Home Macroeconomics Collective Bargaining in Private Industries

Collective Bargaining in Private Industries

by Jackson B

Collective bargaining is a method of negotiation between a qualified group of workers and an employer aimed at arrangements to regulate working conditions, working wages, terms, and other areas of workers’ rights and compensation. In the United States, collective bargaining has gained in popularity as the result of the recent economic downturn. The decline in real estate values, the resulting loss of jobs, rising unemployment, and decreases in consumer spending all contributed to the growth in the popularity of collective bargaining. Although not all workers are supporters of this particular method of working, the process does tend to provide a modicum of stability for all groups in a situation. Because most negotiations do not go as far as bargaining, however, collective bargaining does not always benefit the employee.

Although collective bargaining does not necessarily benefit all groups within the working environment, there are those that it has benefited. One of the most important things that workers tend to gain from such agreements is stability. With few exceptions, no two workplaces are identical. For this reason, establishing and maintaining healthy working conditions can be quite difficult. By allowing certain conditions to be legally protected, companies are more able to manage their work environments and meet their legal obligations.

Many people associate collective bargaining statutes with protecting civil rights and other progressive issues. This association is undeserved, however. While employers have legal responsibilities to ensure fair labor practices, these laws are also meant to benefit workers by ensuring that they are provided a stable living environment. In addition, workers also have civil rights to seek damages when they are injured on the job. As long as their employer has a legitimate reason for denying them access to the workplace, they should be able to pursue damages in court.

There are two ways that collective bargaining differs from employment relations act. First, the latter establishes and enforces employment standards and objectives through the employment relationship. Collective bargaining, on the other hand, allows workers to engage in independent bargains that do not affect the stability of their employment. This means that, in the case of a strike, for example, a group of striking employees may choose to strike against the company’s pay rate in order to improve conditions of their jobs. Such actions are completely voluntary and do not mandate the involvement of a union.

However, a distinction does exist between voluntary actions by workers and actions forced by a company. In order for a company to be considered guilty of unfair labor practice, it must either discriminate or take action against employees for engaging in collective bargaining. In order for an employee to take advantage of the legal rights protected under the national labor relations act, he must first be forced to join a union. Thus, it is clear that unions cannot be considered the root cause of unfair treatment of workers in a company.

Furthermore, the national labor relations act restricts the National Labor Relations Act to a specified duration during which a state employee can file a complaint. The law also allows a grievance to be filed by an employee even outside of his state. This therefore means that a non-residential, such as a supermarket, can engage in a strike anywhere in the country. A supermarket, therefore, cannot be considered the employer of a set of union workers, even within the confines of a collective bargaining agreement. In other words, the union workers have no exclusive rights to work in a particular location.

On the other hand, the concreteness of the court system and the strength of state law make it very difficult for individual litigants to receive fair representation. As a result, the courts have increasingly become the main venue for collective bargaining disputes. Arbitration is currently the most common method of resolving labor disputes in the private sector. However, it is largely ineffective as it requires the unanimous agreement of a large number of people before reaching any settlement.

By circumventing the statutory limitations on collective bargaining, business owners are able to offer better wages and terms to their private-sector workers that are unreasonably low. It has also been found that arbitration is frequently used in private disputes between business rivals rather than between two independent contractors. Moreover, the collective bargaining laws of the United States have led to numerous cases of worker exploitation, such as the case brought by janitorial services against their employers, which resulted in the employer firing employees for bringing the case to the attention of the company’s management. The arbitrators in such cases have very little power to impose reasonable compensation. They also lack the jurisdiction to make binding decisions. Only a small minority of states have laws that provide any kind of protection to personal-injury victims.