Question 1. Identify and explain the major ways in which the government is an important participant in the labor relations process.
Government participation in labor relations process
The government through its three different arms that is the legislative, administrative and judicial arms plays key roles in industrial relations. This paper will therefore focus on the major ways in which the government is an important participator in the labor relations process.
Body
Firstly, the government is responsible for the formulation and enactment of legislation relating to labor relations. These government legislations are usually in the form of general regulations and rules that dictate the terms and conditions of employer-employee and trade unions-employer relationships such as the length of working hours, the minimum wages, working conditions, occupational safety amongst others. The government utilizes these legislations to condition the outcomes of industrial relations. As a matter of fact, the government dictates a significant part of labor relations via its regulatory role on how industries should treat their employees. These statute laws comprise the most direct means of government participation in labor relations. During the formulation and enactment of these legislations, the government employs a three-pronged approach called tripartism whereby it consults and involves representatives of the employees as well as those of the employers. It does this so as to achieve a balance in as many interests of all the parties as possible. Therefore, the role of the government in formulating and enacting legislations that regulate industrial relations makes it a vital player in the labor relations process (Silva, n.d.).
The government participates indirectly in the labor process through its regulatory roles on the economy. The economic policies of the government especially with the advent of globalization have caused major paradigm shifts in industrial relations particularly in the aspects of collective bargaining and social protection. Development and implementation of economic policies is therefore another way which makes the government an important participator in labor relations (Starling, 2008, p.478).
The government also participates in labor relations through its oversight, mediatory and conciliatory roles on how industries are conducted with an aim of promoting the interests of labor. To meet this responsibility of ensuring that there is industrial peace, the government enacts laws and policies that act as a framework within which labor disputes can be settled. The government also participates actively in labor disputes by taking the necessary measures to enhance individual liberty, reduce the number of industrial disputes and ensure prompt resolution of any disputes that might occur. For instance, it has established agencies within its arms that play mediatory and conciliatory roles in labor disputes. In light of the fact that labor disputes are costly to both the disputants and the public and they may in addition have a crippling effect on the economy, the government’s oversight, conciliatory and mediatory roles in industrial disputes render it a key participant in labor relations (Holley, Jennings & Wolters, 2009, p.20).
The government systems of labor courts, arbitration and tribunals represent other means through which it participates indirectly in the labor process. Through these institutions, the government seeks to dispense equity in the employee- employer relations as well as to protect collective interests. Administrative agencies, laws and judicial decisions therefore influence work rules as well as the ability to carry out legally granted rights (Silva, n.d.).
Finally, the government is an employer particularly in states that have high levels of nationalization. Its role as an employer makes it a core participant in labor relations.
Conclusion
In a nutshell therefore, the government via its roles as an employer and in the formulation and enactment of economic and labor policies as well as its oversight, mediation functions in industrial disputes is an important participant in the labor relations process.
References
Holley, W.H., Jennings, K.M., & Wolters, R.G. (2009). The labor relations process (9th
ed.). Mason, OH: Southwestern Cengage Learning.
Starling, G. (2008). Managing the public sector (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Silva, S.R. (n.d.). Elements of a sound industrial relations system. Retrieved from
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/actemp/downloads/publications/srseleme.pdf
2. Identify two (2) different steps a company should take to prepare for its first round of bargaining with the union (pre-negotiation activities). Explain why each of the steps you have identified is critical to achieving an initial successful collective bargaining agreement with the union.
Steps of the pre-negotiation phase
The steps of the pre-negotiation phase are designed to enhance the speed at which collective bargaining agreements are reached between employers and trade unions (Farnham, 2002, p.36). This paper will review two critical steps during this phase, that is, the evaluation of the contract experiences so far and development of strategies and objectives. In addition it will explore how the two steps contribute to the successful acheivement of an initial collective bargaining agreement.
Body
Previous union negotiation agendas and the operating experience for the period during which the contract being reviewed has been in force are the aspects relating to the history of the contract that should be carefully reviewed in the pre-negotiation phase. On how the review of the contract increases the chances of a previous initial collective bargaining agreement, assessment of the notes and/or minutes, agreement settlements and side agreements from previous negotiations will enable the management of the company to study the issues that had been raised by all parties as well as the responses given in respect to these issues. Such a review will therefore provide an opportunity for the company to identify the high and low points of past negotiations such as the tactics, concessions, gains and timing. It will thus help the company gain insight into the behavior of the union and hence enable the management to predict its behavior with greater precision. The company will thus be able to identify amicable solutions acceptable to the union. Assessment of the key issues discussed in past negotiations will also enable the management to develop appropriate strategies for addressing them in case they arise again as opposed to dealing with them for the first time at the negotiation table (Lynn, 2002; Farnham, 2002, p.36).
Evaluation of the personalities of the people involved in previous negotiations to identify those who greatly influenced the negotiations as well as their outcomes and whether they will be part of the present negotiations is also vital. Such a review will enable the company management to develop effective strategies for dealing with their influence during the negotiation phase. The impact of the contract on the operations, quality, productivity, efficiency and effectiveness of the organization is also critical during the pre-negotiation phase. A section-by-section discussion is the most appropriate approach for generating data relating to the impact of the contract on the company. This discussion should be facilitated by a human resource professional and attended by staff from operations management. The negotiating team should also gather data on all grievances and arbitrations relating to each and every section or article of the contract during the period it has been operational. This data is crucial since its comparison with supervisory input will help the negotiating team to identify the operational problems in the contract and hence come up with acceptable solutions acceptable to the union at an early stage as opposed to waiting for the union to point out these inefficiencies during the negotiation phase (Silva, 2002; Spangle & Isenhart, 2003, p.75).
