App-B Chapter Exercises-CH-13-14

This document contains Chapters 13 to 14 CHAPTER 13 – CHAPTER EXERCISES Chapter Exercise 13.1 Organizing a Union Nancy Brown Johnson Objectives. The purpose of Exercise 13.1 is to develop student empathy and reinforce student learning about why people join labor unions and to understand the reactions of union organizing efforts from the perspective of employer and employee. Description . This exercise requires that you assign students to one of the two roles for completion of the assignment. (An alternative approach would be to have the students write one letter for each of the roles). Both the "union organizer" role and the "general manager" role require a letter to be written. For either role, the Individual Analysis (Part A) requires about one hour of out of class preparation after the student has read Chapter 13. The Group Analysis (Part B) requires that all group members read each other's letter and agree on the most effective letter. Each group must also derive a chronology of steps to be taken by either the union organizer or Mr. Cameron (the general manager). Allow about 45 minutes for the Group Analysis. Tables 13.1.1 and 13.1.2 present examples of letters from the union organizer and Cameron, the manager. Criteria for Evaluating the Letters. The criteria for the evaluation of the letters are: 1) Content - thorough and convincing argument. Accurate illustrations supported by chapter material and evidence. 2) Organization - a clear plan or thesis, logically developed. Reader oriented with an introduction, conclusion, and topic sentences for paragraphs. Transitions indicating relationship of information. 3) Word Choice & Style - appropriate for audience. Accurate use of words. Elimination of unnecessary words. Effective sentences. Natural language. 4) Mechanics/Usage - complete sentences (no run ons or fragments). Subject/verb agreement. Correct punctuation, capitalization, and spelling. Table 13.1.1 Example of Union Organizer Letter Dear Fellow Employees: As most of you know, many employees of ARC are very upset about the bad pay and bad working conditions. Management responds to our complaints by telling us we are free to leave if we want to, but most of us do not have any other jobs to go to. Yet, we do not have to continue to put up with the bad pay and working conditions of ARC. We need strong representation that a union can provide. The Consumer Service Reps of America (CSRA) wants to represent you to make sure that you get fair and equal treatment at ARC and they can deliver such protection. Some of the benefits of unionization are improved wages, improved fringe benefits, improved working conditions, work scheduling done on a seniority basis, advance notification of monitoring. Despite these benefits, management will probably tell you why you should not join the union. They may lie. They may harass you. They may even threaten to fire you. But, the National Labor Relations Act protects you - you cannot be fired for union activity. We will file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board and get you your job back with back pay should the company engage in such illegal actions. Do not let management's scare tactics frighten you off. Once the CSRA becomes your collective bargaining agent, they can protect you from this type of harassment. Make sure that you have the facts about unions and do not accept what management says as truth. Management will probably tell you that you will not be able to go to them directly if you organize. With the CSRA you will be able to go to them with a representation. Management will tell you that there will be layoffs. However, we have raised the wages and reduced arbitrary treatment in the other auto rental companies. Management might also try to promise you higher wages and better working conditions to try and make up for their past abuses. This is also illegal. Don't let them do it! Report it to us and will file a complaint. Their actions are too little too late. We plan to respond to these accusations and others made by management in informal meetings in employee's homes over the next few weeks. Contact the union representatives at the gate or at John's Bar to find out the dates and times of these meetings. I am asking you to support the CSRA. They can work on your behalf to improve your wages and working conditions. They can make your job at ARC better. However, these improvements can only be achieved with your support. Please sign the enclosed authorization card and help us to help you. Sincerely, Len Smith Table 13.1.2 Example of General Manager Letter TO: All Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors FROM: Scott Cameron SUBJECT: Union Organizing DATE: March 1, 20__ As you all are well aware by now, we are undergoing a union organizing drive. The purpose of this memo is to inform you about what actions we can legally take in our attempts to circumvent unionization and what steps we should avoid. Additionally, this memo outlines our plan for defeating the union. First, with respect to what actions we cannot take. The law clearly states that an employee cannot be disciplined or terminated for union activity. Thus, we can't fire a worker who is active in the union unless we can establish that his or her behavior would have led to termination prior to the union organizing drive. Second, employees are free to talk about the union as long as it is on nonworking time such as breaks. We cannot restrict the employees from talking about the union. Generally, we cannot create an environment that is hostile or intimidating to employees with respect to unionization. Further, we cannot promise benefits to the employees that they have not come to expect. Thus, we cannot raise wages or institute grievance systems until after the union has lost the election. Now, what we can do? Over the next week we will hold group meetings to talk to employees about what effects unions might have. For example, we can talk about how they would need to go through the union for every complaint they might have and how the union would reduce their flexibility in learning and doing new jobs. Further, we can give examples of the layoffs that followed the CSRA's other union organizing drives. However, it is not advisable to talk with employees individually. If we win the election, I propose that we establish a grievance system to handle the employee complaints and develop an employee attitude survey. We don't want a union and we depend upon you to create a working environment in which workers feel that they don't need one. Please make sure that we create a work environment in which employees do not feel threatened or intimidated but one in which they do not feel like they need a union. Table 13.1.3 Alternative letters Dear Co Workers: Many of you, as fellow employees of ARC, are disillusioned about your present working conditions. Are you dissatisfied with your job because: * You have not been given a raise in over a year? * Your benefits are inadequate? * Your preference has not been considered in the assignment of work schedules or installations? * An automated employee monitoring system now monitors you? If you are tired of not being heard, you can do something about this dissatisfaction. Unions can make a major impact at ARC. Through union participation, each unheard individual voice will be joined together in creating a "collective voice" that management must recognize. With unionization, we can improve employment conditions and correct deficiencies in areas such as: * Wages * Health Insurance * Child Care and Family Leave * Working Conditions Management will resist a union. They will try to persuade you that unions are hostile and unnecessary at our company. They will use the argument that you will lose employee control to national union leadership. The simple reason is that management wants total control of our workplace. If management was concerned for employees, better wages and working conditions would have been offered before we became disgruntled. Management offering better compensation and benefits now as inducements not to join a union is illegal. Scare tactics are also illegal. Remember that management cannot interfere with employee representation and collective bargaining rights, dominate or interfere with the affairs of unions, discriminate against you in regard to hiring, retention, or any employment condition, and avoid bargaining in good faith with an employee representative. The National Labor Relations Act recognizes workers' right to organize and bargain collectively. A personal concern you may have is the cost of union dues. My question to you is, "Can you afford not to join"? Conditions will only get worse unless we do something about them. Unions can do something about them. The CSRA will need your help to organize the southeastern region of ARC. Together, we can make a difference once the CSRA becomes our collective bargaining representative. Support yourself and sign the authorization card. If you have any concerns or questions, please give me a call. MEMORANDUM TO: To Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors FROM: Scott Cameron, General Manager DATE: April 15, 20__ SUBJECT: Union Organization Recently there has been a labor movement within ARC. The employees are dissatisfied with the present working conditions and are organizing a union drive. As supervisors, you need to know what legally can be done to stop the momentum, and what is illegal. Foremost, we must communicate to the employees the costs of unionization not only financially through union dues, but a cost to their individuality. The union supports seniority, not a pay system that rewards employees who works hard and should be recognized individually. Individually, the employee loses control when he or she must bargain collectively through representatives. Employees lose job variety. Also, legislation such as the Civil Rights Act, ADA, ERISA, OSHA, WARN, and anti-takeover laws, etc., protects the individual and are comparable to union representation. Besides communicating to the employees, there is not too much we can do to slow the union movement. We cannot discriminate against any employee engaged in union activity in regard to hiring, retention, or any employment condition. This means that we cannot terminate or coerce an employee through scare tactics for their involvement with the union; nor can we not hire an employee because of his or her affiliation or attitude towards unions on the job). Offering enticements now to the employees regarding wages and benefits is illegal, but must be addressed immediately afterwards if we are successful in resisting unionization efforts. Management has been dysfunctional in fostering employee relations. Union's only opportunity of entering an organization is through dissatisfied employees. If the union drive is thwarted, we need to implement mechanisms to improve employee relations such as communication and participation programs and grievance procedures for employees. Satisfied employees do not need union representation. Chapter Exercise 13.2 Unions, Labor Law, and Managerial Prerogatives Dr. Barry Axe Objectives. After completing this exercise, students will have a better understanding of the implications of preconceived attitudes towards union-management relations and managerial behavior. They will also know some of the myths and truths about the effects of unions, and adopt a more objective perspective on the subject of unions. Description. For Part A: Individual Analysis: Before reading Chapter 13 and before class, students should complete the questionnaire on Form 13.2.1. They should then read Chapter 13 and research the statements in the questionnaire, such as finding research pertinent to the relationship between unions and productivity. The summaries of research should be brought to class. Finally, students should go to web sites on the National Labor Relations Act, such as www.dol.gov, and try to answer the questions on Form 13.2.2. For Part B: Group Analysis, students should break into groups of 6 and try to come to consensus rating for the questions on Form 13.2.1. Instructors could also review the issue of unfair labor practice and the process that must be followed. When an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge is filed, a