Worse than to have the union appease management\" Relate yom remarks to the area

Question

Worse than to have the union appease management" Relate yom remarks to the areas of managemem rights and union security. liven though the closed shop has been illegal in interstate commerce since 1947 (except in the construction industry), should it he? Why or why not? If you were a top manager engaged in contract bargaining with a union, which theory of management rights would you pursue the residual theory or the trusteeship theory? Why? Mow sympathetic are you to the statement of a former General Motors chairman that offering a union leader a seal on CiM's board of directors made "as much sense as having a member of GM's management sitting on the board of international union"? Explain.

Explanation / Answer

When negotiating a collective bargaining agreement it would be pursue a residual rights theory. Where management to expressly retain any and all management rights not negotiated away during bargaining the contract. In other words if management doesn't agree to something in the agreement, it is still management's unilateral right to control that particular condition of work.

On the other hand if I were to subscribe to the trusteeship theory, there would be essentially be agreeing that the collective bargaining relationship and resultant fact that a contract fundamentally morphs any management rights to an implied right by the union to have a say in most workplace decisions for the contract covers the subject matter or not.

Here management right not succeeded by management may call into question the reasonability and substance of what is a management right. With an agreement that is totally silent on the matter calls into question whether management meant to reserve any rights to control the workforce. It may ultimately cause management difficulty if it wants to begin new business practice, alter its workforce, eliminating past practices or do any number of other things, which, if not otherwise reserved for management.

While it is practically impossible for management to foresee all substantive areas in which it desires to reserve rights, and, thus, there will always be some question of whether trusteeship exists in its expression of rights, management’s and it also needed to alter or amend some element of its operations that had an effect on its workforce.

If General Motors Corp. (GM ) were any other company, its problems would have sorted themselves out a long time ago. But information shows that when cash holdings exceed entire valuation in the stock market, some Wall Street shark is going to swoop in, snap up the good parts, and toss the rest. Companies with bloated factories and workforces got religion the hard way.

after all, GM reached a watershed in its four-decade decline in market share. GM, once the world's premier auto maker, is now cash-flow-negative. That's a game changer. Without growth, GM's strategy of simply trying to keep its factories humming and squeaking by until its legacy costs start to diminish is no longer tenable. If market share continues to slip, its losses will rapidly balloon.

Increasingly, though, the solutions will slip from GM's control. At some point the laws of physics take. Here may be simply cannot compete in a global economy with the enormous burden it now carries in legacy costs. It certainly cannot meet that kind of strategy for long off a shrinking sales base and negative cash flow and distracted by those woes.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.