2 Questions 4 Responses

Question 1-Class – please review Slide #22 and discuss whether legally we need to give the profit sharing bonus to union employees if the collective bargaining unit is silent on the matter.

Response agree or disagree why?

1.A collective bargaining contract typically will cover extra benefits associated with an organization but in the event it does not, my understanding is the organization is not required to pay the union employees the bonus. Union employees obtain benefits and wages outside of what non-union employees receive and the organization does not have to give those benefits to the non-union employees. I do believe in good faith if the contract is silent on the matter I would contact our union delegates for discussion on the matter to identify if writing in a last minute addition to the CBA allowing for the team members to receive the bonus as well. I think ultimately it would be best for morale and engagement if all employees received the bonus instead of isolating just the non-union team members.

2.A yearly profit-sharing bonus is a great benefit to offer employees because it helps an employee understand how their performance is affecting a business overall. This type of bonus would be labeled as a discretionary bonus because it’s not tied to any contracts (such as a collective bargaining agreement) and the employer determines whether to pay the bonus and the amount of the bonus (Bonuses under the FLSA, DOL, 2020). With that being said, the employer has the freedom to decide whether they want to pay out the bonus and they would not need to pay it out to the union employees. I think if a company decided not to pay out the bonus to the union employees, that it would do more harm than good. A benefit such as this one can help with productivity, motivation, loyalty and a culture of ownership. Employees want to be rewarded for their hard work and success, so this is a great way to promote that. If a company decided not to pay out the bonus to union employees and gave it to non-union employees, they should have a good reason for doing so, or they will come off as anti-union and potentially create a divided workforce.

Question 2- Class – please review the material on Slide #23 regarding the PATCO strike and respond to the questions at the bottom of the slide. In addition, review the PATCO article attached in the Assignment Section on BB.

Responses agree or disagree and why

1. In my view, it was quite unfortunate and unlucky for the former air traffic controllers who were terminated from employment with the FAA because they had participated in the PATCO strike. Participation in the strike is a legal right of the employees and termination on that grounds is quite unfair. The employees were not given a chance to prove their viewpoint as well as they were not given representation by the union. Hence their termination cannot be considered a fair one. They can be given a chance to explain their perspective for participation in the strike and their termination can be reversed.

2. PATCO strike established a defining norm for the union and employee struggle. This strike portrayed the struggle of the union as well as the workers fighting for their rights. This strike made the governments think about reforms required in the labor dimension. Rule and lawmakers started thinking about the ways in which equal representation can be given to workers and employees and their exploitation at the workplace can be reduced to a minimum. PATCO strike can be considered as a landmark event.

————————————————————

1. I believe that it was acceptable for President Regan to fire the air traffic controllers who when on strike. Air traffic control is a job with high level of responsibility. When these professionals go on strike they create danger because one mistake can lead to a plane crash. The President gave the strikers 48 hours to return to work, which most of them failed to do. It should be their ethical and moral responsibility to protect air traffic, which they look lightly.
2. The failed PATCO strike established an antiunion climate that began to allow private sector employers to weaken or break unions during the 1980s and 1990s.