Mitigating Interest in Union Organizing: Employee Relations Plan Case Study

This discussion examined a case study regarding whether resident assistants were university employees who had the right to unionize under federal and state law. Factors contributing to employee interest in unionization were addressed. The university’s strategy to win certification election as well as the union’s strategy to win was evaluated. Finally, a plan for employee relations was developed to mitigate interest in organizing unions by university Resident Assistants (RAs) and their mentors known as CDAs on other campuses and institutions.


Factors Contributing to Employee Interest in Unionization
RAs felt the disciplinary grievance procedures and process was unfair and inconsistent. In addition, they believed code-of-conduct violations, warnings, and terminations were arbit rary rather than consistently and fairly applied (McHugh, 2011). Furthermore, RAs felt they did not have judicial due process for grievances and terminations (Lloyd & Parish, 2013;Lotito, Parry, & McDonald, 2017).
RAs felt they did not have the s ame judicial processes as other student residents and if an RA breaks rules, they are terminated without due process and lose dormitory housing. A grievance proposal was developed by a subcommittee and later rejected by Residence Life representatives affir ming that RAs are held to h igher standards fro m those in place for student residents (McHugh, 2011). RAs felt they were being objectified, treated as throw-away emp loyees, and were not receiv ing respect and dignity on a demanding job (McHugh, 2011). RAs believed a union agreement would get them respect (Lloyd & Parish, 2013). Moreover, RAs felt the pay was low, and with student housing deductions, they were underpaid and overworked. RAs clearly felt taken-advantage of and a high degree of angst, job dissatisfaction, underpaid, devalued, disrespected, and voiceless.

Are Resident Assistants Employees with Right to Unionize?
Are resident assistants, in this case study, employees of the institution with the right to unionize under federal and state law? According to The Massachusetts Labor Relations Co mmission (M LRC), the answer was yes. A co llect ive bargaining agreement was rat ified December 11, 2003 and included wage increases for each year of a two-year contract with retroactive pay back to September, 2003(Sample, 2015

University's Strategy to Win Certification Election
The Associate Provost of the university made an official public statement that the institution believed the MLRC's decision leading to certification of a bargain ing unit representing RAs was made in e rror (McHugh, 2011). The university stated the MLRC misapplied the state statute regarding union formation and declined to enter into any negotiations regarding the matter. The institution argued that RAs were mainly undergraduate students rather than employees. Further stating, labor undergraduate students are not covered by labor laws. The institution desired to advance its opposition in the matter to state courts in Massachusetts, await ing a resolution there, rather than bargain with the union.
The institution stated that collective bargaining challenges raised by RAs and CDAs would create conflicts between their statuses as students and emp loyees. In addition, this would cause problems regarding disciplinary actions or measures for each status category. University representatives issued a statement they would seek judicial review regarding the MLRC's finding that undergraduate students, selected to be resident assistants by the university, are qualified to unionize (McHugh, 2011).
Institutional representatives published statements throughout the ordeal to inform the public regarding intentions, legal matters, and internal d iscussions or decisions pertinent to the on -going situation.

Union's Strategy to Win
Upon the institution's public statement, RAs, and their representatives, took their message to the public for sympathy and support claiming the institution had insidious motives. RAs and their representatives received widespread media attention as planned. Charges of international hu man rights violat ions were lodged against the university by commiserating, co-conspiratorial media outlets and subversive agents (Bodah, 2018;Sepler & Burke -O' Flynn, 2015;Reich man, 2018;Sheffield, 2018). Furthermore, challenges to the university's logo, brand, services , product, and reputation were lodged to damage the institution in the public thereby forcing a damage control, strong -arm technique to bring ad ministrators coercively to the bargaining table (Bodah, 2018;Sepler & Burke-O' Flynn, 2015;Reich man, 2018;Sheffield, 2018). The United Auto Workers (UAW) filed unfair labor practice charges with the MLRC (Donovan, 2016;Wachter, 2014).

Employee Relations Plan
Unfortunately, it is difficult for emp loyers to protect their interests and reputation and protect their emp loyees fro m possible union attacks because union bullying, harassment, and intimidation strategies have been so effective in USA (Sample, 2015). In addition, union conspirators, a gitators, and antagonists have had a long history of inverting the notion of "fighting for worker rights" or "civil rights" with bullying and intimidation techniques whereby convincing the public and wo rkers that their form of b ringing parties to the negotiation table is a "civil right" rather than blatant harassment (Bodah, 2018;Sepler & Burke-O' Flynn, 2015;Reich man, 2018;Sheffield, 2018). If employers would use the same co mmon subversive, antagonistic tactics that unions employ, emp loyers would be ch arged with harassment. Yet, unions can use these bullying and defamation tactics to damage employer's reputation in the public and this is not viewed as subversive in USA courts. Union subversion and bullying tactics is a one-way street and work chiefly to the advantage of unions and supported in the USA legal system. Developing effective emp loyee relations plans can help mitigate so me challenges to emp loyer's interests, reputation, brand, and emp loyee welfare fro m nefarious union attacks (Lloyd & Parish, 2013;Lotito, Parry, & McDonald, 2017).
The following ideas can be implemented to help min imize attacks fro m union agitat ion and subversion tactics: (1) effective, knowledgeable human resources, leadership, and management teams; (2) on-going, comprehensive training programs for leadership and management teams; (3) on -going, comprehensive train ing programs for emp loyees; (4) open-door and supporting commun ications policy between leadership and emp loyees; (5) easy-to-understand, responsive company policies; (6) supportive health and well-being employee programs, services, and training; (7) enrich ment programs and services; (8) fair and consistent grievance procedures and policy; (9) fair and consistent due process procedures and policy; (10) participatory, servant, transformational leadership models; (11) opportunities for advancement, growth, and inco me generation with clear, visib le, p rocedural channels; (12) find ways to make emp loyees feel appreciated, valued, recognized, praised, heard, empowered, and important to the goals of the organization; (13) be open to employee suggestions for imp rovement in established policies; and (14) be open to emp loyee suggestions for new policy creation ideas.

Discussion
It is legal for emp loyers to explain unions to emp loyees regarding opinions, experiences, and facts about unions (Lloyd & Parish, 2013). The fo llo wing ideas can be exp ressed to employees by emp loyers in a legal and effect ive manner:  Emp loyers are able to legally exp lain that unions will not guarantee improv ed inco me.
 Emp loyers are able to legally express that since unions are the sole agent of emp loyees, concerns related to simple shifts in scheduling, are presented and negotiated by the union. Employees lose direct negotiating power and autonomy when dealing with management in a face-to-face manner. This discussion examined a case study regarding whether resident assistants were university employees who had the right to unionize under federal and state law. Factors contributing to employee interest in unionization were addressed. The university's strategy to win certification election as well as the union's strategy to win was evaluated. Finally, a plan for employee relat ions was developed to mitigate interest in organizing unions by RAs and CDAs on other campuses and institutions. Topics included (1) RAs and CDAs; (2) factors contributing to employee interest in unionization; (3) are resident assistants emp loyees with right to unionize? (4) university's strategy to win cert ification elect ion; (5) union's strategy to win; and (6) emp loyee relat ions plan. When mit igating collect ive bargaining challenges, union members involved should have characteristics and attributes conducive to negotiating such as competency in advancing the interests of the bargaining unit above his or her own, ab ility to invest time , a proficiency in skill contributing to negotiations in a variety of ways, patience, and time (Graves & Kapla, 2018;Lav in, 2018;Lloyd & Parish, 2013;Noggle, 2010).