Formal Report Writing About Boarder Based Bargain

Formal Report about Boarder Based Bargain
Name
Institution
Letter of Transmittal
The below essay is a formal report bringing to your attention the importance of fighting for broader-based bargaining’ or ‘sectoral bargaining’ in the franchise business model based on the major problems employees undergo. Since most employees are unskilled/ semiskilled or even on temporary/ part time employment, it is advisable that there is a union that fights for their rights to avoid being taken advantage of by the employer.
Table of Contents
TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Letter of Transmittal PAGEREF _Toc508041135 \h 2Table of Contents PAGEREF _Toc508041136 \h 3Executive Summary PAGEREF _Toc508041137 \h 4Introduction PAGEREF _Toc508041138 \h 5Discussion of Findings PAGEREF _Toc508041139 \h 5Statement of Controversy PAGEREF _Toc508041140 \h 5No Argument PAGEREF _Toc508041141 \h 6Yes Argument PAGEREF _Toc508041142 \h 7Recommendation PAGEREF _Toc508041143 \h 10References PAGEREF _Toc508041144 \h 12
Executive Summary
The industrial relations model in most countries and sectors of the economy is founded on the Labour Relations Act of 1995. This model is unable to cater for the problem evidenced in the modern labour market in which most workers are absorbed by the growing employment in non-standard work and small workplaces. This prevents access to collective bargaining for so many employees as it is hard for collective bargaining to work in the current economy. The greatest adverse impact of the current model is felt by vulnerable workers absorbed in precarious works where workers feature prominently including restaurants and fast foods, retail, and accommodation among other service industries. It is therefore important as proposed by Premier Kathleen Wynne to consider the benefits of broader-based or sectoral bargaining in order to help employees in non-standard work enjoy their rights while working.
Introduction
It is notable that the current labour relations model does not fit people absorbed in non-standard work and small workplaces. This is based on the limitation it has on collective bargaining. It is as a result of this reason that the franchise business model should consider a model that would cater for the needs of all employees irrespective of where they work in or the types of roles assigned to them. According to Bieler and Lindberg (2010), it is notable that with the current ineffective model, more harm is felt by employees in restaurants among other small businesses in the service industry. This way, Kruse, Freeman and Blasi (2010) argue that broader-based bargaining or sectoral bargaining is a good alternative for the old industrial relations model. It is therefore important to understand the benefits this new model have while highlighting the probable challenges that might be experienced and thus addressed before the new model can be implemented.
Discussion of Findings
Statement of Controversy
As explained by Ontario Ministry of Labour (2016), labour relations in most sectors in Ontario are highly decentralized. Even though broader-based bargaining is the solution to many evidenced problems, it is features in some sectors but with either pattern bargaining or formal centralised bargaining. However, the fight here is to have collective bargaining between the union representing a group of employees with their employees. This is mostly in the private sector where the employer is interested only with maximising profits at the expense of employees. With the current model in which there is a single workplace for specific employers for different geographic locations, the needs and interests of employees are not adequately addressed. With separate bargaining units, for instance, it is possible to have some employees in a certain branch, plant, unit, or department treated better than others. Even with the knowledge that employees in the other department are treated fairly, separate bargaining model and other similar models do not advocate for fighting for same rights (O.E.C.D. Publishing., Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, & E.C.-D. Organisation, 2012).
While advocating for broader-based bargaining, Legislative Assembly of Ontario (2017) argued that bargaining for separate individual agreements with different small employers or bargaining for separate agreements for every location of a large employer is burdensome, inefficient, and uneconomic. Based on the perspective of the union, it is argued that the organising costs including legal proceeding costs as well as representing small units separately are very high and effectively deterring an organisation. According to Law of Work (2013), using the current applied model, Wagner Act Model, employees are unable to organise unions in sectors with small workplaces. This is because of the issue of high rates for part-time as well as contract and temporary jobs. To prove that the current labour relations model is not effective, Phillips (2013) notes that the union coverage rate for the private sector is at 24% for workplaces with over 500 employees and very low at 7% or less for workplaces with less than 20 employees.
No Argument
As explained by Hunt and Rayside (2007), currently, labour unions are allowed to negotiate only with one individual franchisee at a time. This means that since unions find it burdensome and uneconomical to negotiate with individual employer, most employees will have their needs unattended. To avoid high organising and legal proceedings costs, unions would negotiate only with few individual franchises as pushed by the employees and ignore others. In fact Ontario Labour Relations Board (2013) argues that such unions would only be forced to come into the negotiation process when there are very serious problems. This means that unless employees raise such issues, the union would not identify them. It becomes challenging for employees who fear forwarding the faced problems for loss of jobs and especially for those in part time and temporary jobs. Such problems can therefore be addressed through broader-based bargaining. This would help increase union coverage rate in small workplaces.
As explained in the current law, there are more centralised bargaining relationships such as multi-employer bargaining that cannot be imposed by the employer, union, or even the OLRB. It is only possible that such as agreement is reached between the participating employees and the participating bargaining agent. This means that the union has to bargain with each sector or employer in each enterprise. As a result, MacDowell and Radforth (2000) note that even for unionised parts in the private sector, collective bargaining is becoming more decentralised. This leads to a shift from the central or pattern bargaining in different industries to bargaining administered at the enterprise level. While this is an international pattern, it is linked with decreased union bargaining power as well as a decline in the emphasis on the ability of an individual unit to pay (Ontario Ministry of Labour, 2016).
It is notable that unions argue that it is a difficult task to argue for broader bargaining units. This is because narrower stores such as individual stores found in retail chains such as the case for Tim Hortons, McDonald’s, and Kentucky Fried Chicken are easier to organise. However, this comes with little bargaining power making it hard to achieve one’s objectives (Foley & Baker, 2010). As a result, even though difficult to organise, broader units such as the stores found in retail chains have a greater bargaining power. It is therefore important that unions consider the needs and interests of employees when in the bargaining process. This would mean looking for ways of dealing with the organization challenges while ensuring greater bargaining power to fight for employee rights.
Yes Argument
Considering the benefits of broader-based bargaining in the construction industry, it is notable that the new model should be implemented. According to Tattersall (2013), with this model in the industry, weak unions and employees took advantage of the strong unions’ tactics of leapfrogging and whipsawing making it possible to advance employees’ benefits and pay (Aidt & Tzannatos, 2002). With this model, many weak bargaining unions fought for structural industrial relations change making it possible to band together with strong unions and ensure one union bargained with one employer entity. This way, all needs of employees were met without considering some unions to be weak. This was a great advantage that can be enjoyed by employees in franchise business models in which with so many uns...