Not that we need another imposed contract thread....but I’m confused

MyTripisCut

“They” are coming for us.
What rules govern collective bargaining for a contract?

After employees choose a union as a bargaining representative, the employer and union are required to meet at reasonable times to bargain in good faith about wages, hours, vacation time, insurance, safety practices and other mandatory subjects. Some managerial decisions such as subcontracting, relocation, and other operational changes may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining, but the employer must bargain about the decision's effects on unit employees.

It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to bargain collectively with the other, but parties are not compelled to reach agreement or make concessions.

If after sufficient good faith efforts, no agreement can be reached, the employer may declare impasse, and then implement the last offer presented to the union. However, the union may disagree that true impasse has been reached and file a charge of an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether true impasse was reached based on the history of negotiations and the understandings of both parties.

If the Agency finds that impasse was not reached, the employer will be asked to return to the bargaining table. In an extreme case, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to force the employer to bargain.

The parties' obligations do not end when the contract expires. They must bargain in good faith for a successor contract, or for the termination of the agreement, while terms of the expired contract continue.

A party wishing to end the contract must notify the other party in writing 60 days before the expiration date, or 60 days before the proposed termination. The party must offer to meet and confer with the other party and notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute if no agreement has been reached by that time.

How is "good faith" bargaining determined?

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of NLRB cases dealing with the issue of the duty to bargain in good faith. In determining whether a party is bargaining in good faith, the Board will look at the totality of the circumstances. The duty to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground.

The additional requirement to bargain in "good faith" was incorporated to ensure that a party did not come to the bargaining table and simply go through the motions. There are objective criteria that the NLRB will review to determine if the parties are honoring their obligation to bargain in good faith, such as whether the party is willing to meet at reasonable times and intervals and whether the party is represented by someone who has the authority to make decisions at the table.

Conduct away from the bargaining table may also be relevant. For instance if an Employer were to make a unilateral change in the terms and conditions of employees employment without bargaining, that would be an indication of bad faith.


———The above text is taken from the NLRB website. I am underlining two separate statements, want to see if anyone is paying attention.

My take is this, why would the Union, do exactly what the company is legally allowed to do, based on the Taft Hartley act and the information provided above? My point being, maybe the union is putting on a front knowing the company was going to do this anyway?



Second underlined section, did the union only go through the motions and not bargain in good faith? This would seem to be our only out.


@Bubblehead and @BigUnionGuy I would appreciate your responses.
 

Delivery!!!

Well-Known Member
Why would our leadership put themselves on the hot seat when the company could possibly force the contract? The only thing I seeing them to gain is a financial lining of their pocket. The second underlined part would be quite difficult to use since we would be arguing that the union just went through the motions on its own members behalf.
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
They came to a agreement and it was voted on. We didn't get the results we wanted because of our constitution. I honestly don't believe we have a "good faith" argument.

This seems to just be saying that legally the company has to bargain and also not just pretend to bargain.

Though I'm a big dumb animal so I could be wrong. ;)
 

FrigidFTSup

Resident Suit
My question is how did the company not bargain in good faith? It isn’t being imposed by the company, but by the union.

The union clearly supported the contract, so they accepted it as a good faith agreement.
 

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
They came to a agreement and it was voted on. We didn't get the results we wanted because of our constitution. I honestly don't believe we have a "good faith" argument.

This seems to just be saying that legally the company has to bargain and also not just pretend to bargain.

Though I'm a big dumb animal so I could be wrong. ;)

I think he's suggesting the union didn't bargain in good faith.
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
I think he's suggesting the union didn't bargain in good faith.

I understood that but I think it would be the same outcome. It even says "The duty to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sinceredesire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground".

They did that. The company will say they did also.
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
My question is how did the company not bargain in good faith? It isn’t being imposed by the company, but by the union.

The union clearly supported the contract, so they accepted it as a good faith agreement.

He's talking about the union you half wit! Not everything is about your precious company. Now go polish your stapler.
 

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
My question is how did the company not bargain in good faith? It isn’t being imposed by the company, but by the union.

The union clearly supported the contract, so they accepted it as a good faith agreement.

I admire you sticking up for the company and all, but I think everyone is angry with the union right now.
 

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
I understood that but I think it would be the same outcome. It even says "The duty to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sinceredesire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground".

They did that. The company will say they did also.

But from the members' perspective, it looks like the union was more concerned with meeting the company's desires rather than finding common ground between the members and the company.
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
I admire you sticking up for the company and all, but I think everyone is angry with the union right now.