field office conducts an investigation to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe the NLRA was violated. If the Regional Director determines that the charge lacks merit, it is dismissed. A dismissal may be appealed to the General Counsel's office of the NLRB. If the Regional Director finds reasonable cause to believe a violation of the law has been committed, that office of the NLRB seeks a voluntary settlement to remedy the alleged violations. If the settlement efforts fail, a formal complaint is issued and the case goes to a hearing before an NLRB Judge. The judge issues a written decision that may be appealed to the five-Member NLR Board in Washington for a final agency determination. The Board's decision is subject to review in a U.S. Court of Appeals. About 30,000 ULPs are filed each year and about one-third are found to have merit. Over 90% are settled. The NLRA also empowers the NLRB to petition a federal district court for an injunction to temporarily prevent unfair labor practices by employers or unions and to restore the status quo, pending the full review of the case by the Board. The NLRA also requires the Board to seek a temporary federal court injunction against certain forms of union misconduct, principally involving "secondary boycotts" and certain forms of picketing. Exercise 13.2, Part A. Research Related To Attitudes Toward Unions Survey This exercise was developed by Drs. Barry Axe and H. John Bernardin. Research indicates that general attitudes toward unions are strongly correlated with a number of workplace behaviors. These attitudes, sometimes based on limited facts about unions and their actual effects, can have a profound effect on a number of reactions in the workplace. Research also shows that expectancies regarding union behavior and activities can affect subsequent negotiations and managerial behaviors toward union activity. From the workers’ perspective, attitudes also can affect reactions to union organizing efforts, perceptions of the extent to which unions can affect workers’ pay and working conditions, and job attractiveness. This exercise assesses attitudes toward unions in general and the extent to which these attitudes are grounded in fact. Learning Objectives After completing this exercise, students should be able to: 1. Understand the implications of preconceived attitudes toward union–management relations and managerial behavior. 2. Know some of the myths and truths about the effects of unions. 3. Adopt a more objective perspective on the subject of unions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following presents a summary of research related to each question followed by students' responses to the particular item. Over 1200 undergraduate students from Florida, Tennessee and Maryland provided responses. 1. U.S. productivity would be much higher if it wasn't for unions. Research on this question is mixed (i.e., depends on the industry) but one review found that productivity is higher in union environments. In general, research does not support the general claim that productivity would be much "higher." As of 2008, only 12.4% of American workers belonged to unions. One recent study found that more unionized hospitals had measures of productivity that were 16% higher than nonunion hospitals. However, studies show unionization negatively affects accounting profits and shareholder wealth. A low percentage of union workers is listed as a "High Performance Work System" characteristic. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (15) Agree (30) Unsure (44) Disagree (7) Strongly Disagree (4) 2. Unions protect even the most incompetent workers as long as they belong to the union. There is little evidence to support this claim although most workers who do not work with a contract are "at-will" and therefore more easily dismissed. For example, turnover is lower in union environments for the same type of work. While this fact provides some indirect support for the claim, the lower turnover rate can also be interpreted as retention of good workers and is most likely related to the higher compensation for union versus non-union workers doing essentially the same work (e.g., teachers). An older worker has a smaller chance of job loss relative to a younger worker under unionism, but that does not mean that in a downturn the older worker is less likely to be laid off than the older nonunion worker. In comparison to union vs. nonunion firms, one survey found that 84% of union firms reported that a "senior would never be let go in place of a junior" while only 42% of nonunion firms reported this policy. The same survey revealed that 14% of the union firms also reported that a senior would be let go if a junior was believed to be worth significantly more on net while 44% of nonunion firms indicated this policy. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (15) Agree (31) Unsure (42) Disagree (15) Strongly Disagree (5) 3. Unions interfere with management attempts to increase productivity. In general, union members perceive management attempts to increase productivity as attempts to reduce workers' hours and the number of workers. It is fair to conclude that unions constrain management attempts to increase productivity. Unions often challenge productivity-improvement teams as violations of the NLRA, arguing that a team or group is illegal if it is "employer dominated" and a "labor organization." Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (24) Agree (36) Unsure (37) Disagree (11) Strongly Disagree (6) 4. Unions are corrupt. While there is some "hand-in-the-till" corruption in unions, the amount of union corruption is no more than, and probably less than, business corruption (Freeman & Medorf). In a statement made at hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which was studying racketeering, former Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti estimated at 300 local unions in our country "are severely influenced by racketeers." Given that there are about 65,000 local unions in the United States, the Civiletti estimate implies that less than 1 percent of local unions are severely plagued by corruption. Unions are obligated by law to comply with certain procedures that promote democracy. They must obey equal employment laws, represent everyone in the bargaining unit fairly, and file financial disclosure forms. The Department of Labor does investigate union officers for wrongdoing and issues indictments that are heard at trial. Records of these cases are publicly available. You can call the Office of Labor-Management Standards and request copies of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act reports. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (9) Agree (26) Unsure (45) Disagree (10) Strongly Disagree (10) 5. Unions are mainly responsible for the adversarial relationship that exists between unions and management. No correct answer. As in No. 3, responsibility for adversarial relationships cannot be clearly attributed to either unions or management. A common attitude in many labor negotiations throughout the 1980's was union accommodation but recent years have been much more volatile. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (15) Agree (23) Unsure (35) Disagree (15) Strongly Disagree (10) 6. Union wages are not competitive in a global economy. Unions cannot be blamed for wages that place U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage (every collective bargaining agreement is signed by two parties). There are wage and productivity measures, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for many countries, which show U.S. wages relatively low and productivity high. Also, the main competitors of the U.S. all have a higher percentage of the workforce unionized than in the U.S. Japanese workers are actually paid more per labor hour than many U.S. workers. The U.S. tax structure, standard of living, inflation, and management are all contributing factors in global competition. Most U.S. businesses have no governmental backing as do some foreign competitors. U.S. industries facing a more globally competitive environment after less domestic competition have more difficulty competing regardless of union status. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (29) Agree (37) Unsure (21) Disagree (8) Strongly Disagree (5) 7. Union rules and regulations stifle attempts to improve the quality of our products or services. No correct answer but there is no question that there are more rules and regulations with a union contract. Management often cites work rules as a major problem for improvement programs. Unions have also challenged worker involvement programs. Some NLRB rulings indicate that many of the estimated 30,000 employee involvement programs that companies have set up in recent years to improve quality, productivity and safety may be illegal. Unions want the exclusive right to speak for the workers on all topics. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (28) Agree (30) Unsure (30) Disagree (9) Strongly Disagree (3) 8. Unions are a big help to workers. Union workers tend to be more satisfied with compensation compared to nonunion workers and with working conditions within the same industry. Unionized teachers and nurses, for example, receive higher direct and indirect compensation (benefits), more paid vacation and sick time and have more protection from changes in policy. There is also some evidence that the union jobs are safer. Workers tend to have more protection from changes in corporate strategy or corporate performance. However, some workers do not like the egalitarian philosophy of unions regarding pay. In 2008, full-time wage and salary workers who were union members had median usual weekly earnings of $781, compared with a median of $612 for non-union workers. (Go to: http://www.bls.gov/ for up-to-date information. Workers who belong to trade unions earn higher wages, work fewer hours, receive more training, and have longer job tenure on average, than their non-unionized counterparts, according to a 2003 World Bank study on the effects of unions and collective bargaining in the global economy. High unionization rates lead to lower inequality of earnings and can improve economic performance (in the form of lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity and speedier adjustment to shocks). A study by the World Bank concluded that "Free trade unions are a cornerstone of any effective system of industrial relations that seeks to balance the need for enterprises to remain competitive with the aspirations of workers for higher wages . . . unions can help raise workplace productivity and reduce workplace discrimination." A 2003 study entitled “Unions and Collective Bargaining: Economic Effects in a Global Environment” concluded that unions were more likely to improve than harm developing economies. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (18) Agree (29) Unsure (26) Disagree (20) Strongly Disagree (7) Unions are violent during strikes. Violence in labor disputes is extremely rare (less than 1%). The incidence of strikes has been steadily decreasing and consumes a very small percentage of total working time--one tenth of one percent. Courts often issue injunctions limiting the number of people on picket lines and thus reducing the probability of violence. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (16) Agree (26) Unsure (28) Disagree (21) Strongly Disagree (8) 10. More protection is needed for replacement workers who are threatened and harassed by striking unionists. No correct answer. In the 1938 Mackay Radio and Telegraph Co. v. the NLRB case, the Supreme Court ruled that "in an economic strike, strikers may be permanently replaced by newly hired employees. The employer must rehire a striker who seeks reinstatement; however, should a vacancy occur." This decision is different from strikes due to unfair labor practices. These strikes protect the striking employee who makes an unconditional offer to return to work. