1. The National Labor Relations Act ensures workers’ right to strike, especially in sections 7 and 13. Section 13 is most explicit about the right to strike, asserting, “Nothing in this Act, except as specifically provided for herein, shall be construed so as either to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike, or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that right,” (National Labor Relations Board, n.d.). However, there are limitations on the right to strike. Not all collective bargaining agreements between labor unions and management will include provisions protecting the right to strike, and this is especially true for industries with services deemed essential. Strikes are legal when the workers affirm a clear purpose for striking; in other words, strikes cannot be arbitrary. The timing of the strike must also be relevant and as non-disruptive as possible. Workers should absolutely continue to have the right to strike, and that right should not be wantonly inhibited. However, labor unions are strongly advised to negotiate contracts that clearly delineate the conditions of strikes and ensure that all strikes are judicious and in accordance with NLRB principles. The NLRB outlines two main striking conditions: economic strikes and unfair labor practices strikes. In both these cases, the labor union should be able to specifically detail the unfair practices or wage disputes. According to the NLRB, economic strikers have far fewer rights and less leeway than unfair labor practices strikers. Unfair labor practice strikers cannot be replaced by permanent workers, and workers are entitled to get their jobs back after the strike ends. With economic strikers, the employer can hire new replacement workers on a permanent basis. The striking workers are not automatically entitled to reinstatement (National Labor Relations Board, n.d.). It is understandable that these limitations be placed on labor unions, to prevent unnecessary stoppages of work, and to balance the needs of workers with corporate interests.

2. Mandatory arbitration for resolving contract disputes or in the final step of negotiating collective bargaining agreements has become commonplace in public sector jobs in most states (“Using Arbitration to Resolve Legal Disputes,” n.d.). Arbitration has been hailed for its efficiency and cost-effectiveness, which is why mandatory (binding) arbitration is used most often in public sector or essential services. Using arbitration prevents the unnecessary buildup of legal fees, avoids using the courts to settle contract disputes, and encourages swift and potentially non-biased resolutions. Yet because it severely restricts the options of labor unions after arbitration, binding arbitration is noticeably skewed to the interests of management (Reed, n.d.). Therefore, binding arbitration should be carefully constructed when it is included in labor contracts.

There...

Bias or conflict of interest is possible, which could inhibit worker rights overall. However, both sides of the labor dispute typically nominate arbitrators, and a consensus must be reached to avoid bias (Reed, n.d.). The arbitration process typically lasts only a few hours, which is beneficial in the sense that it promotes rapid conflict resolution. However, the arbitration process might be hastily conducted and could therefore hurt some parties’ ability to make a case (Reed, n.d.).
Arbitration is also by definition confidential, the process not part of the public record. This is generally favorable to management, but could equally benefit a labor union suffering from a PR scandal. Although the labor union can use its own public relations and media relations campaigns to publicize its grievances, the privacy afforded to arbitration processes could favor management. Ideally, arbitration would be preceded by a period of mediation to enable ongoing negotiations but in the interests of speed, meditation is usually skipped entirely.

3. Changing the current state of labor and management relations could result in confusion and inefficiency. However, the system has become overly adversarial and less productive than it could be (Eastlund, n.d.). Moreover, the system evolved in the pre-information economy where career paths were more clearly defined and the global labor market was less fluid than it is today. Therefore, the current state of labor and management relations should be changed to reflect the realities of the current labor market and emerging job sectors.

The “demise of the traditional American labor model were sown from within,” due to an inability to recognize or respond to change, and also to a failure to acknowledge “mutual responsibility for creating and distributing wealth,” (Schneider & Stepp, 1998 p. 1). The workplace of the 21st century is vastly different from what it was even a few decades ago. Even in the manufacturing sector, the public sector, and other job arenas in which a bureaucratic corporate culture prevails, workers expect a greater degree of self-determination, empowerment, quality of life, and opportunities for growth and development.

In the private sector, company cultures have changed to respond to the changing needs of workers. Human resources and organizational psychology research has generally pointed to the quantitative benefits to companies that build worker satisfaction into their company policies (Fossum, 2012). Worker retention, employee development, and work-life balance are some of the factors being woven into organizational policies and have in many cases reduced or eliminated the need for labor unions.

The public sector has been slower to respond to change. Labor unions remain not only viable but essential…