The Federal Sector Labor-Management Relations Statute of 1978 is law that gave public workers the right to organize into union to better work conditions it similar to the NLRA in some cases. According to FLRA government website states, “Each employee shall have the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and each employee shall be protected in the exercise of such right. Except as otherwise provided under this chapter, such right includes the right--(1) to act for a labor organization in the capacity of a representative and the right, in that capacity, to present the views of the labor organization to heads of agencies and other officials of
…show more content…
The public workers have the right to negotiation matters that affect working conditions, personnel policies, and practices but in most instances wages or benefits are not part of the negotiations. (Twomey, 2007-2013) Workers who do not have their wages and benefits fixed by law can negotiate on wages and benefits. The NLRA allow unions and employers to negotiate on wages, work conditions, benefits, pensions, and etc. In most cases, the public workers are not allowed to strike or picket if contract negotiations reach an impasse. However, they are allowed to use informational picketing. OCSEA writes what informational picketing is, “Employees do carry signs, however, and distribute informational leaflets which highlight the employer's misdeeds and ask for public support for the union's position. Public relations is an important aspect of this tactic.” (House of OCSEA, 2015) Under the NLRA, privately employed workers are allowed to strike if an impasse has been reached in negotiations. The primary function of the Federal Service Impasses Panel “is to assist parties in resolving bargaining impasses and to take necessary actions consistent with the law to resolve such impasses.” (Twomey, 2007-2013) Similar to NLRA, the General Counsel investigate and prosecutes unfair labor practice cases. (Twomey, 2007-2013) The federal sector’s approach is worse for the stakeholders in the process. Most workers cannot negotiate on the …show more content…
There is a non-binding dispute resolution procedures. The public employer is demanding drastic cuts in pay and benefit for its employees. If this were to happen I would be more likely to support legislation allowing non-essential public employees the right to strike. They need to be able to have a way counteract an employer’s greed. In this day in age, most employers act on the benefit of themselves forgetting the small people that got them to where they are now. The workers should have a right to a binding interest arbitration. According to ACFO-ACAF, “Interest arbitration is a mechanism used to resolve disputes in the collective bargaining process. In binding interest arbitration, disputing parties agree in advance to accept the terms of a deal as decided by a neutral third party.” (Association of Canadian Financial Officers, 2012) The current law allows non-binding dispute resolution procedures which would be ineffective if either enacts the terms or conditions agreed upon. In this case, the law does not make the agreement enforceable that it is just advisory of what to do. How can anyone use this system without each party to be forced to the terms they agreed upon? The employer will have free reign to do as they choose. Furthermore, if the employer chooses to cut back on the pensions or healthcare benefits of its retirees will not affect
The public workers have the right to negotiation matters that affect working conditions, personnel policies, and practices but in most instances wages or benefits are not part of the negotiations. (Twomey, 2007-2013) Workers who do not have their wages and benefits fixed by law can negotiate on wages and benefits. The NLRA allow unions and employers to negotiate on wages, work conditions, benefits, pensions, and etc. In most cases, the public workers are not allowed to strike or picket if contract negotiations reach an impasse. However, they are allowed to use informational picketing. OCSEA writes what informational picketing is, “Employees do carry signs, however, and distribute informational leaflets which highlight the employer's misdeeds and ask for public support for the union's position. Public relations is an important aspect of this tactic.” (House of OCSEA, 2015) Under the NLRA, privately employed workers are allowed to strike if an impasse has been reached in negotiations. The primary function of the Federal Service Impasses Panel “is to assist parties in resolving bargaining impasses and to take necessary actions consistent with the law to resolve such impasses.” (Twomey, 2007-2013) Similar to NLRA, the General Counsel investigate and prosecutes unfair labor practice cases. (Twomey, 2007-2013) The federal sector’s approach is worse for the stakeholders in the process. Most workers cannot negotiate on the …show more content…
There is a non-binding dispute resolution procedures. The public employer is demanding drastic cuts in pay and benefit for its employees. If this were to happen I would be more likely to support legislation allowing non-essential public employees the right to strike. They need to be able to have a way counteract an employer’s greed. In this day in age, most employers act on the benefit of themselves forgetting the small people that got them to where they are now. The workers should have a right to a binding interest arbitration. According to ACFO-ACAF, “Interest arbitration is a mechanism used to resolve disputes in the collective bargaining process. In binding interest arbitration, disputing parties agree in advance to accept the terms of a deal as decided by a neutral third party.” (Association of Canadian Financial Officers, 2012) The current law allows non-binding dispute resolution procedures which would be ineffective if either enacts the terms or conditions agreed upon. In this case, the law does not make the agreement enforceable that it is just advisory of what to do. How can anyone use this system without each party to be forced to the terms they agreed upon? The employer will have free reign to do as they choose. Furthermore, if the employer chooses to cut back on the pensions or healthcare benefits of its retirees will not affect