Labor laws and workplace regulations

¶ … labor law encourage or discourage unionization?

I have always felt that historically, the relationship between labor laws and management was built on conflict to discourage Unions. I feel that the interests of labor and management have always been seen as basically at odds, with each treating the other as the opponent. But I truly think that times are changing. In today's corporate world, Management has become increasingly aware that successful efforts to increase productivity, improve quality, and lower costs require employee involvement and commitment. And I also feel that similarly, today's labor unions are recognizing that they can help their members more by cooperating with management rather than fighting them.

In today's Corporate America, many of the U.S. labor laws are created in a cloud of mistrust and antagonism between labor and management, thereby creating a barrier to both parties becoming cooperative partners. For example, "the National Labor Relations Act was passed to encourage collective bargaining and to balance workers' power against that of management. That legislation also sought to eliminate the practice of firms setting up company unions for the sole purpose of undermining efforts of outside unions organizing their employees. The law prohibited employers from creating or supporting a "labor organization." The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Electromation, a non-union manufacturing company, was participating in an unfair labor practice when it set up employee action committees. The NLRB determined that the committees were not actually set up to provide employee input into safety and health issues, but to "impose its own unilateral form of bargaining on employees" by discussing wages, hours, and working conditions. Electromation's actions were viewed as a means of thwarting a Teamsters Union organizing campaign that began in its Elkhart, Indiana, plant. Certain implications of the Electromation case and a broader NLRB interpretation in the Crown Cork and Seal case indicated that companies could have such programs as quality circle, quality of work life, and other employee involvement programs under federal labor laws." www.laborlaws.com

In my professional opinion, I believe that although this issue had been the subject of congressional debate, which the current legal environment doesn't and will not prohibit employee-involvement programs in the United States. And rather than complying with the law, management must give employee-involvement programs their own brand of independence. That is, when such programs become dominated by management, they're likely to be interpreted as groups that perform some functions of labor unions but are controlled by Corporate Management. Actions that would indicate that an employee-involvement program is not dominated by management might include choosing program members through secret-ballot elections, giving program member's wide latitude in deciding what issues to deal with, permitting members to meet apart from management, and specifying that program members are not susceptible to dissolution by management whim. The key theme labor laws convey is that where employee-involvement programs are introduced, members must have the power to make decisions and act independently of management.

2. Do you think teaching assistants should be considered employees?

I can clearly remember being a Teacher (Professor) Assistant, 1983, at Alabama State University, Montgomery Alabama, for Dr. Bryson. Oh my goodness, what a stressful way to make money to get through college. The hours were long, and the pay essentially was crappy. As a Teacher's Assistant, I it gave me an excellent opportunity to practice my people skills such as thinking on my feet, answering questions, organizing presentations, improvising, and establishing a poised presence. I would have to say that becoming a Teacher's Assistant; helped in some ways, to prepare me for my career in the United States Air Force.