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (15) Agree (15) Unsure (43) Disagree (21) Strongly Disagree (6) 11. The U.S. could be more competitive if we could get rid of unions. As of 2008, only 12.4 percent of wage and salary U.S. workers were union members. (Go to http://www.bls.gov) for more recent data). The union membership rate has steadily declined from a high of 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available. It is difficult to attribute much to union activity given these rates (relative to other countries) although it is fair to conclude that many union jobs have been outsourced. Unionization rates are the highest for jobs from the private sector industries that cannot be outsourced (e.g., transportation and utilities (22.2 percent), telecommunications (19.3 percent), and construction (15.6 percent).The union membership rate for U.S. public sector workers (36.8 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private industry workers (7.6 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 42.2 percent. International competition, measured by import share, was a significant determinant of union and nonunion wages: a 10% rise in the import share lowered the union wage differential by about 2%. The general decline in unionism suggests that both union and nonunion wages are becoming increasingly sensitive to import competition. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (19) Agree (32) Unsure (29) Disagree (14) Strongly Disagree (6) 12. Big labor has excessive political power in Washington. While this statement was arguably true 20 years ago, unions have not been very successful in getting major favorable legislation passed into law (as of May, 2009, the Family and Medical Leave Act was the last major federal law although unions did support and help pass the Ledbetter Act, Obama first legislative signing). Legislation favorable to unions is more likely under the Obama Administration and a Democratic legislature. Historically, organized labor has been active and successful in pushing for major pieces of legislation, which have been beneficial to all American workers. For example, union political activity was indispensable for passage of OSHA, the CRA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADEA and increases in the federal minimum wage. The proposed Employee Free Choice Act is a great test of contemporary union power. NLRB interpretive decisions tend to track with the political party in power. The NLRB was controlled by Democrats during the eight years of the Clinton administration (1992-2000) and the decisions tended to be pro-union. Decisions under George W. Bush tended to be more pro-business. The NLR Board has five seats. The President appoints members to five-year terms. While all NLRB interpretative decisions are subject to federal judicial interpretation of the NLRA, the Federal judiciary has gotten more conservative and pro-business as well. The NLRB is likely to become more labor-friendly during the Obama Administration. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (10) Agree (18) Unsure (34) Disagree (22) Strongly Disagree (16) 13. Unions are undemocratic in their organizational structure. Since the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959, federal law has also mandated democratic practices within unions. According to the results of several surveys of union members by the University of Michigan Survey Research Center, unions are closer to the "bastions of democracy" model than to the "union boss" model. There is a great deal of democracy, defined as access to a union's voice-making machinery, throughout the labor movement, particularly at the local union level. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (10) Agree (22) Unsure (51) Disagree (13) Strongly Disagree (4) 14. Union workers are less satisfied with their wages and benefits than nonunion workers. This is false when the comparisons are within particular industries (e.g., unionized teachers are more satisfied with compensation than non-union teachers). Union members state that they are more satisfied with their wages and fringe benefits, but less satisfied with working conditions and supervision than nonunion workers. Union membership has no relationship to overall job satisfaction. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (7) Agree (15) Unsure (50) Disagree (21) Strongly Disagree (7) 15. Unions tend to oppose pay-for-performance systems. Unions strongly favor pay systems based strictly on seniority, with little or no distinction made among individual workers based on their performance. Unions strongly oppose individual pay-for-performance systems and are more receptive to unit-based, pay-for-performance systems such as gain-sharing. Teacher unions strongly prefer "across the board" increases with no PFP systems although, as of 2009, they are cooperating with administrators in new merit pay programs. In general, unions oppose individual pay-for-performance programs and are more cooperative and tolerant of group or unit-based systems. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (28) Agree (32) Unsure (26) Disagree (10) Strongly Disagree (4) 16. Companies should be allowed to screen people based on their general attitudes toward unions. This is attitudinal and thus has no correct answer. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that employers violate the NLRA if they refuse to interview or discharge people who intend to organize the workers. In NLRA v. Town & Country, they included paid union organizers in their definition of an employee. Most (but not all) experts believe that this ruling thus protects applicants. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (22) Agree (35) Unsure (20) Disagree (19) Strongly Disagree (4) 17. Union wages have outpaced nonunion wages over the last ten years. This statement is false due the concessions that have been made in many sectors. The Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles data on union-nonunion wages on an annual basis. For workers in all industries (private and public sector) the changes in median weekly earnings of union workers were essentially equal to changes in non-union earnings (go to http://stats.bls.gov/ for contemporary data). A substantial union-nonunion earnings gap still exists, but it has decreased slightly over the past 25 years. The 2009 set-backs in the automotive industry for UAW workers will almost certainly close the gap between UAW worker pay and non-union auto workers. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (20) Agree (33) Unsure (21) Disagree (14) Strongly Disagree (12) 18. Management should be allowed to hire replacement workers immediately after a strike. The 1938 Supreme Court decision in NLRB v. Mackey Radio & Telegraph confirmed the legality of replacing striking workers. Many employers now routinely hire permanent replacement workers. Of course, employers argue that many companies will not survive if they cannot keep business going. Unions argue that the threat of hiring permanent replacement workers sharply reduces the probability that management will bargain in good faith. Management argues that individuals who willingly perform bargaining unit work during a labor dispute should be given employment preference since they incurred significant risk in working during a strike action. Management does tend to have difficulty hiring replacement workers if they cannot promise potential permanent status. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (20) Agree (28) Unsure (36) Disagree (10) Strongly Disagree (6) 19. I would join a union if I thought it might help me. The answer to this question tends to differ as a function of the respondents' backgrounds but the overall trend is a more positive attitude toward unions. For example, while (overall) 21% of respondents disagree with this statement, students with family members who belong or have belonged to unions disagree less often (8%); so do minorities (12%), and Midwestern state students (11%). A growing percentage of women and minorities agree with the statement. Anti-union and pro-union attitudes are good predictors of willingness to join a union. People tend to have general pro and anti union attitudes that affect their assessments of union activities and effects. For example, people with strong, general anti-union attitudes are much more likely to think that most strike actions result in violence. Student Response (in percentages): Strongly Agree (20) Agree (26) Unsure (37) Disagree (12) Strongly Disagree (5) 20. In general, I feel (circle one): positive , neutral or negative …toward unions. Based on 1999 data from Peter Hart and Associates, in response to this identical question, over two-thirds of Americans feel positive or neutral toward unions. Negative attitudes toward unions have declined significantly (from one out of three Americans to one out of four) and positive attitudes have risen moderately since 1990. Student response rates (by percentage): positive (34), neutral (38) or negative (28) 21. I would vote "YES" if a union election were held in my workplace tomorrow. Based on 1999 data from Peter Hart and Associates, in response to this identical question, a majority of young workers ages 18-34 who don't already have a union say they would definitely or probably vote for one. Young workers increasingly are likely to vote for a union. Student responses have become more positive in recent years. Student response rates (by percentage): Definitely (12) Probably (19) Not sure (55) Probably NOT (8) Definitely NOT (6) 22. Employees who have a union are better off than those who don’t. Based on 1999 data from Peter Hart and Associates, in response to this identical question, a majority of workers think that employees who have a union are better off than those who don't. Fifty-two percent of those polled say workers are better off if they have a union; only 20 percent say they are worse off. Eleven percent say it makes no difference and 17 percent aren't sure. Student response rates (by percentage): Employees are better off (34) Employees are worse off (13) There is no difference (8) I’m not sure (45) 23. It would be good for the country if more workers had union representation. Based on 1999 data from Peter Hart and Associates, in response to this identical question, a majority of those polled think it would be good for the country if more workers had union representation. Fifty-two percent of respondents say an increase in union membership would be good for the nation; only 22 percent say it would be bad. Student response rates (by percentage): Good for the country (25) Bad for the country (18) Depends (34) Not sure (23) The 2003 World Bank study entitled "Unions and Collective Bargaining: Economic Effects in a Global Environment" concluded that union members, and other workers covered by collective agreements in industrial as well as in developing countries, get significantly higher average wages than workers who are not affiliated with a trade union. The wage differential is larger in the United States (15 percent) than in most other industrial countries (5 to 10 percent). Other notable findings include that union membership reduces wage differences between skilled and unskilled workers and also between men and women. In some countries such as Germany, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, unionized women workers have a greater pay advantage over their non-unionized counterparts than unionized men. In the United States and the United Kingdom, unionized non-white workers tend to get a higher wage advantage than white workers. 24. Employees are more successful in getting problems resolved with their employer when they bring these problems up as a group rather than as individuals. Based on 1999 data from Peter Hart and Associates, in response to this identical question, sixty-nine percent of workers say they think employees are more successful in getting problems resolved with their employer when they bring these problems up as a group rather than as individuals. Student response rates (by percentage): More successful as a group (46) More successful as individuals (54) Exercise 13.2, Part B. Managerial Options and Constraints under the NLRA This exercise was developed by Dr. John Bernardin with assistance from Dr. Barry Axe. