The idea of labor unions began to rise in the United States towards the end of 19th and the start of the 20th centuries. The number and type of labor union and acts have since increased. For example, there exists the Railways Labor Act, the Employment Discrimination Laws, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act (WARN Act) and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. All the unions’ grievances and cases that involve the respondent and the charging party are handled by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Although labour unions have increasingly grown in membership and regulations, there is a growing criticism that the certification procedures in NLRB are cumbersome and that it would be better if the LMRA was repealed.
Read also Employment Laws How They Impact Functions of Human Resources
The repeal of the labor laws discussed in the chapter of the book would significantly affect the formations of the workers unions. According to (Holley, Wolters, & Ross, 2016) there is growing dissatisfaction with the procedures and administration of the NLRB. The NLRB has been a subject of delayed decisions, where some appeal cases brought before the board have been reported to take 3-7 years for final decision to be delivered. The repeal of LMRA laws would serve to solve such inefficiencies as witnessed in the NLRB. The congress should move swiftly and enact new regulations that ensure the NLRB is mandated to listen to appeal cases in a more effective and fast manner. Such laws must also cover the appointments of the NLRB members, to ensure continuity rather than appointments done to promote the policy of the political party in power.
Although labour unions provide many benefits, they have increasingly become unnecessary and burdensome. According to (Holley, Wolters, & Ross, 2016) the NLRB has a subject of widespread criticism from the academic professionals, employees, union leaders and employers. The author points to the fact that although there have been tremendous change in market, the NLRB has had no law reforms. The repeal of the LMRA would have less significant impact on terms and conditions of employment for employees. In fact, repeal would do much good than bad owing to the current ineffectiveness of the LMRA and the NLRB administration.
The major role of LMRA is to work to create better working conditions of employees, being at the front in protecting employee rights and workplace practices. In today’s market conditions, state of human activism, making the labor laws illegal would do less harm (Hirsch, & Hirsch, 2007). Laws that protect employees, such as minimum wage, disability laws, laws against workplace discrimination, COBRA health care for the workers who are laid-off, unemployment insurance and mandatory family leave, have all been covered under the federal and state laws. Moreover, the modern structural shifts in workplace have seen adoption of the human resources management, unlike the traditional employee management strategies. This shifts, couple with the changes in market conditions has reduced the use of unions. The increase in adoption and use of technology has seen steady decrease in the need for use since the inception of LMRA.
In addition, the selections of the NLRB members have been a subject of political interests and corruption. This has worked against the fundamental purpose for which LMRA was created. According to (Holley, Wolters, & Ross, 2016) the NLRB consists of five members, with at least three members required to make a ruling on any cases presented for appeal. However, despite efforts to have NLRB with all the members, it has hardly been five owing to the numerous processes that its members have to undergo prior to appointment. The NLRB members are appointed by the President and are vetted by the senate. The liberals have often favored a NLRB composition that favors the management, while the democrats are pro unions NLRB. Such issues that have often plagued the NLRB have completely shifted the fundamental purpose of the board into propagation of the policy that favors the government of the day.
Finally, the repeal of LMRA could work to expand the nature of employee rights and privileges. According to (Hirsch, & Hirsch, 2007, p. 1147) a large number of private sector workers in the United States cannot have a chance of a collective voice and participation through the existing traditional unionism. This has been witnessed with the increase in non-traditional forms of solving employee grievances. The LMRA should be repealed. As outlined earlier in the paper, the current state of unions does not provide enough cover for the employees; neither does it cover employer’s grievances in the prevailing market conditions. In addition, the inefficiencies in the NLRB and the political impact on the selection of NLRB to influence labour policy have greatly plagued the fundamental role of the unionism in modern area. The modern organizational environment is governed by the market competition and ability of a firm to make a return on investment while providing competitive wages to employees. For example, the use of minimum wage in may be a challenging task, particularly if a firm cannot make returns that can cover the wages while leaving a good profit margin. Such legal challenges need to be resolved with the repeal of the LMRA, which is somewhat redundant.
Order Unique Answer Now