06.09.2013 Views

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

12. UNION-<strong>MANAGEMENT</strong> <strong>CONFLICT</strong>: HISTORICAL TRENDS AND NEW DIRECTIONS 361<br />

New Trends <strong>and</strong> Alternatives<br />

Card Check. Traditional organizing in the United States requires at least<br />

30% <strong>of</strong> employees in a bargaining unit to sign cards saying that they are<br />

interested in a union before the NLRB will call for an election. A period<br />

<strong>of</strong> campaigning by each side follows the presentation <strong>of</strong> the cards to the<br />

NLRB, which supervises a vote at the end <strong>of</strong> this period. If over 50% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

workers vote “yes,” then the union is certified as the exclusive representative<br />

<strong>of</strong> the workforce, <strong>and</strong> management is required to bargain with the<br />

union in good faith (Gold, 1998).<br />

An alternative to this process, favored by unions, is a “card check” procedure<br />

in which employers agree to recognize the union if over 50% <strong>of</strong> the<br />

employees sign a card saying they want a union. Card check agreements<br />

avoid the <strong>of</strong>ten acrimonious recognition campaign. This idea is attractive<br />

to some companies, especially in service industries like hotels because the<br />

period <strong>of</strong> open campaigning can lead to very tense employee relations.<br />

Even if the union is defeated, the open campaigning <strong>of</strong> a traditional election<br />

may cost the company dearly in bad service to customers <strong>and</strong> bad employee<br />

relations. Some countries have legislation that allows recognition <strong>of</strong> unions<br />

based solely on card check without management agreement. <strong>The</strong> United<br />

Kingdom, for example, introduced a card check system in 2000. Some provinces<br />

<strong>of</strong> Canada, similarly, recognize unions based on card check (though it<br />

should be noted that several provinces have actually eliminated card check<br />

in favor <strong>of</strong> m<strong>and</strong>atory voting in the past three decades; Johnson, 2002).<br />

<strong>The</strong> card check system works in favor <strong>of</strong> union recognition. In the<br />

United States, Eaton <strong>and</strong> Kriesky (2001) examined organizing experiences<br />

under 118 separate written agreements that include a neutrality agreement<br />

or card check provision. <strong>The</strong>y found that card check agreements<br />

reduced management campaigning, as well as the use <strong>of</strong> illegal tactics<br />

such as illegal discharge <strong>of</strong> employees <strong>and</strong> illegal promises <strong>of</strong> benefits,<br />

<strong>and</strong> substantially increased the union recognition rate. Neutrality alone<br />

apparently had much less effect. Johnson (2002) found, in a study <strong>of</strong> nine<br />

Canadian jurisdictions, that m<strong>and</strong>atory votes reduce certification success<br />

rates by approximately 9% below what they would have been under card<br />

check. Riddell (2004) found that when British Columbia switched from<br />

a card check to a m<strong>and</strong>atory vote system in 1984, union success rates<br />

declined by an average <strong>of</strong> 19% during the voting regime. When the law<br />

changed again in 1993, back to a card check system, the union success rate<br />

returned to its original level.<br />

Prerecognition Negotiation. Estreicher (1993) argued that allowing labor<br />

<strong>and</strong> management to negotiate before a union is recognized could <strong>of</strong>fer<br />

benefits to both sides. In U.S. labor law, management may not control or<br />

guide the process by which workers select a union—that could lead to<br />

“company dominated” unions. Estreicher suggested, however, that antiunion<br />

campaigning by management stems in part from fears that a union

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!