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also known as the Wagner Act, became law during the great depression of 1935. The NLRA formally recognized workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively with representatives of their own choosing. To enforce that right, the NLRA described what constituted unfair labor practices by employers. Prohibited activities included forbidding employers from (1) interfering with employee representation and collective bargaining rights; (2) dominating or interfering with the affairs of unions; (3) discriminating in regard to hiring, retention, or any employment condition against workers who engage in union activity or who file unfair labor practice charges; and (4) not bargaining in good faith with employee representatives. Further, the NLRA established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to enforce the Wagner Act and to conduct representation elections. As an independent federal agency (see www.nlrb. gov), the two primary functions of the NLRB are (1) to prevent and correct unfair labor practices (ULPs) and (2) to administer certification and decertification elections to determine whether workers choose to be represented. The most important sections of the NLRA are Sections 7, 8, and 9. Section 7 defines a "protected activity." Section 7 protects "the right . . . to form, join, or assist labor organizations . . . and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." Employers may not "interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of" their section 7 rights. For an employee's action to be "concerted," he or she must act with, or as authorized by, other employees. The definition of concerted activity includes circumstances where individuals initiate or prepare for group action. A "concerted activity" also exists when an employee's action is a "logical outgrowth" of previous group activities. Concerted activities are protected by Section 7 when they are done "for mutual aid or protection." And for a "self-interested economic objective" such as improved pay, hours, safety, or workload. Section 8 defines employer unfair labor practices. Five types of conduct are made illegal: 1.Employer interference, restraint, or coercion directed against union or collective activity (Section 8(a)(1)); 2.Employer domination of unions (Section 8(a)(2)); 3. Employer discrimination against employees who take part in union or collective activities (Section 8(a)(3)); 4. Employer retaliation for filing unfair-labor-practice charges or cooperating with the NLRB (Section 8(a)(4)) and 5. Employer refusal to bargain in good faith with union representatives (Section 8(a)(5)) Section 9 provides that unions, if certified or recognized, are the exclusive representatives of bargaining unit members. Section 9 prohibits the adjustment of employee grievances unless a union representative is given with opportunity to be present. In addition, Section 9 also establishes procedures for voting on union representation. The purpose of this exercise is to provide some guidelines for managers regarding their behavior in different situations to which the NLRA may pertain. Students are given work-related scenarios and asked to indicate whether the described behavior or policy is legal under the NLRA and present NLRB rulings. After they complete the exercise, pertinent NLRB opinions and court rulings are presented. The NLRA provides that allegations of unfair labor practice (ULP) violations must be filed and served within 6 months of the alleged violation. Employees covered by the Act and unions can use NLRB FORM 501 (Charge against employer) to file an ULP (For the FORM and more detail, Go to: http://www.nlrb.gov). When an ULP) charge is filed, a field office conducts an investigation to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe the NLRA was violated. If the Regional Director determines that the charge lacks merit, it is dismissed. A dismissal may be appealed to the General Counsel's office of the NLRB. If the Regional Director finds reasonable cause to believe a violation of the law has been committed, that office of the NLRB seeks a voluntary settlement to remedy the alleged violations. If the settlement efforts fail, a formal complaint is issued and the case goes to a hearing before an NLRB Judge. The judge issues a written decision that may be appealed to the five-member NLR Board in Washington for a final agency determination. About 30,000 ULPs are filed each year and about one-third are found to have merit. Over 90 percent are settled. The NLRA also empowers the NLRB to petition a federal district court for an injunction to temporarily prevent unfair labor practices by employers or unions and to restore the status quo, pending the full review of the case by the Board. The NLRA also requires the Board to seek a temporary federal court injunction against certain forms of union misconduct, principally involving "secondary boycotts" and certain forms of picketing. An NLRB decision is subject to review by a U.S. Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. Most of the "correct" answers to the questions are based on NLRB rulings. Keep in mind that the NLRB can reverse positions on these issues and that the Courts can overturn an NLRB ruling. You should have more faith in the correct answer when that answer is based on a Court ruling, especially a Supreme Court ruling. Research indicates that the NLRA has been interpreted at least to some extent based on the political leanings of the decision-makers, either the NLRB members or federal judges. Of course, the NLRA can also be amended based on NLRB and court rulings. 1. Managers do not have to worry about the NLRA if the workers they manage are not in a union. Answer: False. Section 7 of the NLRA provides, in addition to the right to organize, "employees shall have the right to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. It should be noted that this right extends equally to nonunion and union employees or even to those in the process of seeking unionization. 2. Non-union workers cannot go on strike. Answer: False. In Makua Inc., 327 NLRB 803 (1999), the NLRB held that an employee's one person strike was "protected activity under the NLRA because it was an outgrowth of the employee's activities in behalf of a union and resulted from his protest of the company's unfair labor practices. 3. A company can adopt a no pro-union shirt rule. Answer: False. In the same case, Makua Inc., 327 (NLRB 803 (1999) the NLRB said that the refusal of the company Vice-President to meet with two employees to discuss improvements in wages and benefits comparable to those paid by unionized employees constituted a NLRA violation. Both employees were wearing union T-shirts. The Vice-President told them not to wear the union insignia because it might offend customers. The NLRB considered these "Unfair Labor Practices" under Section 8(a)1 of the NLRA. 4. A manager can invoke the "employment-at-will" doctrine and fire a non-union worker who complains about too much overtime. Answer: False. A one-time concerted refusal to work required overtime shifts is "presumptively" protected activity. See Polytech, Inc. 195 NLRB 695 (1972). Also, even if the overtime is voluntary, multiple refusals may also be protected. See Justa Manufacturing, 246 NLRB 48 (1979), enforced, 634 F.2nd 623 (4th Circuit 1980). 5. A manager can invoke the "employment-at-will" doctrine and fire an employee who refuses to obey an order she feels is unsafe. Answer: False. When employees are faced with a situation where, in the employee's view, compliance with the supervisor's order would result in immediate risk to the employees' health or safety, a refusal by the employees to obey will, in many circumstances, constitute "protected activity." See Mead Corp., 331 NLRB 509, 513 (2000). 6. A manager can fire an employee who fails to use the company complaint process and walks off the job in protest of working conditions. Answer: False. If nonunion or union employees walk off the job to protest a condition of their employment. See NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9th Cir. (1962). The walkout will be protected even if the employees have failed to utilize complaint procedures or notify the employer of their dissatisfaction. See Eaton Warehousing Co., 297 NLRB 106 (1991) enforced, 989 F. 2nd 500 (6th Cir. 1993). 7. A manager can fire an employee who refuses to work an overtime shift. Answer: True, if this is the choice by an individual employee. False, if it has been determined to be concerted activity. A one time concerted refusal to work required overtime shifts is presumptively protected activity. See Polytech, Inc., 195 NLRB 695 (1972). 8. A manager can fire an employee who voices a complaint in an offensive or disruptive manner. Answer: False. Even when an employee voices a complaint in an offensive or disruptive manner, s/he may nonetheless be engaging in protected concerted activity if speaking for others, even if the employee is voicing a minority opinion. See NLRB v. Jasper Seating Company, 857 F. 2d 419 (7th Cir. 1988). 9. A company may include a rule in its Handbook that prohibits employees from discussing their wages. Answer: False. An employer's rule prohibiting wage discussions was an unfair labor practice because such discussions involve protected activity. An employer's unqualified rule barring these discussions" has the tendency to inhibit such activity." Wilson Trophy Co. NLRB 989 F 2d, 1502,1510 (8th Cir. 1993). 10. Managers can bar off-duty employees from entry to parking lots and other non-working areas. Answer: False. Except when justified by business reasons, a rule which prohibits off duty employees entry to parking lots, gates, and other nonworking areas will be unlawful. See Tri County Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089 (1976). 11. Managers can bar off-site employees from access to an employer's facilities. Answer: False. Even off site employees of an employer have access rights to an employer's facilities. Hillhaven Highland House, 336 NLRB 646 (2001) enforced. 344 F. 3rd d 523 (6th Cir.2003) (holding that under Section 7, off site employees have a "nonderivative access right for organizational purposes, to their employer's facilities.") 12. A manager can fire an employee who makes disparaging remarks about the employer in a newspaper article or on the internet. Answer: False. In Allstate Insurance Co., 332 NLRB 759, 763 (2000). The Board found that an employee's criticism of her employer in a magazine article was protected concerted activity and that a disciplinary warning in response to such activity was in violation of Section 8 (9) (1). 13. An employer can ban all non-business e-mail correspondence among employees. Answer: True. In The Guard Publishing Company, d/b/a The Register-Guard, 351 NLRB No. 70 (December 16, 2007), the NLRB held that an employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining a policy that prohibited employees from using the employer's e-mail system for any "non-job-related solicitations." Absent discrimination, employees have no statutory right to use an employer's equipment or media for Section 7 communications. 14. Because of the employment at will doctrine, managers do not necessarily have to apply work rules consistently. Answer: False; this would be risky business if the inconsistency is shown to be related to any activity or behavior covered under the NLRA. 15. A manager can appoint non-union subordinates to a committee to discuss working conditions. Answer: True. However, if these nonunion employees or committees are found to be "dealing with" employees (i.e. addressing employee issues on a routine basis) , they may be considered "employer dominated" labor organizations in violation of the NLRA. See Keeler Brass Com 317 NLRB 1110 (1995). It should be noted, however, that committees that are formed only to brainstorm, or relay information to the employer, do not violate the NLRA act. 16. A manager can fire a non-union employee who is picketing a store during off-duty hours for purposes of organizing the workers. Answer: False. Generally speaking, "recognitional picketing" is legal and cannot be enjoined for at least 30 days. 29 U.S.C 158 (b) (7). 17. A manager can fire an employee if the manager finds out that the employee is a paid union organizer. Answer: False. The Supreme Court ruled in NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, Inc. 516 U.S. 85 (1995) that this is a violation of the NLRA. This tactic, called "salting," had its genesis in the construction industry. The court has stated that "salts" are "employees" for purposes of the NLRA and are therefore, protected from discrimination on the basis of their union activity. 