Source: Joseph Blasi, Douglas L. Kruse, Maureen Conway, The Conversation, May 30, 2019
Near-record low unemployment has companies fumbling to find the best ways to recruit and retain workers. Our research suggests a sure-fire way to do just that: give them a real stake.
By that we simply mean sharing some of the profits and even ownership with the men and women who are fundamental to their companies’ success.
Most Americans say they want it. A recent government survey found that vast majorities of respondents across the political spectrum prefer to work for an employee-owned company than an investor- or state-controlled business. ….
After conducting a massive, multi-year study of shared capitalism, we found that not only is it good for workers, it’s good for the bottom line too. ….
Source: Thomas A. Kochan, Duanyi Yang, William T. Kimball, Erin L. Kelly, ILR Review, Volume 72 Issue 1, January 2019
From the abstract:
This article is the fifth in a series to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the ILR Review. The series features articles that analyze the state of research and future directions for important themes this journal has featured over many years of publication. The decline in unionization experienced in the United States over the past 40 years raises a question of fundamental importance to workers, society, and the field of industrial relations: Have workers lost interest in having a voice at work, or is there a gap between workers’ expectations for a voice and what they actually experience? And if a “voice gap” exists, what options are available to workers to close that gap? The authors draw on a nationally representative survey of workers that both updates previous surveys conducted in 1977 and 1995 and goes beyond the scope of these previous efforts to consider a wider array of workplace issues and voice options. Results indicate that workers believe they should have a voice on a broad set of workplace issues, but substantial gaps exist between their expected and their actual level of voice at work. Nearly 50% of non-union workers say they would vote for a union, compared to approximately one-third in the two prior national surveys, which points to continued interest in unions as a voice mechanism. Additionally, the authors find significant variation in the rates of use of different voice options and workers’ satisfaction with those options. The results suggest that a sizable voice gap exists in American workplaces today, but at the same time, no one voice option fits all workers or all issues.
Source: Robert M. Schwartz, Labor Notes, April 13, 2018
Standing up to bosses is essential to being a steward. On the shop floor and in grievance meetings, you must defend the actions of members and contest those of management.
In many cases you should be able to make your points temperately, practicing “quiet diplomacy.” But occasions will undoubtedly arise when you will want to raise your voice, challenge a supervisor’s credibility, or argue your case in other vigorous ways.
A widely accepted labor relations canon allows employers to discipline workers who fail to act respectfully toward management. Some legal treatises call this the “master-servant rule.”
But if stewards were subject to this rule while engaging in union activity, they would face an intolerable risk: speaking up for a member could put their own jobs in jeopardy. To resolve this dilemma, labor law accords a special status to union representatives. ….
Source: Andrew Strom, OnLabor blog, May 24, 2017
Except for about a month in the summer of 2009 when the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, for the entire twenty-first century any proposal to substantially increase workers’ rights at the national level has had to be prefaced by the comment that, “of course, this is not politically feasible now.” But rather than just spending the next four years fending off misguided Republican legislation, I think it’s time to step back and focus on principles that should guide workplace legislation. Toward that end, here are some thoughts on a potential workplace bill of rights.
There might be some other rights that should be included in this list, and maybe folks have ideas about better ways to phrase the various rights. But, I think it would be helpful for the labor movement, worker advocates, and the Democratic party to start talking about this bill of rights in order to refocus our discussion about jobs. The measure of a good job, whether it is in manufacturing or the service sector, should be whether it provides these rights to workers. In addition, we should be thinking about what changes we need to see in our laws to ensure that all workers enjoy these basic rights on the job. Some of these issues can be addressed at the state level, although of course, that would mean that these rights would exist in only a handful of states. Here’s my proposed worker bill of rights – let the debate begin…..
Source: Ariel Avgar, Julie Anna Sadler, Paul F. Clark, Wonjoon Chung, Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 55, Issue 4, October 2016
From the abstract:
This paper examines the relationship between labor–management partnership (LMP) and employee voice in the healthcare setting. We argue that the ability of LMP to deliver gains to employees is contingent on the quality of the procedural infrastructure on which it is established. We maintain that the quality of LMP processes influences employee trust in their employer and perceptions of union effectiveness and that these perceptions, in turn, are related to employee patient‐care voice.