Agree. I expect the Company/corporate/management to be *face *s from now until the end of time. Nothing too *ty or too stupid for them to pull out of their asses that'd be a surprise to me.

We can't blame the Company for pushing for all it could get away with during Contract negotiation. It was the Union that was supposed to be there to push back and represent its members' best interests. It didn't do it. This whole thing is on them.
 

FrigidFTSup

Resident Suit
Agree. I expect the Company/corporate/management to be :censored2:face :censored2:s from now until the end of time. Nothing too :censored2:ty or too stupid for them to pull out of their asses that'd be a surprise to me.

We can't blame the Company for pushing for all it could get away with during Contract negotiation. It was the Union that was supposed to be there to represent its members' best interests. It didn't do it. This whole thing is on them.
91E487FE-BAE2-4B32-8DDC-EDDBF4CEC7E0.gif
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
But from the members' perspective, it looks like the union was more concerned with meeting the company's desires rather than finding common ground between the members and the company.

I know what you mean but again hard to prove especially when 40,000+ thought it was a good deal and 100,000 didn't care enough to vote.
 

Brownslave688

You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
What rules govern collective bargaining for a contract?

After employees choose a union as a bargaining representative, the employer and union are required to meet at reasonable times to bargain in good faith about wages, hours, vacation time, insurance, safety practices and other mandatory subjects. Some managerial decisions such as subcontracting, relocation, and other operational changes may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining, but the employer must bargain about the decision's effects on unit employees.

It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to bargain collectively with the other, but parties are not compelled to reach agreement or make concessions.

If after sufficient good faith efforts, no agreement can be reached, the employer may declare impasse, and then implement the last offer presented to the union. However, the union may disagree that true impasse has been reached and file a charge of an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether true impasse was reached based on the history of negotiations and the understandings of both parties.

If the Agency finds that impasse was not reached, the employer will be asked to return to the bargaining table. In an extreme case, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to force the employer to bargain.

The parties' obligations do not end when the contract expires. They must bargain in good faith for a successor contract, or for the termination of the agreement, while terms of the expired contract continue.

A party wishing to end the contract must notify the other party in writing 60 days before the expiration date, or 60 days before the proposed termination. The party must offer to meet and confer with the other party and notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute if no agreement has been reached by that time.

How is "good faith" bargaining determined?

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of NLRB cases dealing with the issue of the duty to bargain in good faith. In determining whether a party is bargaining in good faith, the Board will look at the totality of the circumstances. The duty to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground.

The additional requirement to bargain in "good faith" was incorporated to ensure that a party did not come to the bargaining table and simply go through the motions. There are objective criteria that the NLRB will review to determine if the parties are honoring their obligation to bargain in good faith, such as whether the party is willing to meet at reasonable times and intervals and whether the party is represented by someone who has the authority to make decisions at the table.

Conduct away from the bargaining table may also be relevant. For instance if an Employer were to make a unilateral change in the terms and conditions of employees employment without bargaining, that would be an indication of bad faith.


———The above text is taken from the NLRB website. I am underlining two separate statements, want to see if anyone is paying attention.

My take is this, why would the Union, do exactly what the company is legally allowed to do, based on the Taft Hartley act and the information provided above? My point being, maybe the union is putting on a front knowing the company was going to do this anyway?



Second underlined section, did the union only go through the motions and not bargain in good faith? This would seem to be our only out.


@Bubblehead and @BigUnionGuy I would appreciate your responses.
Tldr
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
I know what you mean but again hard to prove especially when 40,000+ thought it was a good deal and 100,000 didn't care enough to vote.

While Contract vote participation levels are lower than they should have been, past participation rates are probably comparable, and no secret. There's never been a complete sellout of both FT and PT employees by the Union, even during bad economic times. And I think the Union leadership still gave up a hell of a lot more than they really needed to for the Contract to have been acceptable to the Company. So why they did anyway is still kind of an open question.
 

Brownslave688

You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
While Contract vote participation levels are lower than they should have been, past participation rates are probably comparable, and no secret. There's never been a complete sellout of both FT and PT employees by the Union, even during bad economic times. And I think the Union leadership still gave up a hell of a lot more than they really needed to for the Contract to have been acceptable to the Company. So why they did anyway is still kind of an open question.
Most bargaining leverage they've had in decades. And we end up with one of the largest concessions ever
 
Top