18. A manager can refuse to hire a job applicant if the manager knows the applicant is a union member. Answer: False: Also in NLRB v. Town & Country, nine unemployed union members (to whom the union had promised extra pay for conducting organizational activities) applied for jobs. The employer refused to hire ten of the union applicants The Supreme Court unanimously held that the applicants were considered "employees entitled to the NLRA's protections, including the protection against refusal to hire and discharge under Section 8 (a) (3)." 19. An employer can adopt a no "Moonlighting" policy if the employer is concerned about paid union organizers being hired. Answer: Conditionally False. If the policy was established to prevent hiring union sympathizers, it would probably be illegal. 20. An employer can refuse to hire an over-qualified individual if management knows the individual is sympathetic to unions. Answer: False. "Salts" often apply for jobs for which they are overqualified to permit them to gain access to unorganized employees. If not hired the salt's claim of antiunion discrimination is often stronger because the employer hired an applicant with inferior qualifications or experience. To avoid this, employers may be able to legitimately establish a policy of refusing to consider all overqualified candidates. The policy should not be motivated by antiunion animus, and must be enforced mutually and consistently. Even if the intent can be shown, the Board may consider this type of policy to be a pretext for discrimination against salts. In Aztech Electric Co., 335 NLRB 260 (2001), the Board decided, based on the facts of the policy of not hiring any applicant with a recent wage earning of 30 percent or more than the employer's starting wage, was in violation of the employee's rights under the NLRA. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit held that because the wage comparability rule was not motivated by antiunion animus, its application was nondiscriminatory. See Contractor's Labor Pool v. NLRB, 323 F. 3d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 21. An employer can refuse to hire an applicant who violates a company rule forbidding disclosure by applicants of "protected activity" such as union organizing. Answer: False. Applicants should not be interrogated concerning their union sympathies. Teletech Holdings, Inc. 333 NLRB 402 (2001). 22. A manager is allowed to say strikes are "inevitable" if there is a union. Answer: False. The employer should never say that strikes are "inevitable." However, employers should advise employees that the law permits an employer to hire permanent replacements for economic strikers, and replacements need not be displaced when the strike ends. See NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Tel. Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938). 23. A manager can say that the store or plant will shut down if a union is voted in. Answer: False. Threatening that the employer will close the business or that employees will lose jobs in the event that a union is elected also is prohibited. See Shearer's Foods, Inc., 2003 NLRB Lexis 819 (Nov. 28, 2003). 24. A manager can ask employees questions about where they stand on unions. Answer: False. To determine whether questioning of employees constitutes unlawful interrogation, the NLRB applies a "totality of circumstances test." This takes into consideration (a) the nature of the information sought, (b) the identity of the questioner, (c) the place and method of interrogation and, (d) the truthfulness of the reply. See Westwood Healthcare Care Center 330 NLRB 935, (2000). 25. An employer can promise increases in employee benefits during an organizing campaign. Answer: False. Although the NLRA does not limit the promises that a union can make during an organizing campaign, employers are prohibited from promising, expressly or otherwise, wage increases or improved working conditions for the purpose of convincing employees to vote against union representations after a petition requesting an election has been filed. See Niblock Excavating, Inc. 337 NLRB 53 (2001) enforced 59 Fed. App. 882 7th Cir. (2003). 26. An employer can impose a "No solicitation" rule stipulating no union organizing. Answer: False. Prohibitions restricting solicitations during working hours are facially unlawful because they imply a prohibition from the beginning to the end of the shift. See North Hills Office Serv. Inc., 2005 NLRB Lexis 10 at 38 (Jan. 14, 2005). No solicitation rules should incorporate a clear statement as to their scope. If "they can reasonably be construed as including traditionally nonwork time such as breaks or lunch time,' they will be deemed "overload" and violative of section 8 (a) (i). Magan Medical Clinic, 314 NLRB 1083 (1994). 27. An employer can allow antiunion activity during work hours while disallowing pro-union activity. Answer: False. If the employer permits antiunion solicitation by employees but prohibits prounion solicitation, it violates Section 8 (a) (1). Albertson's, Inc. 323 NLRB 1, (1997) enforced 161 F. 3d 1231 (10th Cir. 1998). 28. An employer can allow charities to distribute material while not allowing a union from distributing information. Answer: False. Employer violated NLRA when it prohibited union members from distributing information but permitted solicitation by Shriners and Salvation Army. See Four B Corporation 325 NLRB No. 20 (1997) enforced, 163 F3d, 1177. 29. An employer can ban pro-union buttons or insignia during working hours. Answer: False. Absent special circumstances, an employer may not interfere with an employee's right to wear a button or other insignia during working hours. Pioneer Hotel, Inc. v. NLRB, 182 F. 3d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1999). However, employees may lose protection of the Act if a slogan is offensive or otherwise severely disparages the employer. See Komatsu America Corp., 2004 NLRB Lexis 427 at 8 (July 30, 2004). 30. An employer can ban union material from a bulletin board that allows Red Cross solicitations. Answer: False. Employer found in violation of the Act by removing union literature from bulletin boards while allowing solicitation for the United Way, March of Dimes, and personal postings like thank you notes, birth announcements, etc. Ford Motor Co., 315 NLRB 609 (1994). 31. An employer can ban pro-union screen-savers on the employer's computer. Answer: False. In St; Josephs's Hospital, 337 NLRB 94 (2001), the Board stated that the employer violated 8 (a) (1) by prohibiting an employee from having "Look for the U" on her screen saver while allowing messages such as "Go FSU" or "Go Buccaneers." An employer can ban all screen savers including pro-union savers as long as there are no exceptions. 32. A manager is allowed to say wages and benefits are not paid during a strike. Answer: True. Employers may emphasize that wages and benefits are not paid during a strike. 33. A manager is allowed to say unemployment insurance is unavailable during a strike. Answer: True. Managers may provide this information. Unemployment insurance is unavailable in many states until after a waiting period and not available at any time in some states. 34. A manager is allowed to say that strike benefits are only available to workers who picket. Answer: True. Strike benefits are only available to employees who participate in picketing the employer. 35. A manager is allowed to say "my eyes are on you and you'd better watch your step" to a pro-union employee. Answer: False. If there is any implication that an employer may or may not take action against an employee solely for reasons unrelated to economic necessity, the statement is a threat of retaliation based on coercion, and as such, is without First Amendment Protection. See Jewish Home for the Elderly, 2004 NLRB Lexis J 61. 36. A manager can hire "permanent replacement workers" during a strike action and these replacements need not be displaced when the strike ends. Answer: True. The NLRA permits an employer to hire "permanent replacements" for economic strikers, and replacements need not be displaced when the strike ends. However, as a practical matter, "economic strikers" may lose their jobs but it is unlawful for the employer to express it in those terms. See Piezo Technology 253 NLRB 900 (1980). Also HR professionals need to be aware that the NLRB grants preferential reinstatement rights to economic strikers. See Golden Stevedoring Co., 335 NLRB 410 (2001). 37. The use of employee survey data (see statement below). A retailer surveys its employees annually as part of its "Grass Roots" program. The survey is designed to assess employees' perceptions on work-related issues. Results are tabulated by store, and the top three concerns are posted at each store. Formerly known as the Union Potential Index, the Unresolved People Index (UPI) is used to identify stores at risk of union organizing activity. True or False. The use of the UPI is legal under the NLRA. Answer: True, but a situation where the survey results led to dismissing certain employees or a department or unit was closed based strictly on these results could be interpreted as a violation of the NLRA. 38. An employee has a blog he uses to encourage employees to form a union. In this blog, he makes false statements regarding the employer. The employer can therefore fire him. Answer: Conditionally false; False statements are protected as long as the employee making the statements does so neither knowingly nor recklessly. However, employees have no right under the NLRA to propagate lies knowingly or recklessly. Therefore, an employee who spreads harmful and sensitive rumors that the employee knows or should know are false is not protected by the NLRA. Chapter Exercise 13.3 The Baseball Strike: An Example of Collective Bargaining Joseph G. Clark, Jr. IM Notes prepared by Joyce E. A. Russell Objective. This exercise describes the difficulties that can arise from two-party negotiations. It also enables students to see some of the preparation involved in collective bargaining, and to prepare an argument for the advancement of goals in collective bargaining. Description. The exercise should take about 15 minutes of in-class time for students to select who will be on each team (baseball players union, team owners) as well as selection of the mediator. The professor may want to pick one or two mediators based on those with effective negotiating skills. After individually reading the appropriate exhibit (Exhibit 13.3.1 for students assigned to the players union and Exhibit 13.3.2 for students assigned to the baseball owners group), students should discuss their views with others on their team. The discussion should focus on what they will ask for in the negotiations. These small group discussions may take about 20 minutes of in-class time. Once both sides are ready, they should begin the formal negotiation process. The professor should time the discussion and end the talks when 25 minutes have elapsed or when a final decision has been reached. The mediator may be called in if either side chooses to use mediation. It would be fruitful to brief students on the issues involved in the latest union and management baseball negotiations. Table 13.3.1 Responses to Form 13.3.1 Reaction Form 1. What were the terms of the final agreement negotiated between the two sides? Students should describe what the final terms were that were agreed upon by both sides. 2. What were the difficulties that arose while trying to reach an agreement? Students may discuss personality issues, communication skills, and differences of opinions, etc. as the major difficulties. 