The positive aspects of the new bill are all centered around employee rights and empowering the lower classes to have the ability to defend themselves and fight for fair treatment. When employees feel as if upper management receives all the perks and that workers are being unfairly treated, then the discontent in the workplace mounts and deteriorates the entire system. Often times, CEOs are so self satisfied that they don’t even notice the harm that they are causing to the company, their workers, and the whole environment.
The best way for a company to thrive and to grow is for all parts of the company system to feel good about the holistic functioning of the business. This is often not possible when the luxuries are tilted in extreme favor of the upper classes, and the Employee Free Choice Act works to remedy the problem of unethical favoritism of a select few. The Human Resource Group is all too familiar with the discontent and maltreatment which occurs when upper management wields too much power over the other employees, crushing the spirits of workers and discouraging the functionality of the entire team.
As explained by Carter and Lotke (2007), essential needs such as health insurance coverage and retirement funds and pensions would be made much more accessible to employees by the implementation of this act, balancing out necessary wages and benefits to include the majority of workers as opposed to only the richest and most powerful individuals. Many people are beginning to realize that a large portion of Americans have little to no health coverage and little to no structured plan for their retirement in old age, the necessary funds and protections having been wiped away by the greedy actions of individuals in the upper classes.
It is certainly time to restore a sense of balance and ethics to corporate America, handing down the appropriate wages and benefits to dedicated workers. Although the Human Resources Group notes the highly beneficial aspects of the Employee Free Choice Act and supports its implementation, there are people who view the proposed legislation negatively. In Canada, there is already the legal acceptance of worker card check verification for union implementation, which is hotly contested by companies such as Wal-Mart and right wing groups such as the Frasier Institute (Adams, 2007).
By allowing for workers to organize unions without the approval of a company-wide vote and campaigning which is controlled by upper management, companies like Wal-Mart claim that workers have unfair rights which undermine the importance of the decisions made by CEOs. When unions are formed without regard to the desires of upper management, without even contacting the high level employers, then employees, they claim, have taken an unfair advantage over the company leadership.
In a campaign called “Right to Work”, business owners and right wing extremists claim that workers should not be held in held positions if they require too many wages or benefits. They claim that any people who want the available positions should be able to take them, scrutinizing and disrespecting the idea of the ability of employees to retain their jobs while making collective demands about wages and benefits.
Unscrupulous employers want to be able to make as much money as they can without owing much of anything to their workers. Although this kind of a plan looks good to the people in high class positions, the workers who suffer the lack of dignity in regard to the wide margins in pay and benefit ranges view the actions of power hungry company employers a bit differently. Hiring the least demanding workers possible is not the answer in attracting viable employees for functional businesses.
So much time, energy, and money is lost with employee turnover and disgruntled workers, that it makes sense economically to listen to the requests of the collective labor force. In comparing the union activities to those of other countries, it is known that United States unions have generally settled on the idea of avoiding striking during contract mediation as well as agreeing to long term contracts. Although American unions want to put pressure on employers to encourage fair treatment of workers, there is also a resistance to high level disruption of business.
In many other countries, for example Australia, some believe that unions are so strongly organized that the unions have the ability to do damage to the ability of businesses to function and grow (Strauss, 2008). There are people who believe that Australia should, in fact, become more Americanized, allocating more power to employers, and effectively shoring up the ability of the business to perform and conduct their affairs without undue hindrance by overly demanding employees.
It is important to note the other extreme as well, the situation where employees have a certain upper hand and dismantle the ability of companies to operate well in a global market. In looking to the future of American policy in regard to union formation and employer-union relations, it is vital to retain a sense of balance, where employers and employees both have reasonable rights and responsibilities to one another.
Any fall to either extreme, right or left, to the big guy or the little guy, throws the corporate system out of balance and does harm to business capabilities and team contentment. The effect of the newly proposed legislation certainly has an effect on the Human Resource Group and on the implementation of human services in general. In regard to union sign up cards or anti union propaganda, human resources would be the most reasonable place to have materials available for employers and employees, the human resource personnel acting as mediators between the lower workers and upper managers.
Attempts at in house mediation could also be handled by human resource employees, adopting an effectively unbiased approach to employer-employee disputes. There is a constant interest in human resources for all workers, in high, middle, and lower positions, to feel satisfied and content in their work routine and with compensation and benefits. There is no value in the deterioration of employer-employees at the midpoint, and often, the midpoint is directly in the human resource offices.
Human resource personnel need to feel encouraged in their ability to shore up the bond between laborers and CEOs, promoting the unity of the company and the effectiveness of the business to perform. Taking complaints and making arrangements for the resolution of disputes or the termination of certain behaviors or employees are all handled by the people in human resources, acting as conscientious and fair minded mediators in resolving company personnel problems and working towards common company goals.
It is the belief of the Human Resources Group that the employees in this country have generally fallen short of the dignity and respect which they deserve. Employers have taken too much and given too little, causing friction in the workplace and sickening business. It is time for the employees to be given their just desserts, the rewards which have been denied them all too often. Teamwork is a concept which has lost value in recent years in this country, being replaced by corporate greed and the dissolving of company integrity.
In order to shore up the strength of the lower classes as well as the overall strength of American businesses, it is vital that the Employee Free Choice Act be passed and that the weights of justice hang in balance once again. The Human Resource Group is tired of dealing with employee grief, the understandable sorrows of people who trampled and undervalued, and support the implementation of this new legislation in its current form. It is the hope of the Human Resource Group that the Employee Free Choice Act be passed in its current format, securing the three main points of the bill as described above.
In this way, employees will have just as much of a voice as their employers, utilizing collective power to bargain and resolve disputes fairly. It should be known that the Human Resources Group does not generally side with one group of people over the other, with employees over employers, yet works to serve the needs and desires of all people with intuition geared towards the implementation of the most reasonable and justified measures.
It is our true hope that the Employee Free Choice Act will be passed, offering renewed hope for employees and revived capabilities in American business in general.
Adams, R. (2007). The Employee Free Choice Act: A Skeptical View and Alternative. Labor Studies Journal. Carter, A. & Lotke, E. (2007). The Employee Free Choice Act: Impact on Health Care and Pension Benefits. Institute for America’s Future. Employee Free Choice Act Summary. (2009). The American Federation