The Employee Rights Act provides that every employee can freely join a union and participate in its activities. The Act prohibits threats, discrimination and intimidation from both the employer and trade union. For example, suspension by the employee is a violation of the Code. Secondly, the Act requires the decision on joining a union be based on the majority of all employees, but not the votes. As a result, the unit may have members in support or not of a trade union. However, a union must represent the interest of the entire unit.
Instead of dealing individually with an employer, a unit of employees may decide a union representation. It is a platform for the recognition of a union as a bargaining agent of the employees. Additionally, it requires that a majority of employees in such a unit vote in favor of the union. As a result, it ensures that there is no discrimination from the employer when dealing with a strike. For example, union assist workers in unregulated industries, and, as a result, workers do not have to worry that an employee may pay or discriminate persons in a union (Wunnava, 2012).
Secondly, once the union represents all employees, potential benefits are not on individual’s performance and achievements, but are the outcome of the collective bargaining process. For example, since a majority of all employees are in favor, the union represents the needs of an employee or a general job class with the employers. As a result, the union has the authority to negotiate with the employers on the amount of wages, benefits and working condition that a classified group of employees receives (Holley, Jennings, & Walters, 2008).
One shortcoming of the provision is that even though one may be represented by a union, he may not have the right to participate in the decision making process. As a member of a union, one participates in the voting process, which may determine union officials, vote on negotiating issues, or ratify the collective bargaining agreements (Wunnava, 2012). As a result, a minority of persons not in favor of the union, but incorporated as a result of the provision, receive similar benefits from the union representation, but are not involved in the decision making process. Another shortcoming to the provision is that after the certification of a union, all employees represented by the union incur expense for the union through deductible (Sherk, 2012).
The Secret Ballot Elections provides that the employee has the right to a federally supervised ballot election whether to join a union or not. Secondly, it defines a majority support as the collective unit, rather than the number votes. The first benefit to the approach is that unions cannot bypass secret ballot elections and use paid labor organizers to persuade workers and authorize union representation. As a result, the provision avoids political developments within unions, through the elimination of Union’s pressure tactics from paid picketers (Sherk, 2012).
| You can chat with our custom service representative |
The provision requires supervisions from federal authority. As a result, it reduces cases of irregularities and inconsistencies in the election process. Irregularities arise from signed agreements cards obtained through deception, coercion, and intimidation of employees. Therefore, the provision ensures a fair election free of employer and union coercion. For example, the federal agent assigned the process ascertains that neither the employer nor the union representative monitors the process. However, they observe and are not allowed to speak with voters or view how an employee votes (Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, 2013).
The secret ballot faces various limitations. Even though the provision requires no interactions within union, employers and employers do not affect debates that occur prior and election time. They insist on the right to unionization decided in secret ballot elections to make sure informed decisions are made by employees. The above issue is significant since it counters the principle of the secret ballot, which is to avoid external influence during the voting process. During the time, for example, both the union and the organization make promises to employees, which influence voting. Secondly, employee will see no significance between secret ballot relations in recognition to authorization card check. Even though the process may not face irregularities and employees choose according to their wishes, the decisions remain with the union. Additionally, an exception to the secret ballot is a result of consent from minority workers-more than 30% (Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, 2013).
The Secret Ballot Strike Vote provides that a majority of members approve election through a secret ballot before union leaders decide on a strike. One benefit is that the provision minimizes losses associated with a strike. For example, strikes possess significant hardships for employees as union funds compensate members for less than 50% of the wages lost during the time. They decide on the potential losses from the strike, and, as a result, decision if a strike is viable or not is made (Davison, 2012).
Secondly, the Secret Ballot Strike Vote is advantageous because it supports the collective argument of members. Since all agreements prohibit strike and lockouts during the term of employment, unlawful strikes violate collective agreements. As a result, members have to agree of a collective platform so that they can bargain with one agenda, after which the employee cannot sue for damages. Additionally, since it allows employees to have a unity of direction when requesting for their rights, it allows a fair process of arbitration with a second party (Davison, 2012).
The rule whether or not unions should consult members before calling a strike depends on the organizational constitution. As a result, there is no federal regulation that requires secret ballot majority support before announcing a strike. Even though Labor Law Relations provides that a majority of votes in favor of a strike must meet the legal requirements of the code, it does not provide for detail on whether or not it depends on the number. As a result, the decision by a majority vote may not impact a strike. For example, union and strike organizers may not follow the decision made by a majority of employee and pursue other interests (Smith, Wood & Baker, 2013).
In most cases, strikes compel an employer to agree to terms and conditions of employments. However, there are examples where a significant number of the employees does not agree to strike. In such a case, the law provides that the trade union and workers to respects the work of persons not willing to strike. Additionally, the minority must not represent less than 30% of the workers involved in the conflict. As a result, the Secret Ballot Strike may breed internal wrangles that may undermine the objectives of s strike. Additionally, it may allow political interference since members lack unity (Smith, Wood & Baker, 2013).
In conclusion, Employee Rights Act provides freedom in joining a trade union and its activities. The law requires a decision on joining a union be based on the majority of all employees, but not the votes. Therefore, unit may have members in support or not of a trade union. However, a union must represent the interest of the entire unit. The Acts prohibits threats, discrimination and intimidation from both the employer and trade union form joining.