Question

Once unions are organized according to the terms of the NLRA, the union and the employer try to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement to cover all the terms and conditions of employment for employees in the union. The textbook describes "terms and conditions," but the two biggest items are wages and benefits.

As part of this negotiation process, employers and the union must negotiate in good faith. Take a look at the NLRB v. Whitesell Corp. case. Here the employer tried to negotiate to an impasse, then unilaterally impose their conditions on the employees.

How much further do you think the employer should have negotiated before reaching impasse?

Example- I think that the employer should have continued to negotiate until there was truly a deadlock on all outstanding issues. If there had truly been an impasse reached both sides would have held their ground on one or more issues and were unwilling to budge. At that point an impasse in negotiations could have been declared.

Answer 1

National Labor Regulation Act 1935, is actually the foundation stone of US state labor laws. And the law guarantees the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions and go for a collective bargaining and to enact necessary actions like strike. This law established the National Labor Regulation Board to take necessary actions on those who breach the laws.

In the case between NLRB and Whitesell Corporation, the company was failed to negotiate with the labor unions present at that time. Actually the company was transferred to the new ownership under the Whitesell, and they failed to create a new agreement with the Labor's union. Actually the employer was ready to negotiate with the existing agreement but the union want an agreement on new conditions. But after the eight sessions of discussion the employer negotiated with the impasse. And the union filed a petition on violating labor laws.

I think there were no such serious issues which lead to such a decision by the employer. The issues existed are able to negotiate with the amicable solutions. The employees not argued for the extreme but they argue only for the intermediate decisions which favors both the sides in a good manner. And impasse can be passed only in harsh and extreme situations, where there is no way to go ahead. But in this case the impasse was Impacted too early and without a proper number of sessions to negotiate. Here in analysis some unnecessary rush in their decision can be clearly ascertained. I think that the matter would have been compromised if proper negotiations had gone ahead. The impasse must be enacted, only if such a condition failed.