Labor Relations

Class Member Discussion Topic Responses

Grading Criteria

You are required to respond with depth, breadth and insight to the discussion question(s) as well as one of your class members. Your response to the discussion question(s) must be tied back to the chapter material and outside research is expected. When I ask you to support your answer, you are expected to combine opinion with, minimum 2, citations, insight from your experiences, observations of others experiences, analysis of the facts/information and a conclusion. PLEASE do not limit your citations to just the book! Find other supporting material outside of the class structure.  You are also required to answer the question posed by the instructor and class members’. (Please note: The guidance outlined above will contribute to you “meeting the expectations” for the discussion. Additional participation will contribute to a grade that will “exceed the expectations” for the discussion

The combined original reply and two responses are worth up to 20 points per student. The criteria used to determine the point distribution will be:

Original Reply:	10 points
Initiated Peer Reply (2):	8 points
Uses of sources:	2 points

Cite examples, textbook material, or your own supporting material to back up your opinion.

Action: Read the below peer discussion board posts and provide your classmate with feedback on your opinion of their position. Do you agree and why? Do you disagree and why? Replies to your class members’ are intended to move the discussion forward. Telling them that they simply did a good job is not acceptable. Statements like “I feel”, “I believe” and/or “I think” are difficult to measure and, highly, subjective. Asking a question or two about the position they took will move the discussion forward. Replies are 200 word minimum

Action: Read the below peer discussion board posts and provide your classmate with feedback on your opinion of their position. Do you agree and why? Do you disagree and why? Replies to your class members’ are intended to move the discussion forward. Telling them that they simply did a good job is not acceptable. Statements like “I feel”, “I believe” and/or “I think” are difficult to measure and, highly, subjective. Asking a question or two about the position they took will move the discussion forward. Replies are 200 word minimum

Peer Reply #1 Case Study 5-1: Good Faith Negotiations

by Rachael Noe – Thursday, October 17, 2019, 9:06 AM

Do you believe that the company was or was not bound to sign the agreement? Explain.

I do not believe the company was bound to sign the agreement since it was presented as a “tentative agreement” to the union, (Carrell & Heavrin, 2012). “If the tentative agreement is approved, it becomes a binding and enforceable contract between the union and the employer,” but not until it is officially approved and signed off on by both parties (UAW, 2019). Even though it may not have been the best course of action on the side of the company to have someone else, especially someone who does not speak English well, negotiating on behalf of their boss, that does not mean that they are forced to sign the agreement that was tentatively reached. “Labor law doesn’t require the union or the employer to agree to any bargaining proposal. The law only requires the parties to negotiate in good faith with a sincere desire to reach agreement,” which was the goal of both parties in the negotiation process (UAW, 2019). Regardless of whether Jarvis communicated well enough that the agreement being negotiated was only tentative, the paper copy of the agreement signed by both parties clearly stated, “tentative agreement,” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2012). If the union representative did not realize that when signing the agreement, that is on them.

While the tentative agreement was ultimately rejected, the employees benefitted from it to some extent. There was a period of time where they received higher wages under this tentative agreement. Surely, they would prefer to continue receiving the higher wages than to go back down to the amount they were making previously, however a short period of time with higher wages is better than no period of time with higher wages. They still earned extra money that they would not have earned if that tentative agreement was never put into effect.

Because his boss was so busy, if it weren’t for Jarvis negotiating that tentative agreement with the union and its members, there would have been no agreement reached at all. It is not possible for a person to be in two places at once, so if Jarvis did not go in place of his boss, the union would not have had a chance at all to be heard or to attempt to make an agreement. I think it is better that there was an attempt made to come to an agreement as opposed to not even trying in the first place. Furthermore, just because that initial tentative agreement was not approved, that does not mean they cannot continue the negotiation process in the future in an attempt to come to a resolution suitable for all parties involved. It was never stated that would be their only opportunity to reach an agreement or that wages would never be raised again in the future if they were not raised at that moment. At least with their tentative agreement, they have a starting point to go off of and they know what is most important to all parties for future agreements.

Action: Read the below peer discussion board posts and provide your classmate with feedback on your opinion of their position. Do you agree and why? Do you disagree and why? Replies to your class members’ are intended to move the discussion forward. Telling them that they simply did a good job is not acceptable. Statements like “I feel”, “I believe” and/or “I think” are difficult to measure and, highly, subjective. Asking a question or two about the position they took will move the discussion forward. Replies are 200 word minimum

Reply #2 Good Faith Negotiations 

by Crystal Kinsman – Thursday, October 17, 2019, 10:04 PM

 

Good Faith Negotiations

I believe the company was not bound to sign the agreement. The company’s president J. Lee, asked two inexperienced people to represent the company during negotiations. Yokoyama and Jarvis were tasked with gathering information and relaying it to J. Lee. Throughout the negotiations, Yokoyama stated that J. Lee would have to approve the final agreement. The Union claims there was never any discussion regarding J. Lee approving the final agreement.

During the last session Yokoyama initialed the “Tentative Agreement, Summary of the Agreement”. The agreement included a wage increase that would take effect July 1 (Carrell & Heavrin, 2012). Yokoyama said that he could not sign the contract, only initial it and J. Lee would have the final approval. Once again, the Union denied this conversation ever took place. However, a bargaining team member took the company’s side.

The six negotiations that took place were not properly planned. The last negotiation session took several hours and they brought in a federal mediator to help them reach a final agreement (Carrell & Heavrin, 2012) J. Lee did not communicate with her staff regarding any budget concerns or topics of conversation before leaving. She also, did not appoint the right people to represent the company during these sessions. I feel there was a lack of communication and misunderstanding between all parties involved. The real disaster took place when Yokoyama gave a copy of the agreement to payroll. Even though Yokoyama explained to payroll that it was a tentative agreement, on July, 1 employee received the pay increase. Because the increase was not approved or agreed upon by J. Lee, she rescinded the increase. I feel for the employees. They received this increase for an entire month before J. Lee returned. They are the real victims in this case.

The Union was not told J. Lee rescinded the wage increase and therefore filed an unfair labor practice (Carrell & Heavrin, 2012). However, the agreement was tentative and required J. Lee’s final approval. At one point the Union practically demanded J. Lee’s presence. I believe the Union knew that Yokoyama and Jarvis were inexperienced and took advantage of that. The Union knows that someone with no experience would not be given authority to have the final approval. The union should have done their due diligence if they had any reason to suspect Yokoyama and Jarvis were not fit to negotiate. Unfortunately, the testimony was a “he said, she said” situation and in the end the employees are the ones that suffered.

 

First Page

Second Page

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."

"Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!"