006-1017-9#/page-1
McCartin, A. J., (2011). The Strike That Busted Unions. The New York Times. Retrieved on March 20, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reagan-vs-patco-the- strike-that-busted-unions.html
