Commonly serves as a platform to peacefully bridge employers and employees towards understanding, the freedom of association is a key component to successfully safeguard employee rights. It demands a social context based on democracy to be operational. This requirement is what makes trade union to dispel inhumane practices and promote an improved working condition for labor. With membership, employees can redeem and highlight their value to their employers. Such results in equitable profit sharing, appropriate wage level, assurance of safety at work and other benefits.
In most cases, trade unions are able to participate in corporate governance and policy building that provides them a chance to proactively emphasize their rights. This benefit is an improvement to the traditional resolution on employee grievance wherein the harmful effects are already inflected to employees before the solution is applied. Through unions, employees can secure their rights in implied manner. With the assistance of unions in establishing the value of employees, the increase bargaining power of labor in organizations is a tool to emphasize their contribution much like with that of investors, creditors and suppliers.
Thus, union rights empower employees stressed by their numbers and conviction to self-value. Unlike other rights that are largely under personal level, union rights involve an association of employees which increases the possibility of success once presented to arbitrators. This is why most of the issues protected by unions include monetary and non-monetary benefits that employers must provide in favor of employees. Other employee rights such as protection against undue discrimination are relatively less prominent problem of most employees rather than monetary interests such as increase in wage or participation in stock ownership.
Trade union rights are useful for employees in pursuit of higher quality of life. Discrimination Rights There are a number of typical worker characteristics that are discriminated by employers and employees such as age, religion and disability. In this context, discrimination can be as aggressive as mockery of co-workers to people that are wearing traditional religious clothing to indirect discrimination applied by recruiting companies through age cut-off.
However, there a standing prohibition against discrimination particularly against minority groups, that is, employees whose characteristics deviate from the population. Laws especially the US version emphasizing sameness regardless of minority employee characteristics are common frameworks that tackles this problem. In addition, these laws argued that companies should evaluate employees based on productivity which is applied even in the case of disabled persons as long as they can essentially perform their job description.
They are provided with office and working facilities which can reduce their mobility and work challenges. Since discrimination can take many forms, corporate policies that undermine them are overpowered by social interactions. Co-workers could bully minority employees due to the latter’s beliefs in a manner that is out of scope from the written policies. This stances, however small, can affect the confidence, ability to interact and in the overall performance of discriminated employees.
Due to these occurrences, the law extended protection to minority employees in terms of working conditions and interactions with co-workers. This concern is obvious in several statures such as Age, Disabilities, Older Workers Benefit and Civil Rights Acts. To protect against religious discrimination, the law imposed certain guidelines which are in favor of freedom to attend on religious practices. This include provision for mandatory holidays for important religious days and establishment of facilities where preaching is possible.
With discrimination rights, minority employees are given equal opportunity in the workplace. Sexual Harassment Rights Not until 1970s, sexual harassment especially in women is not a prevalent issue. However, in contemporary time, there are identifiable restrictions to employers with regards to relating with women employees. Prohibited employer acts include sexual questions or comments, interfering with body movements, imposing a dress code that is meant to reveal certain parts of the body and unpleasant touches and the like.
The context in which these prohibitions apply is not bounded in official workplace only. As long as the employee is under the control of the employer, the latter is still considered a harasser when the instances mentioned above are apparent. In the case of co-worker and customer harassments, women employees are protected similarly but the initiative is required to come from the employer. The employer is the one responsible in maintaining the rights against sexual harassments of his/ her subordinates. Even with this responsibility, workplace harassment is known to be committed by employers themselves.
This is probably due to their status and power over their employees. Due to this, there are laws that make employers doubly liable to employees whom the former promised economic and other kinds of benefits when the harassment is consented but the promise is not administered. In either case, the disincentive to employers is obvious in the structure of the applicable laws. This set-up is appropriate as employers have a stronghold on their status by which subordinates are trusting as a source of security and respect.
There are stances wherein there is no offer in exchange for sexual harassment rather denial of benefits and opportunities that must have been acquired by the employee also produces a similar aggravation. Due to the wide possibilities of workplace harassment, employers are thus bound to provide a non-harassment conducive working environment for employees. However, there are challenges confronting employers because a harassment policy is shaped by the organization’s standards of harassment. There is also a difficulty on how to determine pervasive sexual advances not until their obvious effects and implications to the workplace.
Further, when the advances come from customers, organizational policy is a weaker way to tackle the problem compared formal litigation.
Lee, E. (1998). Trade Union Rights: An Economic Perspective. International Labour Review, 137 (3), 313+. Schwab, S. & Steven L. & Willborn, S. (2003). Reasonable Accommodation of Workplace Disabilities. William and Mary Law Review. 44 (3), 1197+. Robinson, R. , Allen, B. , Franklin, G. & Duhon, D. (1993). Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Review of the Legal Rights and Responsibilities of All Parties. Public Personnel Management. 22 (1), 123+.