These are open discussion q & a for recreational reading and to give you insight about union representation and human resources. If you’ve been wrongfully terminated from your job or going through something with your employer now, this is for your personal reading pleasure. If you’re sitting at your computer desk wondering what is this you’re reading, it’s just something to read. It’s not that serious, so chill out..L 😛 L!

1. The election results showed that 138 RAs and CDAs supported union representation, and 88 voted against union representation. What should be done for those RAs who voted against union representation? Are their rights being violated?

Many RA’s voted in favor of union representation during the election felt they were doing the right thing because their feelings were that the union would fight them in situations or a situation arose in the workplace, or their career was jeopardized whereas they would need to deploy union representation to be in their corner. The purpose of the union is to be in the corner of the little guy and fight for employee rights. So some people don’t see why in this case, if the election is supposed to help union workers get the right type of representation, would be opposed by all the RA’s. Unless there’s something here that’s missing.

On the flip side of things, RA’s who voted against union representation were merely exercising their freedom to be against the election and union representation and here’s why. The opposing RA’s felt that “Another RA, who had voted against the union, was concerned RAs would lose voice rather than gain voice through collective bargaining. She said, “[Unionization] is giving their voices to someone else” (Abel & Helman, 2002, March 6).  A personal opinion of this is the opposing RA’s feel that the supporting RA’s are handing over their power to the unions without complete knowledge of what they’re doing.

Lastly, it’s viewed that no one’s rights are being violated because this is America and there is freedom of speech “both freedom of speech is indirectly limited.”

3. What do you see as the university’s options at this point in the case? What would you recommend? Why?

The university is not happy with the election outcome. They will allegedly seek reversal of the law because they’re not happy. The following is an excerpt from the article mentioning “university officials were troubled by the election results. Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Cevallos said, “I think the vote showed that a lot of people are 18 © 2011 Society for Human Resource Management. Patrick P. McHugh, Ph.D. actually not in favor of a union; 88 votes is a significant number. We’ll take a few days to assess the situation and think about it then we’ll decide what the next steps are going to be” (Campbell, 2002, March 6). Another university spokesperson said, “The administration continues to believe that this was the wrong application of the law and will continue to pursue any means available, legal and administrative, to get this reversed. Collective bargaining laws were not meant to apply to undergraduates” (Noble, 2002).

Someone’s personal opinion of this is that the University is also angry with the outcome of the election because it created adverse feelings among the students and it may affect college campus life and how students, both current and future, may look at the University, which may or may not adversely impact the future of college registration profit potential.

1. What does it mean to “bargain in good faith”?

Bargaining in good faith simply means to “resolve issues outside of the labor law processes.”

2. How can the union respond to the university’s stance at this point?

It’s viewed that the union can respond to the University stance at this point by simply talking direct in a sitdown face-to-face conversation and seeking a peaceful resolution. And if that doesn’t work, they can address the issue in the American media and see what type of reaction becomes of it. Being that the university officials don’t want to come to the bargaining table and are willing to break the law as mentioned in a letter, the university’s hand can be forced indirectly by either sitting down face to face or calling them out in the news. One way or another, the University can be cornered into submission in my personal opinion by the union.

3. Does the university face a public relations dilemma? Has the university contributed to the dilemma?

They do face a public relations dilemma. This will be addressed in the news and it will negatively affect how people generally view the University. They contributed to the dilemma in my personal opinion and review by opposing the union and seeking to reverse the election outcome.

2. What are some of the unintended consequences of the university’s position in this dispute? From an HR perspective, is the university adding risk by contributing to an escalation of the conflict?

The UAW filed an unfair labor charge with the MLRC. The University without to take it to the highest appellate court to have it dismissed or the outcome reversed in their favor. Union supporters are forcing the University’s hand to possibly bargain with them by embarrassing university officials by setting up a mock bargaining tables outside the main administration building. Protesters continued moving around on campus making nonstop noise about the University coming to the bargaining table with union officials. Some students, according to the article, weren’t supportive of the protests and felt the union and its supporters were in the way of their higher education learning goals.

4. What recommendations would you make to the university and the union at this point in the case?

It’s strongly recommend the University would at least give the union and its supporters the time of day of at least sitting down at the bargaining table and if anything, taking a listen to what the union and their supporters have to say. This way, the university can say they gave the union and its supporters a chance to voice their opinions and feelings concerning differences between the union and the University, even if the University still doesn’t budge. The University can also document this, if they were willing to come to the bargaining table with the union and its supporters, to say they gave this collective bargaining deal a chance at the table. But since they refused and rejected it from jump street, the University left themselves vulnerable to lawsuits, pressure, and negative publicity.

1. What do you think were the key factors in getting both sides to agree to begin contract negotiations?

Key factors:

• Addressing the concerns of the RAs and CDAs

• Both sides refraining from further public comment about the deal

• Separate academic [e.g., grading policies and the student code of conduct] from employment issues

• Union presented a 21-page proposal, whereas the university negotiators submitted a five-page proposal (Shaw, 2004). Bargaining continued for 14 months until the university and union bargaining teams agreed on a tentative contract that required ratification by the RAs

2. What role does a bargaining committee play in contract negotiations?

Bargaining allows both sides to come to the table to see what both sides of the table can respectively agree on with out throwing out the possibility of coming to a final resolution. A bargaining committee plays a significant role in contract negotiations because they go the extra mile, regardless how long it takes even over a year, to reach the end result that’ll benefit both sides. The bargaining committee develops a set of contract proposals that they addressed to both sides for approval.

5. Why is the ratification process important?

The ratification process is important because it’s a proposal not yet set in stone that allows both sides to the modified terms of their agreements, before placing their John Hancock signatures on the bottom line and setting things to be “in stone.”