There are five labor-related laws that regulate employment in the United States of America. These laws are listed as follows: 1) Railway Labor Act; 2) Norris LaGuardia Act; 3) Labor Management Relations Act; 4) Landrum-Griffin Act; and 5) Civil Service Reform Act (Fossum, 2009). Current labor laws are capable of dealing with labor-management problems because it protects the interest of the workers and the general public.
To determine if current labor laws are capable of dealing with labor-management problems, it is important to understand the dynamics and dichotomy of labor and management. The interests of the workers are related to remuneration and job satisfaction.
Within the spectrum of management, accountability is the responsibility to provide quality products and services to the customers. In the case of the government, it is the delivery of services to the general public. Based on these criteria, one can conclude that current labor laws are capable of dealing with labor management problems.
Remuneration and Job Satisfaction
Breaking down the labor-management dichotomy and dynamics, one must address two sides of the issue. With regards to employment-related concerns, most problems are rooted in the desire to acquire the appropriate remuneration package that is commensurate to the service rendered. Also, employee-related issues are also rooted in need for improvements in the workplace to enhance job satisfaction levels.
In both issues regarding compensation and job satisfaction, current labor laws are sufficient to resolve these problems. For example, the Railway Labour Act enables workers to choose bargaining representatives for the purpose of creating acceptable collective bargaining agreements.
The Norris-Laguardia Act prohibits the utilization of yellow-dog contracts. Thus, it prevents employers from eradicating or destabilizing labor unions. The ability to establish and maintain labor unions assures employees of the power to negotiate with employers. As a result, they can demand remuneration packages that suit their needs.
The Management Conundrum
In an ideal situation, employers are always trying to please two groups of people. They are trying to provide high-quality products and services for their customers. At the same time, they want to maintain a motivated workforce. Nevertheless, due to limited resources, employers are sometimes compelled to make a decision that is not in the best interest of the workers.
Workers counteract the employer’s decision to lower costs by reducing payroll or eliminating certain perks, through collective bargaining agreements. Since workers are organized through labor unions, they wield significant power to negotiate contracts. Thus, they have the power to stop business operations.
However, labor laws recognize the need to protect the interest of the general public. Thus, current labor laws incorporated stipulations so that employers are compelled to deal with workers’ demands. At the same time, workers must both parties must initiate the bargaining process in good faith. For example, one of the main objectives of the Railway Labour Act is to avoid service interruptions through prompt dispute settlement. On the other hand, the Taft-Hartley Act and the Landrum Griffin Act prohibits unfair labor practices.
Conclusion
Simplifying labor-management problems leads to a clearer understanding of the root causes of disputes between employers and workers. Current labor laws provide a framework to settle disputes in the most efficient manner. Employers and workers are compelled by law to initiate the negotiation process in good faith.
Thus, both parties have the necessary tools needed to develop a solution that is acceptable to employers and workers. At the same time, labor laws prevent serious service interruptions because both parties must also consider the needs of their customers and the general public.
Reference
Fossum, J. (2009). Labor relations: Development, structure, process. New York: McGraw-Hill.