5 ms·

"This is also my experience dealing with unions." I'm sorry this happened to you. But this sounds like your experience dealing with a low-road employer, not wi

"This is also my experience dealing with unions." I'm sorry this happened to you. But this sounds like your experience dealing with a low-road employer, not with "unions". If you don't mind me asking, which union were you and your coworkers affiliated with? "In one case, management wanted to purchase sit/stand workstations for employees, but HR pointed out that this was a change to working conditions and should be included in the collective bargaining negotiation. However management had already started taking measurements for the tables, so the union knew what management was intending. During the negotiations, the union decided to try and call HR's bluff and refused to ask for the workstations as a concession. So in the end, the whole plan was scrapped so that HR would have concessions available for future negotiations." You experienced two standard union busting techniques favored by management-side labor lawyers. First, try to divide the workers to weaken their bargaining power, with the ultimate goal of portraying the workers active in the union as an unrepresentative minority. Then, blame "the union" or "labor law" (i.e. your coworkers who are active) for negative changes that are entirely their doing. "Management is legally required to make concessions during collective bargaining" If this is the United States we're talking about, you were misinformed. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), management has a duty to bargain over certain issues with unionized workers, but there is no obligation to make "concessions" (i.e. changes the workers find favorable).

GartzenDeHaes 4y ago
I was an executive level manager at the time. My understanding is that employers are required to "bargain in good faith" and the easiest way to demonstrate good faith is by making concessions.
- bwestergard 4y ago
  This is a common misunderstanding. For example, an employer can propose a wage cut (obviously not a concession) as part of good faith bargaining. To your point, making concessions will often prevent any worker (or the union as a body) from filing an Unfair Labor Practice charge. But employers with good counsel seldom worry about such charges, because the penalties are so weak.
- petre 4y ago
  Say I don't like bargaining or know how to bargain with someone in a position of power. I'd rather have a union do it for me. An organisation should have more leverage and employ people who are better negotiators and who concern themselves with employee rights. It's just like companies that are outsourcing work or hiring HR positions to hire and fire people or to negotiate pay.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nothowthatworks 4y ago
>If this is the United States we're talking about, you were misinformed. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), management has a duty to bargain over certain issues with unionized workers, but there is no obligation to make "concessions" (i.e. changes the workers find favorable). And just how do you think you go about proving that you engaged in good faith negotiation? All the union has to prove in a lawsuit to a preponderance of the evidence, that more likely than not, management did not negotiate in good faith. Good luck winning that as management by not budging on anything at all.
- bwestergard 4y ago
  It's a purely procedural standard. To oversimplify a bit: if the employer meets with the union's designees (e.g. workers elected by their peers, a lawyer hired by the union), exchanges proposals verbally or in writing, and goes through the motions until reaching a so-called "valid impasse", they have made good on their duty to bargain. They could propose nothing but cuts to wages and conditions, and indeed this happens often if workers don't have a credible strike threat. See: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/bargaining-in-good-faith-with-employees-union-representative https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba... The model you have in mind - make concessions or have more general terms impose by a regulatory body - does exist in other countries, where parties have to go to a sectoral body, interest arbitration, etc. when impasse is reached. Interest arbitration was a proposed reform in the (now dead) PRO Act that the Biden administration favored early on.
junofan 4y ago
Sounds like a pretty reasonable negotiating tactic. Everyone holds stuff back.

GartzenDeHaes 4y ago

I was an executive level manager at the time. My understanding is that employers are required to "bargain in good faith" and the easiest way to demonstrate good faith is by making concessions.

bwestergard 4y ago
This is a common misunderstanding. For example, an employer can propose a wage cut (obviously not a concession) as part of good faith bargaining. To your point, making concessions will often prevent any worker (or the union as a body) from filing an Unfair Labor Practice charge. But employers with good counsel seldom worry about such charges, because the penalties are so weak.
petre 4y ago
Say I don't like bargaining or know how to bargain with someone in a position of power. I'd rather have a union do it for me. An organisation should have more leverage and employ people who are better negotiators and who concern themselves with employee rights. It's just like companies that are outsourcing work or hiring HR positions to hire and fire people or to negotiate pay.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nothowthatworks 4y ago

>If this is the United States we're talking about, you were misinformed. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), management has a duty to bargain over certain issues with unionized workers, but there is no obligation to make "concessions" (i.e. changes the workers find favorable). And just how do you think you go about proving that you engaged in good faith negotiation? All the union has to prove in a lawsuit to a preponderance of the evidence, that more likely than not, management did not negotiate in good faith. Good luck winning that as management by not budging on anything at all.

bwestergard 4y ago
It's a purely procedural standard. To oversimplify a bit: if the employer meets with the union's designees (e.g. workers elected by their peers, a lawyer hired by the union), exchanges proposals verbally or in writing, and goes through the motions until reaching a so-called "valid impasse", they have made good on their duty to bargain. They could propose nothing but cuts to wages and conditions, and indeed this happens often if workers don't have a credible strike threat. See: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/bargaining-in-good-faith-with-employees-union-representative https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba... The model you have in mind - make concessions or have more general terms impose by a regulatory body - does exist in other countries, where parties have to go to a sectoral body, interest arbitration, etc. when impasse is reached. Interest arbitration was a proposed reform in the (now dead) PRO Act that the Biden administration favored early on.

junofan 4y ago

Sounds like a pretty reasonable negotiating tactic. Everyone holds stuff back.