Companies should enjoy a legal right to hire replacement workers during strikes due to several reasons. First, the employers need to ensure the survival of their companies during strikes and this can only be achieved by hiring temporary replacements. The hiring of temporary replacements as opposed to permanent replacements may help to lessen some of the risks associated with hiring striker replacements such as costly legal suits and an increase in violent acts. Second, employers should be allowed to hire replacement workers not only to maintain the balance of relative bargaining power between the companies and the labor unions but also to reduce labor costs. It has been argued that passing legislation that seeks to ban the hiring of replacement workers during strikes would significantly shift the balance of relative bargaining power to labor unions at the expense of the employing entities (Holley, Jennings, & Walters, 2012).
Allowing companies to hire replacement workers during strikes would also ensure that workers go on strike for justifiable reasons as they have full knowledge that they can be legally replaced during a strike. Employers have used the tool of threatening to hire replacement workers to bring the striking workers to the negotiating table (Holley et al., 2012). However, although employers should be allowed to hire replacement workers, the process should only include the hiring of temporary workers to avoid suits of breach of contract when the permanent strikers are reinstated after a settlement is reached or upon making an unconditional request for reinstatement to the employer. It may also be difficult to replace a large number of striking employees quickly, hence the need to hire temporary replacement workers as negotiations proceed with the respective unions representing the permanent employees.
Union’s Duty and Impacts
Labor unions the world over are mainly charged with the responsibility of providing a fair representation to unionized workers, particularly in terms of bargaining for their interests in labor relations (Pohley & Luchak, 2014). The implications of providing a fair representation are many and varied for employers, with available literature demonstrating that most employers view the union movement as a destabilizing force in their quest to reduce labor costs and enhance worker productivity (Godard & Frege, 2013). The two-year Crystal Sugar strike serves as an example of how the employer refused to meet the demands of workers due to feelings that the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers (BCTGM) union was unfairly increasing labor costs and constricting employee productivity (Elk, 2013). Other employers have viewed unions in a positive light, arguing that their representation duty has had a positive impact on employee turnover and satisfaction while simplifying collective bargaining agreements.
The duty of fair representation has impacted unions in terms of giving them the authority to rectify the imbalance of power by developing some semblance of equality in bargaining over the employment contract between employees and companies, ensuring that employers come to a collective agreement with employees to have access to a stable labor force, and developing frameworks for labor market bargaining (Godard & Frege, 2013). The inability of the BCTGM union to force Crystal Sugar to agree to a collective bargaining agreement with employees, for example, demonstrates the diminishing power of unions due to reasons such as globalization of labor, outsourcing, government action, and competition (Elk, 2013). Lastly, employees are impacted by the union’s duty of fair representation in terms of having an avenue to collectively air their concerns and challenges to the employer and also to negotiate with the employing entity concerning their wages, work hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
References
Elk, M. (2013). For union members, defeat at Crystal Sugar anything but sweet. Web.
Godard, J., & Frege, C. (2013). Labor unions, alternative forms of representation, and the exercise of authority relations in the U.S. workplaces. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 66(1), 142-168.
Holley, W.H., Jennings, K.M., & Wolters, R.S. (2012). The labor relations process (10th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Pohley, D.M., & Luchak, A.A. (2014). Balancing efficiency, equity and voice: The impact of unions and high-involvement work practices on work outcomes. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 67(4), 1063-1094.