BUSI 343 Week 4 Discussion Board Forum 2 Example

Discussion Board Forum 2: Unions, Management and Productivity

BUSI 343 Employee and Labor Relations, Discussion Board Forum 2 Thread and Replies

Thread by [Student Name]

The forum prompt and the classmates' threads are composites; the textbook, research and Scripture cited are real.

Whether a union helps or hurts productivity depends far more on the relationship between the union and management than on the union's presence alone.

Budd (2012) describes two faces of unions. The monopoly face raises wages and may add work rules that limit how flexibly labor can be used, which can lower productivity. The collective voice face gives workers a channel to raise problems and suggest improvements, which can reduce turnover and help managers fix operations. Both faces exist in every union workplace; the question is which one dominates.

Research suggests the answer varies. Doucouliagos and Laroche (2003) combined dozens of studies and found no single union effect. Results differed by country, industry and period: union effects tended to be more positive in U.S. manufacturing, for example, and more negative in the United Kingdom. An average effect near zero hides workplaces where unions helped a great deal and others where they hurt, so a manager cannot simply look up the answer for a given plant.

Black and Lynch (2001) help explain the variation. Studying U.S. establishments, they found that unionized plants that adopted high-performance practices, such as joint decision making and profit sharing, were more productive than comparable nonunion plants, while unionized plants with traditional labor relations were less productive. The union was not the variable that mattered; the way the two sides worked together was.

Scripture describes the difference cooperation makes. When the people of Jerusalem rebuilt the wall, the work advanced quickly because the people had a mind to work (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Nehemiah 4:6). Shared purpose turned many hands into one effort, even with enemies watching from outside the wall. A manager who treats a union only as an adversary is likely to get the monopoly face; one who invites its voice may get the other, along with ideas from the people who know the work best.

Reply to Shawna

Shawna, your thread argued that union seniority rules and grievance protections make it hard to remove poor performers, and Budd (2012) agrees that some contract rules can limit managerial flexibility. I would add a mechanism that works in the other direction.

Freeman (1980) found that unionized workers quit at substantially lower rates than similar nonunion workers and explained it by voice: workers with a way to fix problems stay instead of leaving. Lower turnover means experienced workers stay longer and fewer resources go to hiring and training, and experienced workers are often the ones who spot problems on the line first. Grievance procedures can also give managers documented reasons when dismissal is truly warranted. Proverbs notes that plans collapse without advice and hold up when many advisers weigh in (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Proverbs 15:22). Do you think the savings from lower turnover could offset the cost of slower dismissals in the workplace you described?

Reply to Victor

Victor, your thread warned that adversarial labor relations hurt companies as much as workers, and your use of the discussion of distributive bargaining in Budd (2012) made the point well. One study shows how far the damage can reach.

Krueger and Mas (2004) examined a Bridgestone/Firestone plant in Decatur, Illinois, during a bitter dispute in the mid-1990s and found that tires produced there during the period of labor strife were far more likely to be defective than tires made at the same plant at other times or at other plants. The conflict showed up in the product itself, and the defective tires were later linked to serious accidents and a massive recall, a cost far beyond anything either side gained at the table. Proverbs contrasts a gentle reply that calms anger with a cutting word that inflames it (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Proverbs 15:1). What practices do you think could keep a hard negotiation from spilling onto the production floor?

References

Black, S. E., & Lynch, L. M. (2001). How to compete: The impact of workplace practices and information technology on productivity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(3), 434-445. https://doi.org/10.1162/00346530152480081

Budd, J. W. (2012). Labor relations: Striking a balance (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Doucouliagos, C., & Laroche, P. (2003). What do unions do to productivity? A meta-analysis. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 42(4), 650-691. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-232X.00310

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Freeman, R. B. (1980). The exit-voice tradeoff in the labor market: Unionism, job tenure, quits, and separations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94(4), 643-673. https://doi.org/10.2307/1885662

Krueger, A. B., & Mas, A. (2004). Strikes, scabs, and tread separations: Labor strife and the production of defective Bridgestone/Firestone tires. Journal of Political Economy, 112(2), 253-289. https://doi.org/10.1086/381479