BUS 3150 Politicians Interested in Collective Bargaining Rights Case Study

BUS 3150 Politicians Interested in Collective Bargaining Rights Case Study

BUS 3150 Politicians Interested in Collective Bargaining Rights Case Study

ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS 

Read the following two questions, then answer the questions in orders, no word limits, just answer the questions clearly.

Case 1: The New Union Battles: Public Unions vs. Rich World Governments

While private sector unions may be rapidly declining in the United States, public sector unions are still strong … or at least were. In 2011, public sector unions representing teachers, prison guards, police officers, railworkers, and civil servants were dealt a blow by their employers— the government. At the forefront of the battle was the issue of collective bargaining. And it began in Wisconsin.

But this is not the first time Wisconsin has been at the forefront of collective bargaining. The Wagner Act of 1934 did not grant public employees the right to collective bargaining. In the 1950s and 1960s public sector employees pushed for collective bargaining rights. Finally, in 1959 Wisconsin became the first state to grant this right to public employees. In a dramatic turn of events, Wisconsin is now the first to repeal collective bargaining rights for its public sector employees.

After a standoff with state Democrats and prounion demonstrators, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and the state legislature decided that public employees did not have the right to collective bargaining. This set off a chain reaction in other states. For example, in 2017 lawmakers in Iowa proposed a bill to prohibit collective bargaining for state employees. This crackdown on collective bargaining could now act as a model for President Trump to overhaul the federal workforce. Scott Walker said that he spoke with Vice President Mike Pence about “how they may take bits and pieces of what we did” with the union law and “apply it at the national level.” However, these are only the words of Walker; President Trump hasn’t said anything about it yet. Either way, public sector employees are concerned about their future.

Questions

1. Why are politicians so interested in trying to repeal collective bargaining rights for public sector employees?

2. What risks does losing their collective bargaining rights hold for public employees?

3. As an elected politician charged with major cuts in your state budget, how would you negotiate with the public sector unions? As a public sector union leader, how would you negotiate with the state legislature?

Case 2 :The Arbitration Case of Jesse Stansky

At the arbitration hearing, both parties were adamant in their positions. Nancy Huang, HR manager of Phoenix Semiconductor, argued that the grievant, Jesse Stansky, was justly terminated for arguing and hitting a coworker—a direct violation of company policy and the employee handbook. Stansky argued that he had been a good employee during his 10 years of employment.

The submission agreement governing the case read, “It is the employer’s position that just cause existed for the discharge of Mr. Jesse Stansky and the penalty was appropriate for the offense committed.” Additionally, the employer introduced into evidence the labor agreement, which defined just cause termination as follows:

“Just cause shall serve as the basis for disciplinary action and includes, but is not limited to: dishonesty, inefficiency, unprofessional conduct, failure to report absences, falsification of records, violation of company policy, destruction of property, or possession or being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.”

Stansky was hired as a systems technician on November 20, 2003, a position “he held until his termination on October 25, 2017. According to the testimony of Huang, Phoenix Semiconductor strived to maintain a positive and cordial work environment among its employees. Fighting on the job was strictly prohibited. Stansky’s performance evaluation showed him to be an average employee, although he had received several disciplinary warnings for poor attendance and one 3-day suspension for a “systems control error.” Stansky was generally liked by his coworkers, and several testified on his behalf at the arbitration hearing.

The termination of Stansky concerned an altercation between himself and Gary Lindekin, another systems technician. According to witnesses to the incident, both Stansky and Lindekin became visibly upset over the correct way to calibrate a sensitive piece of production equipment. The argument—one witness called it no more than a heated disagreement— lasted approximately 3 minutes and concluded when Stansky was seen forcefully placing his hand on Lindekin’s shoulder. Lindekin took extreme exception to Stansky’s behavior and immediately reported the incident to management. After interviews with both Stansky and Lindekin and those who observed the incident, Huang, Samantha Lowry, the employee’s immediate supervisor, and Grant Ginn, department manager, decided that Stansky should be terminated for unprofessional conduct and violation of company policy.

Question:

1. Which arguments should be given more weight: those based on company policy, the employee handbook, and the labor agreement or mitigating factors given by the grievant and his witnesses? Explain.

2. How might unprofessional conduct be defined? Explain.

3. If you were the arbitrator, how would you rule in this case? Explain fully the reasons for your decision.

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 50
Use the following coupon code :
NURSING10