Development of strategies is considered by many experts as the final step of the preparations in the pre-negotiation phase. Normally at this stage, the company has completed data collection, internal and external assessments and hence is in a position to establish the objectives for the negotiation. Establishment of the ranges for economic settlement as well as any changes in special and non-economic provisions of the contract and the preparation of drafts containing these provisions is also done at this stage. Decisions relating to the initial and counter-offers for the negotiating team are also arrived at during this stage. The company management should also prepare as part of its strategy data, any relevant background material and arguments that back all its proposals as well as a rough timetable for the duration of the negotiations and the contract. Prior determination of objectives and strategies will help the negotiating teams to focus on the pertinent issues and in effect enhance the chances of achieving an initial collective bargaining agreement. The predetermined offers will also minimize the time required for consultations with the company management during the actual negotiation phase (Lynn, 2002).
Conclusion
In summary therefore, evaluation of impact of the contract on the organization and development of objectives and strategies for the negotiation are amongst the principal steps in the pre-negotiation phase whose findings significantly enhance the probability of an initial successful collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the union being agreed upon.
References
Farnham, D. (2000). Employee relations in context (2nd ed.). Wimbeldon, LA: Short Run Press.
Lynn, K.M. (2002). Preparing for labor negotiations: An overview. Retrieved from
http://www.hr.com/.
Spangle, M.L., & Isenhart, M.W. (2003). Negotiation: Communication for diverse settings.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications Inc.
3. Some means of resolving negotiations impasses involve economic weapons (e.g. strikes and lockouts). There are other means of impasse resolution which do not involve the use of economic weapons (e.g. fact finding, mediation, med/arb/interest arb, etc). Select two (2) non-economic means of impasse resolution, 1) explain how each functions and 2) discuss the relative pros and cons of each.
Mediation and fact-finding
An impasse refers to a stalemate in negotiations between employers and trade unions over the terms and conditions of work or employment whereby neither party is willing to compromise (Starling, 2008, p.484). The procedures for resolving an impasse are controversial; they may be employed singularly or combined. The aim of this paper is to discuss the first and second non-economic measures resorted to when a stalemate is reached.
Body
Mediation involves utilizing the services of an impartial third party to help the parties involved to reach an agreement and is normally the first measure resorted to when a stalemate is reached. Mediators have no legally binding authority and they attempt to restart talks between the management and the union so as to facilitate a voluntary argument. Mediation is the least invasive of all the impasse resolution procedures and it’s commonly perceived as an adjunct of the negotiation process. It consist of efforts of that attempt to prevent either party from breaking off the negotiations, suggestion of compromises and alternative solutions to the issues that led to the impasse and persuasion of the parties to come up with or to listen to new proposals (Stern, n.d.).
The effectiveness of the mediation process is influenced by factors like the knowledge, training and experience of the mediator. The mediator maintains confidentiality at all times during the mediation process. For effective mediation to occur, the mediators need to have tenacity as well as to play an active role in the mediation process by for instance presenting the parties with successive proposals with an aim of pressuring them to reach an agreement as opposed to the passive role of relaying messages between the two parties. Findings from research have also shown that mediation tends have better results when the parties are not confident in themselves or they have personality conflicts (Starling, 2008, p.484).
Fact-finding is normally a second measure resorted when the parties fail to reach an agreement after mediation. It entails the use of a neutral third party and is a legally mandated mechanism in some countries. The impartial experts or groups who play the role of fact-finders can be selected by the disputing parties, an agency or by person with the authority to appoint them. The fact-finder assesses the bargaining positions of both parties to the dispute through a quasi-judicial hearing and generates proposed solutions. Fact-finding is meant to encourage a voluntary settlement between the disputing parties by the provision of an objective assessment of the impasse by a credible impartial third-party (Holley, Jennings & Wolters, 2008, pp.592-594).
If the two parties to the impasse are unable to reach an agreement, the report containing the fact-finder’s findings and recommendations are published in the media so that the general public becomes aware of who is responsible for the continuation of the impasse. However, the fact-finder’s recommendations are not binding. The final decision is generally left to an elected legislative body. The advantage of the fact-finding technique of impasse resolution is that it provides time deadlines for the employers and trade unions to resolve their differences. Fact-finders also bring in fresh and knowledgeable perspectives as well as political advantages because the disputants can confer blame on the impartial party for the settlement eventually agreed on. Moreover, the possibility of the procedures involved in fact-finding might pressure the parties to reach an agreement. However, it has some demerits. For one, the mediator’s recommendations may fail to address genuine union or employer grievances. In addition, they may make the parties involved in the dispute to cement their positions believing they can get a much better deal at the end of the process. In addition, it is associated with the narcotic effect whereby the parties resort to use fact-finding to resolve future disputes. Findings from an array of studies however dispute that theory on narcotic effect (Starling, 2008, pp.484-485).
Conclusion
In conclusion therefore, once the management and the union reach a stalemate, they can resort to mediation or fact-finding to resolve their differences. Both use impartial third parties. Both methods have inherent strengths and limitations.
References
Holley, W.H., Jennings, K.M., & Wolters, R.G. (2008). The labor relations process (9th ed.).
Mason, OH: Southwestern Cengage Learning.
Starling, G. (2008). Managing the public sector (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Stern, J.L. (n.d.). Impasse resolution in the public sector. Retrieved from
http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/510/Stern_Impasse.pdf
