1 paragraph for each answer, very easy. due in 4 hours
nyc promo
question_2_answers.docx(a) How did continuous bargaining and loyalty give Thompson a strategic or competitive advantage?
Continuous bargaining and loyalty allowed Thompson Products to thrive and be successful. Thompson made an allowance for reopening union contracts to negotiate wages and other issues. Employee loyalty was strong and this strategic move showed AWA members that their concerns were important. Union leaders showed continuous support of the company and let it be known that Thompson’s needs were just as important as their own. The relationship between union leaders and management created the perception that everyone was on the same page.
(b) Was the AWA employer-dominated or independent?
Although, the line between the AWA being employer-dominated or independent is blurred, I would classify it as employer-dominated. As previously mentioned the relationship between union leaders and management seems tangled. There were too many favors being exchanged. This this seems unethical. On the contrary, the AWA was assertive with management. They did not have an issue fighting for changes. The problem is the relationship between union leaders and management.
(c) If it was employer-dominated, did it matter (a) to employees or (b) morally?
The employees did not seem affected by whether the union was employer-dominated or not. Normally, employees are interested in the results. When promises are made can the union deliver? If so, then where is the issue? The employer made negotiations with the union for certain provisions and if they are seen to be fair employees are fine with that outcome. Unions have an ethical responsibility and should want to achieve its objectives. Nevertheless, I don't see an employer dominated union as unethical if common goals are being achieved between employer and employee.
How did continuous bargaining and loyalty give Thompson a strategic or competitive advantage?
a. The continuous bargaining and loyalty minimized the risk that workers would strike, which gave Thompson a clear advantage over its competitors. The relationship between union officers and the company also did a good job of facilitating better-faith negotiations. Continuous bargaining also allowed Thompson to appear as though it was more responsive than other companies to the needs of their workers.
2. Was the AWA employer-dominated or independent?
a. In many ways, the AWA was an employer-dominated union. The relationship between union leaders and management was too close, and there was a sort of “revolving door” policy for officers after their terms expired.
1. If it was employer-dominated, did it matter (a) to employees or (b) morally?
b. The fact that the AWA was an employer-dominated union did not matter to employees. At the end of the day, the AWA was able to deliver benefits to workers comparable to those offered by the UAW and other national unions. As a moral question, I am more inclined to say that it is problematic, but I will stop short of calling it wrong. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of a union to protect the interests of its members. If a dominated union can achieve those ends, then the union is not amoral.
A. Continuous bargaining and loyalty gave Thompson a strategic advantage because it fostered good relationships therefore lessening the aggressiveness of bargaining power of the union and their members.
B. The AWA was empoyer-dominated. They were bombarded by Management's bulletins, forced to listen to speeches and occasionally pressured by shop-floor favoritism. The AWA was independent and it did not answer to anyone neither did it confirm to policies.
C. This did not matter to employees because they were under the belief that the agency was genuine in collective bargaining on their behalf. They ahd a high degree of loyalty to management because of the company's financial success, the charisma of Crawford and the brand. Morality in the workplace is treating people with respect, offering a safe working environment and not showing preferential treatment. At some point preferential treatment was shown to AWA members at Thompson and that mattered morally.
A. In the Thompson company, due to continuous bargaining the workers were allowed to express their needs to management. The meetings were polite and each side was assuring the other that they were acting “fair and reasonable”. By creating good relationship between employee and employer, the company was able to prevent any type of serious disturbances. Looking for understanding, the management created the loyalty of employees. The employees had believes that their managers are interested in them. Crawford said about the working man that he was “starved for understanding and friendship and for the truth”. This attitude to the working man prevented strikes and the UAW, and that is why they were in business and did not lose much money as other companies did.
B. According to the author of the article, there was cooperation between the AWA and management. The AWA was depended on management and vice versa. This type of relationship gave the AWA “some of its bargained power but at the same time constrained it not to be too aggressive”. It means that the AWA was not completely independent, but provided no less freedom for the workers than the UAW.
C. If it was employer-dominated, it mattered to employees. It was very important for the employees to express their needs and opinion. After the employees got the access to the management, they wanted to see the results of their work in the union and they had them. If the Thomson company was dominated, employees would express the grievances not at the meetings but at the strikes.
If it was employer-dominated, it would be also moral issue. To keep the trust-worthy image of the company, the management should consider such moral issues as good attitude to people who work for them.
How did continuous bargaining and loyalty give Thompson a strategic or competitive advantage?
Continuous bargaining allows a contract to include an outline of wages, hours, and working conditions, and the terms of employment. One of TPEA’s greatest weaknesses was the lack of agreement regarding wages. When it failed, people turned to AAWA. In 1938 the AAWA asked to revive the company’s vacation plan, but Lee Clegg, company vice president, denied it because they did not have it in the budget. AAWA quickly refuted Clegg’s claim by presenting data that showed many local firms giving vacation time to junior workers. At the next meeting, management gave in and agreed to extend vacations to workers with over three years of service. There was a time where employers had all the say in wages, working conditions, and etc. However, with the help of AAWA, employees have more power to discuss the wages and much more.
B) Was the AWA employer-dominated or independent?
The AAWA had some independence and was willing to press an issue until a compromise could be reached. In 1939, the AAWA asked for an increase of 5 cents to the wage. The company refused, however they were willing to pay a special bonus instead. The AAWA took the offer and asked again for 7 cents a year later. The AAWA point out the management that they are in a rising labor market, and that the law of supply and demand holds good as to labor as well as to production. They knew without workers there would be no products and without products, the company would be forced into bankruptcy from the lack of income.
C) If it was employer-dominated, did it matter (a) to employees or (b) morally?
If it were employer-dominated, the environment in which the discussion would take place would definitely change for the better of the employers. Employers would have more say in what goes on. Employers always want to maximize their profit and one way of maximizing their profit is to cut salary expense. They want to look favorable to the stockholders, creditors, bankers, and future investors. In order to do that, they need to look good on paper.
Thompson and the AWA coming together as a game plan were strategic in gaining advantage over the UAW. The AWA was less militant and more dependent on the company. They had more cooperation and trusting relations with management.
The AWA can be viewed as an employer dominated based on some things read and their actions. But further reading goes on to provide that they may have fall in the middle, with them being ILU’s. AWA when compared to other ILU’s was less aggressive and independent than some and, more so than others.
Employer dominated unions can ignore the law and dominate and interfere with administrations and affairs. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 makes this unfair labor practice. For employees this can affect conditions of employment, such as grievances, wages, hours and working conditions. Being an employer dominated defeats the employee rights to self-organization and affects collective bargaining.
(a) Continuous bargaining and loyalty gave Thompson more of an advantage because it lets the worker's know he will continuously work hard for their earned wages. Thompson's bargaining reassures the worker's that they will be paid fairly. His loyalty favors in the competitive field due to the fact that if either Thompson or AWA needed assistance, they were there for each other. Teamwork and loyalty is the key to being powerful leading to ah higher advantage.
(b) AWA would be considered employer dominated because AWA and Thompson worked together not against each other. Thompson would raise wages and provide great benefits to the workers which also showed that it was employer dominated rather than independent.