3. What role can you see the mediator playing during bargaining of this type? The mediator can be quite effective in helping a negotiation of this type where both sides refuse to budge on their positions. A mediator is trying to work for both sides to get them various things they want. 4. During collective bargaining, discussions can become heated. Did this occur during the exercise, and, if so, how was this resolved? Students should describe any conflicts that arose. More than likely some tensions will arise, and what will be interesting is whether or not they are resolved. If the students did resolve the tension, it would be important to discuss how this was done. 5. In the future, what techniques might both sides try to better gain their objectives? Make sure that each side has a clear sense of what is most important to them, and what they are willing to give in on. They should also make sure they have good representation (i.e., someone who can speak effectively for their side and the group feels will represent them fairly). CHAPTER 14 – CHAPTER EXERCISES Chapter Exercise 14.1 The Development of a Company Smoking Policy Objective. The purpose of Exercise 14.1 is to have students recognize and understand the controversy surrounding smoking in the workplace, and apply this knowledge by designing a workplace smoking policy. The exercise requires the student to integrate material from Chapter 3 (Equal Employment Opportunity). Description. Part A requires each student to formulate a smoking policy. This should take no more than one hour of out of class preparation in addition to reading the chapter. The student is asked to assume the role of a committee member who has been appointed to develop a new policy for the clerical staff of a law firm. Table 14.1.1 presents several factors that should be considered in the design of a successful program. Table 14.1.2 provides a model for the development of a policy. You should emphasize that the legality of a policy may depend on the location of the company since state and local laws may differ. Part B requires students to assemble in groups and compare policies. About 40 minutes should be set aside for discussion and another 15 minutes should be allotted for group presentations. In order to enhance the group discussion, you should encourage students to examine approaches currently being used by organizations. For example, the Bureau of National Affairs publishes a weekly newsletter, called the Bulletin to Management: BNA Policy and Practice Series, which reports on a variety of HRM activities, including the development of smoking policies. Other periodicals of interest include Management Review, Safety and Health, Supervision, and Training and Development Journal, to name a few. These publications should be available in your local library. You should emphasize that there is no "one right answer." Instead, students should use their own logical reasoning to decide on an anti-drug policy. CASE DISCUSSION Although student responses may vary, most will agree that smoking policies are beneficial to organizations. Not long ago, smoking was a well accepted habit. However, in the midst of today's health and fitness craze, many people view smoking as unhealthy, and even offensive. Given this trend it is unlikely that students will advocate taking no action at all. Rather, in one form or another, they will suggest some type of smoking policy. Table 14.1.1 presents some of the issues surrounding the development of smoke free practices. For example, there are many reasons for adopting a workplace smoking policy. A Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) survey found that the most popular reason was a concern for employees' health, followed by complaints from nonsmokers, legal compliance, and concerns about welfare costs. Least cited reasons included concerns about smokers' job performance (e.g., productivity, absenteeism) and concerns about high business insurance costs. Probably the most controversial aspect of developing a smoking policy is deciding on the proper strategy to employ. Some of the more popular options are discussed below. Option 1: Refusing to hire nonsmokers in the future This is a possibility but could be illegal. Page 489- “The Michigan company that banned all smoking (on and off the job) could not impose such a rule in most of the 29 states with “smokers’ rights laws.” A New Jersey state law, for example, prohibits discrimination in hiring, pay, and working conditions against smokers “unless the employer has a rational basis for doing so.” Unfortunately, it is now up to employers to determine what constitutes a “rational basis.” Are higher health care costs a rational basis? The state of New York has one of the most sweeping laws regarding protections for nonsmokers. Employers must adopt and post a written policy on smoking that must include smoke-free work and eating areas. Option 2: Preventing New Hires and Incumbents from Smoking Off-the-Job While employers have the right to establish smoke free workplaces, their right to impose rules, which restrict smoking off the job, remains uncertain. However, the fact that the tobacco industry has joined forces with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to promote smokers' rights may mean that employers with such stringent policies will face increased numbers of lawsuits. In general, the rationale from the first scenario applies here as well. Option 3: Allowing Smoking In Designated Areas Only This approach appears to accommodate both sides as it respects smokers' rights to privacy and nonsmokers' rights to avoid the effects of second hand smoke. For example, the law firm in this case could prohibit smoking in certain areas (e.g., offices, meeting rooms, computer areas, elevators), while allowing smoking in other areas (e.g., sections of employee lounges, rest rooms, outside the office building). Employee attitude surveys could be used to decide upon the location of designated areas. ` Option 4: Strict Ban on Smoking in the Workplace As mentioned earlier, employers do have the right to ban smoking on the job. Further, given the amount of evidence that documents the hazards of smoking and exposure to second hand smoke (page 488), it should not be surprising to see organizations take this approach. However, such an approach is almost certainly going to cause resistance from nonsmokers. Short term effects might include lower employee morale and dissension among smokers and nonsmokers. Long term implications could include increased absenteeism and/or increased voluntary turnover of high performing smokers. Table 14.1.1 also lists others factors to consider when creating smoking policies. Employers may be able to avoid morale or even legal problems by implementing policies that have been carefully designed to ensure fair, nondiscriminatory practices. Table 14.1.2 presents a guide for the development of such a policy. Such policies will also enable organizations to maintain a high quality of work life (QWL). Other Questions for Discussion: The following questions have no "correct" answers. Instead, they were designed to stimulate further group discussion. 1. In response to charges of discrimination, could employers claim that refusing to hire applicants who smoke and/or requiring incumbents to quit smoking is a business necessity? (Refer back to Chapter 3. Consider that most companies pay for employees' health insurance, health costs are rising, and smokers tend to have higher premiums. For example, in a recent in house survey, Texas Instruments found that smokers’ health costs were 50% higher than nonsmokers.) 2. What is the smoking policy at your university? at local businesses? 3. Suppose you work for a company that allows smoking in designated areas only (e.g., lounge area and outside). Over time you find that employees who smoke frequently leave their immediate office area to briefly smoke a cigarette. Should these individuals receive more break times than their nonsmoking counterparts? NO. What could be done, if anything, to ensure fairness toward nonsmokers? Break Time should be equal for everyone. More information on smoking: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Guide to Workplace Smoking Policies” recommends that employers create ventilated smoking lounges to separate smokers from nonsmokers. One study found that smokers in a nonsmoking organization reduced the number of cigarettes smoked per work shift and decreased levels of nicotine and carbon monoxide. Thus, worksite smoking restrictions may promote meaningful reductions in tobacco exposure and consequent health risks. One of the most volatile issues for human resource professionals today is a company’s position on smoking. Growing information about the adverse effects of secondhand smoke has led to a call for a ban on smoking in the workplace. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that secondhand smoke causes 3,800 lung cancer deaths per year and classified it as a “class A” life-threatening carcinogen, a rating used only for substances (i.e., asbestos, radon, benzene) proven to cause cancer in humans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that $75 billion is spent annually on medical expenses attributed to smoking. Businesses lose $82 billion in lost productivity from smokers. And smokers take about 6.5 more sick days a year than nonsmokers. About one in five Americans—or 46 million people—smoke. The costs of property fires ($500 million per year) and additional cleaning required because of smoking ($4 billion per year) are also significant. The American Heart Association reported that passive smoking is the third greatest preventable cause of death in the United States. A growing number of companies are banning smoking for employees both on and off the job. Weyco, a Michigan-based health care company, told their current employees who smoked that they had 15 months to quit. Weyco offered free cessation classes and even paid. They then banned all smoking from its property, banned all smokers from new positions, and conducted breath tests to determine if employees smoked. If employees test positive, they’re charged $50 a month if they weren’ t enrolled in a cessation program. When they tested everyone again, four employees refused to be tested and were terminated. The company stated that the no-smoking policy was part of Weyco’s goal for healthy lifestyles. Critics are concerned about the “slippery slope” regarding lifestyle. Weyco employs a health consultant to help workers with their diet. What comes next; a no Big-Mac policy? The Michigan company that banned all smoking could not impose such a rule in most of the 29 states with “smokers’ rights laws.” A New Jersey state law, for example, prohibits discrimination in hiring, pay, and working conditions against smokers “unless the employer has a rational basis for doing so.” Unfortunately, it is now up to employers to determine what constitutes a “rational basis.” Are higher health care costs a rational basis? The state of New York has one of the most sweeping laws regarding protections for nonsmokers. Employers must adopt and post a written policy on smoking that must include smoke-free work and eating areas. Table 14.1.1 Issues to Consider in the Design of a Smoking Policy
ISSUE COMMENTS
1. What is the reason for adopting the policy? - Concern about: employee health and/or comfort health care/ insurance costs smoker behaviors (e.g., increased absenteeism, lost productivity) state or local law complaints from non smokers
2. What type of strategy can be employed? Options may include not hiring applicants who smoke, terminating employees who smoke, preventing employees from smoking on or off the job, or establishing designated smoking areas.
3. Do any relevant state or local laws exist? Two fifths of the United States now have smokers' rights laws, including New Jersey, Colorado, and Indiana.
4. What is the population of interest? Employers that require their workforce to be physically fit (e.g., pilots, fire fighters, police) may be justified in their attempts to refuse to hire smokers.
5. What type of industry is the policy for? Smoking may be unsuitable for companies in industries such as food services, health services, and in hazardous environments where materials are flammable (e.g., petroleum industry).
6. What are the consequences for noncompliance? Discipline options may include oral warnings, written warnings, mandatory attendance in smoking cessation programs, mandatory leave of absence, and ultimately, termination.
7. What environmental changes are necessary? Are current ventilation systems suitable for designated smoking areas? Do ashtrays and/or cigarette vending machines need to be removed from certain areas? Are signs posted designating smoking areas?