Source: Stephen F. Befort, University of Minnesota Law School, Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 16-28, September 27, 2016
From the abstract:
At the turn of the century, I undertook an assessment of the then current state of workplace rights and obligations. I concluded that the balance of power between employers and workers was “badly skewed” in favor of employers. This article revisits that topic for the purpose of assessing twenty-first century trends through the lens of six workplace dimensions. They are: workforce attachment, union-management relations, employment security, income inequality, balancing work and family, and retirement security. An examination of these dimensions reveal that the status of U.S. workers has significantly declined during the first sixteen years of the twenty-first century. This article then sets out a proposed agenda for reform designed to recalibrate the current imbalance in the respective fortunes of employees and employers.
Source: Saul A. Rubinstein, John E. McCarthy, ILR Review, Vol 69 no. 5, October 2016
From the abstract:
Using data from surveys, interviews, and student performance, the authors examine collaborative union–management partnerships between local union representatives, teachers, and school administrators working together in innovative ways to improve teaching quality and student performance. Based on data from 27 schools in a southern California school district, the authors find that the strength of formal union–management partnerships is a significant predictor of greater growth in student performance over time, and that this relationship is mediated by stronger educator collaboration at the school level, after controlling for poverty. The findings suggest that student performance can be significantly improved by institutional union–management partnerships and the increased school-level collaboration that results from them.
Source: Thomas Kochan, The Conversation, March 24, 2016
The presidential campaigns deserve some credit for finally voicing some of the deep frustrations and anger felt by American workers who have lived for decades in an economy that works for those at the top but not for them and their families. …. But angry rhetoric will not put the economy on a path that works for the disaffected and disenfranchised. Instead we need to address the root causes of workers’ frustration and their economic decline. And to do that, I would argue, we need to fix our broken labor policy. ….
Source: E. Tammy Kim, Al Jazeera America, October 31, 2015
….In the earliest days of American capitalism, there was no need for human resources or its historical cousins — welfare work, personnel or labor relations. Businesses were small, and laws were few; there was hardly an office, let alone a back office. All that changed about 100 years ago, with the growth of the corporate form and a regulatory state capable of keeping it in check. Human resources as we know it owes its flourishing to unions. It was at the mid-20th-century height of industrial organizing — when nearly a third of American employees belonged to a local — that “thousands of new personnel and labor relations specialists” were hired to navigate “the increasingly abstruse world of collective bargaining,” according to UCLA historian Sanford M. Jacoby. Large nonunion companies recruited their own personnel and newly minted human relations experts to design compensation plans and cultural programs comparable with those in union shops — the surest way to repel labor organizers…..
….This attention to the bottom line signaled a change in philosophy. Ambitious HR managers were told to ditch employee relations and W-2s for visioning meetings and five-year profit plans….
….This tension was on full display at the SHRM convention. On the first morning, I attended a four-hour seminar titled “Labor relations for human resources managers.” It promised an overview of “how labor practices can affect your workplace” in the context of “the National Labor Relations Board’s aggressive recruitment and targeting of nonunion employees.” In other words, a primer on employment law, collective bargaining agreements (the contracts unions negotiate with employers) and rules for worker organizing. The two presenters, an employer-side attorney and a management consultant, began with a rhetorical question, “How do you keep them out?” — unions, that is. …. The speakers were so critical of unions and worker protests that the audience — friendly, even-tempered HR professionals from hotels, manufacturers and government agencies — started to fidget and get defensive….
Source: James S. Bowman, Jonathan P. West, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 21 no. 3 Summer 2015
From the abstract:
Unions are a perennial topic of controversy in American society. This article examines the attention
that labor-management relations receive in introductory public administration textbooks. These
publications define the focus of the field, its paradigm, and its essential elements; they also likely
affect how the subject is presented in the classroom. Given the interest in labor-management
relations and their place in the administrative state, how is the topic portrayed in beginning texts?
This investigation provides an overview of contemporary union activity and a description of the
methodology used, followed by the study findings. While all books reviewed give some attention to
employer-employee relations, the context and content of the coverage is, at best, modest. The
analysis briefly compares public and business administration texts in each subsection of the findings,
and generally reveals small differences between them. The conclusion discusses the implications of