Chat with AI
Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining 10th Edition by Michael Carrell,Christina Heavrin
Edition 10ISBN: 978-0132730013Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining 10th Edition by Michael Carrell,Christina Heavrin
Edition 10ISBN: 978-0132730013 Exercise 2
If the company knew that the tester "experiment" was not going well during the negotiations on a new contract, should it have negotiated the issue?
Explanation
Verified
Verified
When the "tester experiment" began in 1996, the only terms that were agreed by union and management were that the position shall be moved from salaried to hourly upon smooth transition with no reduction in the product quality. When the terms were re-negotiated in in 1997, the only discussion that was held was where to place them in the agreement. Eventually in 1999, the management complained that the quality of the testers were deteriorating and hence decided to terminate the position as a part of union.
Union were justified in demanding that a forewarning were to be given in case the performance was deteriorating. Without notice and without indication, the company is unfair in removing these positions from CBA.. Although the CBA was never re-negotiated in 1997, neither the management and nor the union bought the topic of removing the "tester position" from "sidebar agreement" to CBA.
The company should have given sufficient notice for the union to act upon the reduction in the quality of the product. But then again, once the same testers were removed from the CBA, the productivity and quality increased. So were the tester taking the job for grated when in a union? How come the productivity increased with same employees? The company is making a strong point by keeping the same tester on job. This shows that the training part from the company was well covered. The only question that remaining to be answered is whether the tester hid under the blanket of Union?
The issues here with the testers were that behavioural rather than competency. There was small but definitive reduction in the quality of the product attributed to refusal to work overtime, neglect and possible sabotage. The company also was unable to pinpoint on any particular employee for productivity issues as it never did get sufficient proof to identify the individuals responsible. Under these circumstances, the company was right in deciding to remove this job classification from CBA. The union if a little more vigilant would have been able to detect these behavioural incompetence's and thus avoided the whole mess. The company also could have a little more fore coming in the status of the job classification.
Union were justified in demanding that a forewarning were to be given in case the performance was deteriorating. Without notice and without indication, the company is unfair in removing these positions from CBA.. Although the CBA was never re-negotiated in 1997, neither the management and nor the union bought the topic of removing the "tester position" from "sidebar agreement" to CBA.
The company should have given sufficient notice for the union to act upon the reduction in the quality of the product. But then again, once the same testers were removed from the CBA, the productivity and quality increased. So were the tester taking the job for grated when in a union? How come the productivity increased with same employees? The company is making a strong point by keeping the same tester on job. This shows that the training part from the company was well covered. The only question that remaining to be answered is whether the tester hid under the blanket of Union?
The issues here with the testers were that behavioural rather than competency. There was small but definitive reduction in the quality of the product attributed to refusal to work overtime, neglect and possible sabotage. The company also was unable to pinpoint on any particular employee for productivity issues as it never did get sufficient proof to identify the individuals responsible. Under these circumstances, the company was right in deciding to remove this job classification from CBA. The union if a little more vigilant would have been able to detect these behavioural incompetence's and thus avoided the whole mess. The company also could have a little more fore coming in the status of the job classification.
Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining 10th Edition by Michael Carrell,Christina Heavrin
Why don’t you like this exercise?
Other Minimum 8 character and maximum 255 character
Character 255