Table 14.1.2 Suggested Steps for Designing a Company Smoking Policy 1. Attain top management support (especially effective if CEO's, VP's, etc., quit smoking). 2. Form a committee consisting of smokers and nonsmokers (participation usually leads to increased buy in and commitment). 3. Survey the workforce and assess attitudes toward smoking. 4. Review pertinent local and state laws. 5. Consult with relevant parties (e.g., legal counsel, union). 6. Educate the workforce on the effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). 7. Offer assistance programs for smokers wishing to quit (e.g., smoking cessation workshops, vending machines with nicotine chewing gum) . 8. Create incentive systems for employees to quit smoking (e.g., cash awards, prizes, lower insurance rates). 9. Create disincentive systems for smokers (e.g., higher insurance premiums). 10. Ensure that the program is consistent with existing career development efforts (e.g., corporate wellness programs). 11. Make environmental changes as needed (e.g., modify ventilation systems, remove ashtrays and cigarette vending machines, and post no-smoking signs where appropriate). 12. Establish specific penalties for noncompliance and enforce in a consistent, fair manner. Chapter Exercise 14.2 The Development of an Anti-drug Policy Marilyn A. Perkins Objective. The purpose of Exercise 14.2 is to have students consider another controversial issue facing organizations today – the development and implementation of substance abuse policies. The exercise is designed to help the student understand the implications of various anti-drug policies for both employers and employees. The exercise requires the student to integrate material from Chapters 3 (Rehabilitation Act of 1973, ADA of 1990) and 6 (drug testing issues). Description. The Individual Analysis (Part A) should take the student no more than one hour to complete out of class. The student is asked to assume the role of a task force member who has been asked to critique a potential anti-drug policy and offer his/her position (in memo form) to the board of directors. For the Control Analysis (Part B) of Exercise 14.2, groups of no more than 4 6 students should be used. At least 60 minutes should be allotted for group discussion. It is strongly suggested that each group member be allowed to review all other student memos at the outset of the meeting since this tends to facilitate discussion. At the end of group discussion, each group should be encouraged to come up with an eclectic policy - one that appears to capture the best features from each of the individual policies. As an option, you may choose to have one group member report the consensus recommendations to the rest of the class. This topic usually results in stimulating group discussion. In order to increase the variety of responses, you should encourage students to explore some of the programs currently being used by organizations. Information about anti-drug programs can be found in periodicals such as those listed in Exercise 14.2. These publications should be available in your local library. You should emphasize that there is no "one right answer." Instead, students should use their own logical reasoning to decide on an anti-drug policy. CASE DISCUSSION Students will no doubt agree that a substance abuse program, aimed at providing employers and their employees with safe, drug free workplaces, is an organizational goal worth achieving. However, students' opinions about how such a program should be developed will likely vary. Most students will generally agree that while some of the drug free workplace policies, developed by the security department, are plausible, others are not. Possible responses to each of the five policy statements are offered below. When applicable, recent research findings in the area of employee drug testing are presented. 1. Any employee with a substance abuse problem should be reported to the security department, regardless of whether the substance abuse was detected by management or self reported. Students’ responses to this statement will be mixed. As stated in the scenario, if the employee assistance program (EAP) is required to report all self referrals, there is a high probability that such a strategy will deter substance abusers from coming forward for fear of organizational discipline. A better approach might be to report only those self referrals who relapse (e.g., two- time offenders). 2. Drug testing should be conducted for all individuals filling sensitive positions and randomly for the entire organization. "Who" should be tested may be one of the most controversial issues to consider when developing a drug testing policy. Factors that might affect such decisions include: (1) job status (e.g., employed vs. seeking employment); (2) the type of organization (e.g., government vs. private sector); and (3) the type of job (e.g., safety related or not). From a legal perspective, HRM professionals would probably agree that testing job applicants is less risky than testing job incumbents. This would explain why more organizations use pre employment testing than testing of incumbents. In regards to the exercise, a better, more specific policy would state that all applicants will be tested, and those who fail will not be hired. When implementing such testing, it is important to comply with EEO standards. That is, organizations should ensure that all applicants (both minority and non-minority) are tested in order to avoid challenges of disparate impact. According to the text, when dealing with current employees, organizations need to decide whether testing will be done only "for cause," or randomly without cause. Because the employer in the exercise is a federal contractor, would be bound by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, random drug tests could be perceived as unreasonable search and seizure. However, based on recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, it would be reasonable to require testing for those "sensitive" jobs involving public safety. On the other hand, random testing for the company's "non-sensitive" jobs might pose a legal risk. A better policy might be one that allows testing on suspicion. For example, the federal contractor's anti-drug program might state that an employee may be tested for substance abuse after an accident or injury in the workplace, or if a supervisor has reason to believe that an employee is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Implicit in such a policy is that supervisors and managers have been trained to recognize substance abuse. Supplemental Exercise Material . Recent survey research using college students revealed that respondents were not very favorable toward random testing (Murphy, Thornton, & Reynolds, 1990). Instead, they preferred a strategy whereby all applicants or incumbents are tested. The findings also indicated that testing applicants or incumbents with past drug histories was preferable to testing on suspicion (i.e., "for cause"). 3. All positive test results should be reported to the security department. The text points out that many of the current drug testing methods may produce false positive findings (e.g., eating poppy seeds may result in an employee testing positive). For this reason alone, the federal contracting agency in this exercise should create a policy whereby positive results are verified by a second test before further administrative action is taken. Further, all testing needs to be confidential. Test results should only be disclosed to those particular individuals who need to know. This may or may not include all the members of the security department. Failing to maintain confidentiality may result in charges of defamation. Supplemental Exercise Material . Murphy et al. (1990) also found that as test results were distributed to a wider audience, attitudes toward employee drug testing became less favorable. For example, while respondents agreed that test results should be made available to an employee's immediate supervisor, they were less supportive of releasing this information to personnel departments and law enforcement agencies. In addition, respondents were very favorable toward programs that maintained confidentiality. 4. All employees testing positive on the first test should be terminated. While it is possible that some students may agree with this statement, many will suggest that organizational discipline not be limited to immediate discharge. Instead, programs may include more liberal measures such as confirmatory testing (e.g., getting a second opinion), a written warning, suspension, and/or mandatory participation in drug counseling efforts. Other provisions may include random testing for up to one year following substance abuse counseling or rehabilitation. Such policies may also stipulate that employees who refuse to participate in rehabilitation programs, fail to cooperate with testing procedures and guidelines, or get caught selling drugs will be terminated. Overall, whether a program is punitive or rehabilitative in nature depends on an organization's culture and top management's sense of social responsibility. For example, employee counseling and assistance programs are more likely to be found in organizations that express a concern for their human resources. Supplemental Exercise Material . Murphy et al. (1990) found that respondents were less favorable toward programs that were punitive in nature (e.g., programs that automatically rejected applicants or terminated employees who failed a drug test). Conversely, respondents were very favorable toward programs that provided applicants and incumbents with opportunities for treatment. 5. Any job applicant with a history of drug or alcohol abuse should not be hired. Though some students may agree with this position, for legal reasons many will not. The problem with this statement is that it may be perceived as discriminatory. According to both the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, individuals with disabilities include those with illnesses such as drug dependency or alcoholism. While ADA does not protect individuals who are current users, it does protect those who have overcome substance problems. Therefore, in accordance with ADA, those job applicants who are participating in a rehabilitation program and those who are currently drug free should be considered for employment with the federal contractor. Other Recommended Actions : In addition to the suggestions above and those noted in Chapter 14 (pp. 320-321,324), the federal contractor may want to include the following in its anti-drug program: 1. Attainment of top management support. 2. Development of supervisory training courses. Topics might include substance abuser profiles (e.g., mood changes, aggressive behavior, increased accident rates, excessive tardiness or absenteeism), dealing with potential substance abusers (e.g., displaying empathy/support), legal aspects of drug testing, etc. 3. Development of procedures for maintaining and disclosing confidential medical records. 4. Development of drug education programs. Topics might include the effects of drugs in the workplace and available treatment programs (e.g., EAPs). 5. Consultation with unions (if applicable). 6. Consultation with legal counsel before implementing the anti-drug policy to ensure compliance with relevant laws (e.g., EEO, ADA). 7. Periodic reviews and revisions of the program (e.g., Is right to privacy being ensured?). NOTE: Murphy, K. R., Thornton, G. C., & Reynolds, D. H. (1990). College student's attitudes toward employee drug testing programs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 615 631. Exercise 14.3 The Development of a Health and Safety Policy Objective. The purpose of Exercise 14.3 is to become familiar with OSHA's health and safety regulations, and to recognize the implications of these standards for both employers and employees. The exercise requires the student to integrate and apply material from Chapter 14. Description. The Individual Analysis (Part A) of this exercise requires about one hour of out of class preparation in addition to reading the chapter. The student is asked to assume the role of a consultant who has been contracted out by a manufacturing company to aid in the development of a health and safety policy. The Group Analysis (Part B) will require nearly one hour. About 40 minutes should be set aside for group discussion and another 15 minutes should be allotted for group presentations. Table 14.3.1 Answers to Form 14.3.1 1. What steps should Dynamic Duo’s owners take immediately? First we must determine if the CO followed the proper procedure for the on site inspection? (starting p. 469) No. The CO simply entered the plant. (The CO must show appropriate credentials and obtain the employer's consent if he/she does not have a probable cause search warrant or evidence of a violation. Refer to Marshall v. Barlow's Inc.) No. The CO did not have an opening conference and was not accompanied by either management or employees. No. The CO did not have a closing conference to discuss problems and needs of the Dynamic Duo, Inc. Consequently, the Duo's appeal rights were not explained, and the numerous services provided by OSHA were not discussed (e.g., speakers, training and technical materials). Note to student : From the background information, it is not clear whether the CO stated the company's deadline for correcting the situation. According to OSHA's standard procedures, if a violation(s) is not corrected within a stated time limit, OSHA will levy a fine against the company. Regardless, Dynamic Duo, Inc. should correct any of the violations discovered in the OSHA inspection, especially in light of the recent accidents and illnesses in the plant. Did Dynamic Duo, Inc. provide thorough training to the workers when the company opened? If so, were the injured workers deliberately flouting a known work rule? (Coincidental that four were hurt in one day.) Did Dynamic Duo owners know of any unsafe substances that the workers were exposed to (the right to know provision)? Is there a possibility that the "mysterious illness" would have occurred otherwise? Had Dynamic Duo complied with the "Hazard Communications Standard"? Lastly, Dynamic Duo must complete the proper "record keeping" forms for the injuries and illnesses reported on the job. As Dynamic Duo, Inc. has over 11 employees, the injuries and illnesses must be recorded. The two forms needed for record keeping are Forms 300 and 301. 