Labor Relations

LABOR RELATIONS 1

Institution Affiliation:

Labor relations

Unionelections

If I was to work in a union election, my most probable role would berunning the campaign of a union candidate. One understanding is thatmost employers have always been against unionization, which led tothe passing of laws that forced them into joining unions (Anzia &ampMoe, 2015). Given this, the employers, during the times of electioncampaigns, are most likely to make it hard for the strongestcandidates to pass their manifesto to the electorate. This is ahighlight of the adversarial relationships that exist between theemployers and the unions. The most repellant employers are those thattreat the human resource badly, and are in fear of being opposed bystrong voices from the Union. These employers often ruin forums setup by the union election candidates, hoping to kill the morale of thecandidates.

Givenmy strong believe in fair representation of the workers and settingof a just platform for dialogue, I would offer to support and guide acandidate in the union elections.

Iunderstand that running union elections is a challenging andexhausting activity, however, achieving hard tasks is one of mysenses of pride. As such, I shall engage in getting the right toolsfor the union elections campaign. These tools include material forcampaign, logistics and ground support. However, given my knowledgefrom this unit, my most valued input would be technical support interms of rules and regulations of union elections. This would be mostchallenging if the organization has unrepresented workers, whoKearney &amp Mareschal (2014) say may need local or nationalsolidification. I would help my candidate to secure an authorizationcard campaign, which in most cases ends with the certification of theresults by the NLRB. This card helps the employees to be enrolled toseek representation, and by helping my candidate initiate theprocess, he or she will have the upper hand in the elections.

Philosophy-ladenapproach

Fossum (2014) describes a philosophy-laden program as an employeerelations program which has a rigid structure, following a particularset of values. It is one of the union avoidance strategies adopted bysome employers. The employee have no need to be represented byunions, because they believe that the system’s philosophy has theframework to take care of their needs, meaning that joining or havinga union to represent them would be superfluous. In the contemporarylabor management, the increasingly competitive environment does notgive space for firms to take philosophy-laden approach. One of themajor reasons in that the idea of having “good” dictator in theorganization is quite possible. A philosophy-laden program gives themanagement of an establishment to tackle any perceived problemsamongst the employees internally.

As such, regardless the impact of the choices that the leadershipmakes, the employees are most likely to go along with them. However,this would be an unrealistic point of view. Fossum (2014) supportsthis by saying that competition favors the best, and that the jobmarket is most likely to be favorable for those who beat others incompetition. Given this, the idea of having a benevolent dictator inthe organization is rubbed off. This would only apply in an elitistenvironment, which is almost impossible to achieve in the moderntimes. I therefore oppose a philosophy-laden approach to employeerelations because of two main reasons. First, the approach puts theemployees at risk of being exploited by their employers. Secondly,the approach means that the employees have no say in making changesin the organization, meaning that they will have to work with thestructures they meet at the organization, even if they are outdated.

Casestudy: Keeping GMFC union free and competitive

First, it is acknowledged that GMFC would like to operate the newplant “union free”. This almost guarantees a move byinternationals to move the employees to form a union, or join one.The first move is to take care of size issues. According to Fossum(2014), the industrial structure is one of the outstanding featuresbetween unionized and non-unionized organizations. This is what leadsto greater resistance to unionization. As such, the company has toensure that the size of the plant is manageable, in a way that allorganizational problems can be solved internally. Fossum (2014)suggests that a fewer than 100 employees is manageable. Secondly, thecompany has to ensure that it sets up the plant in a location whereit will dominate. This means that it has to be far from majorcompetitors, who are most likely to influence unionization. As Fossum(2014) asserts, location is an environmental factor influencingunionization. Staffing, which falls under human resource expenditure,has to be done through on-the-job training. During this, the staffwill be oriented with the organizational structure and values, hencekeep unionization thoughts at bay. Finally, the economic rationalemeans that the company has to do away with inflexible rules ofpayment, hence keep the employees satisfied. By applying thisstrategy, GMFC will be able to avoid unionization.

References

Anzia, S. F., &amp Moe, T. M.(2015). Do Politicians Use Policy to Make Politics? The Case ofPublic Sector Labor Laws.

Fossum, J. (2014). Labor relations: Development, structure, process.New York, NY: Mc_GrawHill Education.

Kearney,R. C., &amp Mareschal, P. M. (2014).&nbspLaborrelations in the public sector.CRC Press.