2. What legal steps would you recommend that Dynamic Duo take? Dynamic Duo, Inc. should immediately appeal the original citation on the grounds that the inspection was not conducted legally and properly, nor did Dynamic Duo receive adequate direction and advice from OSHA in problem areas. The owners were seeking consultation and should follow through: The Dynamic Duo owners were concerned about providing a safe working environment (QWL) for their employees by bringing in an outside consultant (Consultation Assistance). "The general duty clause states that each employer `shall furnish . . . a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.´" It is Dynamic Duo's responsibility to self regulate safety in the workplace where OSHA has not published specific standards. Although there is no legal obligation, Dynamic Duo, Inc. may want to address employees' behavior, as well as their responsibility for a safe working environment. You may also want to advise Dynamic Duo, Inc. of possible programs for reducing or eliminating unsafe behavior. According to the text, these programs can be classified into four general areas: personnel selection, employee training and education, incentive programs, and safety rules and regulations . OSHA's "voluntary training guidelines" provide assistance that may be especially useful for new organizations that have no existing formal training development and evaluation programs. Finally, as an employer, Dynamic Duo should become familiar with their rights and responsibilities under OSHA. Similarly, they should inform all employees of their rights and responsibilities. 3. What advice would you give the owners concerning the company's obligations under OSHA to record accidents? OSHA requires that you complete Forms 300 and 301 (p. 469; Figure 14-3, page 471) for all injuries and illnesses that result in death, one or more lost workdays, restriction of work or motion, loss of consciousness, transfer to another job, and medical treatment. The seriously injured employee who caught his hand in a conveyor should be given medical treatment and be listed under injuries on Form 300. Dynamic Duo should ensure that Form 301 is completed and filed in a timely manner. (Note: If the worker becomes disabled due to the injury, the Dynamic Duo must provide "reasonable accommodation" for the worker under the ADA.) The "mysteriously ill" employee should be given medical treatment to determine the actual cause of the illness. If the diagnosis is job related, the worker needs to be listed under illnesses on Form 300. Again, the company should ensure that Form 301 is completed and filed in a timely fashion. The three other injured employees should not be recorded unless medical treatment was received or one of the other conditions was met. Based on the text, other advice might include: (1) posting a copy of the totals from the last page of Form 300 during the entire month of February each year; (2) posting the OSHA poster informing employees of their rights and responsibilities; (3) providing employees with access to Form 300 at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner; and (4) posting the citation and keeping it posted for 3 working days or until the violation has been abated. 4. Visit www.OSHA.gov and determine if you can provide any additional information to help make the plant safer. There are many possible sources of valuable information in the OSHA website. First, you need more information on the ergonomics and scaffolding problems. The OSHA website has very useful information regarding ergonomics information but the consultant needs more detail on the nature of the ergonomics problems so that a determination can be made as to what (if anything). OSHA has considerable detail on scaffolding. A BLS study found that 72 percent of workers injured in scaffold accidents attributed the accident either to the planking or support giving way, or to the employee slipping or being struck by a falling object. According to OSHA, these accidents can be controlled by compliance with OSHA standards. Scaffolding hazards are addressed in specific standards for the construction industry. Visit http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/constructionscaffolding/standards.html for highlights of OSHA standards and directives (instructions for compliance officers) related to scaffolding in the construction industry. OSHA requires employers to "comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act". Scaffold-related fatalities account for a significant number of fatalities in the construction industry. OSHA provides references to aid employers in recognizing and evaluating hazards and possible solutions relevant to scaffolds in the workplace. See “Guide to Scaffold Use in the Construction Industry” (OSHA Publication 3150). This guide addresses some of the most common questions about OSHA’s scaffold standard. For more options, go to: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/constructionscaffolding/recognition.html For information on ergonomics, go to: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ergonomics/ OSHA has a four-pronged comprehensive approach to ergonomics designed to quickly and effectively address musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in the workplace. The four segments of OSHA's strategy for reducing injuries and illnesses from MSDs in the workplace. See the discussion of OSHA’s “best practices” program on page 379. 5. How could Dynamic Duo be issued a citation for an ergonomics violation? Jack Richter says, “I thought they got rid of that stupid regulation.” What is your response? Employers can (and have been) cited under the “General Duty Clause.” See the discussion on page 477. The general duty clause states that each employer “shall furnish . . . a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” It's possible for Dynamic Duo to be issued a citation for an ergonomics violation if they fail to comply with ergonomic regulations set forth by relevant authorities. These regulations are in place to ensure the health and safety of workers by preventing injuries related to ergonomic hazards in the workplace. Ignoring or disregarding these regulations can result in citations and penalties. As for Jack Richter's comment about the regulation being "stupid," it's important to recognize that ergonomic regulations are implemented to protect workers from potential harm and promote a safer work environment. Dismissing these regulations as "stupid" overlooks the importance of prioritizing employee well-being and safety. It's essential to address any concerns or misunderstandings regarding regulations through open dialogue and a commitment to compliance rather than dismissing them outright. 6. Mr. Saline fired an employee who refused to work around some of the resins after three employees complained of stomach problems while working with the resins. The employee threatened to sue the company but Saline has invoked the ‘employment-at-will’ doctrine. Take a position on Mr. Saline’s argument. (p. 479) Under OSHA, employees can refuse to work and be supported by the law when certain unsafe conditions exist. Since four employees has become ill after using the resins Mr. Saline needs to determine if its workers are being protected from unsafe substances, per the right-to-know provision. Employment-at-will doctrine will likely not protect the company in this instance. Chapter Exercise 14.4 The Development of a Threat Management Team for a Workplace Violence Incident Susan M. Stewart IM Notes prepared by Joyce E. A. Russell Objective . The purpose of this exercise is to enable students to be better able to examine a situation to determine the extent to which threats to workplace violence may exist. As noted in the chapter, this is an area of growing concern for organizations today. Students should also be able to draft out a plan for dealing with possible threats to violence that can be used by an organization. Description . In the first part of this exercise, students are instructed to work individually to read the scenario presented in the exercise and to answer the questions on Form 14.4.1 and the Violent Incident Report on Form 14.2.2. This should take about one hour of out-of-class time for preparation. In the second part of the exercise, students will work in small groups (about 4-6) to reach consensus on their responses to Form 14.4.1. This should take about 20 minutes of in-class time. Finally, in class, the professor should lead a discussion with the entire group to review the cases, including problems and suggested recommendations. The professor should make sure to discuss advantages and disadvantages for all recommendations. The class discussion may take about 20-30 minutes or longer since the topic is a fairly new one that few students will have had much exposure to. Table 14.4.1 Responses to Form 14.4.1 What warning signs or symptoms were displayed before Roy's blow up? Rosalyn already feels that Roy might react poorly to the news based on her previous contact with him. He is older than she is, is viewed by most of his coworkers as a loner, and has a record of absenteeism and tardiness. Coworkers already know that one of his hobbies is shooting guns at the range (which gives him access to guns, even though it does not mean that he will necessarily be a threat). He apparently has voiced extremist views on issues, according to coworkers. Many of his characteristics fit the typical profile of a "violent employee profile" found in Figure 14.7 (middle-aged male, holds a blue-collar position, weapon owner, a loner, few interests, recently laid off, extremist views, and displays anger at work). 2. Were proper immediate action(s) taken after this incident? After Roy spoke angrily and lost his temper at the HR review session, some action should have been taken by the firm, yet it does not appear that any action was taken. In addition, after he was spotted sitting in the parking lot in his truck, some action should have been taken to remove him from the site (e.g., security could have had him leave the site). 3. Were time, money, and effort wasted or was a potential crisis averted in the meeting of the threat management team? It is important for the threat management team to act quickly to determine if Roy is a threat and then to act on this information. In the meantime, he should be kept off the premises by the security of the firm. Rosalyn is probably anxious about what Roy might do, especially if she sees him at the work site. She should be protected by the organization (i.e., they should make sure to keep Roy off the premises). 4. Discuss five ways in which the threat management team could be more effective. Make a quick decision about the potential for Roy as a threat. Notify company security and the local police if Roy has been determined to be a threat. Assist Rosalyn and other employees by making them aware of the situation and possible escape routes in the organization. Ensure that some employees are trained in providing emergency first aid in case of emergencies. If possible, have a medical person on staff. "Beef up" security at the firm with additional personnel, surveillance cameras, show of force by police or security (more drive bys by police). 5. What specific actions could be taken to create a security-conscious organizational culture at the manufacturing plant? In the future, engage in pre-employment screening to avoid having employees who pose a risk to others. Be sure that the firms' policies and procedures manual addresses issues of workplace violence. Educate and train managers and employees on what to look for and how to handle workplace violence. Require that employees or managers who fit the profile of violence, be required to attend an EAP. 6. What, if any, unique challenges may exist in this situation given the differences between Roy and Rosalyn, the production manger, in terms of gender, age, and tenure with the company? Rosalyn may feel more threatened than she might otherwise due to the fact that Roy is older, has been with the firm longer and is a male. She may be worried about not only physical abuse, but also rape or sexual assaults. It is important that security and the threat management team take her views seriously. Sometimes, if those teams are primarily men, they may feel that the woman is exaggerating or "overly concerned" about the situation. They may have more difficulty seeing the subtle forms of intimidation used by Roy when interacting with Rosalyn. Another issue is that Rosalyn might feel uncomfortable confronting Roy if he approaches her since she may feel bad about having to lay him off since he was with the company longer and is older. This may make her an easier target for Roy to intimidate. 7. What, if any, ethical issues (e.g., privacy) are involved when members of a threat management team seek to identify and report potentially dangerous employees? Ethical concerns do exist since the threat management team does not have perfect information and often has to act with incomplete data. They will make a judgment about the potential threat of a person and may make errors in their judgment (watching someone or referring someone to an EAP when they are not a threat). This is problematic, and yet the team should make sure to protect the possible victim’s rights as well. The company will need to decide on which side it will err - if they will be less likely to identify violent people (and take chances that they will engage in violence in the workplace) or if they will accuse people and make errors in accusing the wrong people. Solution Manual for Human Resource Management John H. Bernardin, Joyce E. A. Russell 9780078029165, 9780071326186