In principles of management an organization can shift from one state of affairs to another in order to satisfy its production needs and to remain competitive in the market. The shift in many aspects is met with resistance from employees. Overtime is one of the alterations a company could introduce to meet its needs. It is defined as the work one by employees beyond the normal working hours of the week. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ascertains that overtime compensation should always be provided. This paper includes the agreed-upon collective bargaining agreement and an account of the negotiating process.
The process faced a handful of challenges. To begin with, lack of mutual understanding, the union’s side could not consider the issues raised by the opponents concerning seniority rules for awarding overtime. On the other hand, the opponents are not ready to understand the strictness of the rules. Also, the union’s side deemed rigid. One opponent comes up with the idea that seniority should be first come first served basis but the other party sticks to the strict labor laws.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The union’s side used the distributive bargaining principle. It is difficult to decide on whom to reward with seniority. About their BATNA, one suggests that they limit the number of hours each week. The opponents seem to be interest-based. Their own BATNA is the adoption of a simple software system or excel sheet to fairly manage the process. Their position is to go for the contract’s statement that states, ‘the employer is not entitled to instruct the employee, at any time, to carry out additional duties or responsibilities, which fall reasonably within the ambit of the job description, or requirements in accordance with personal requirements.’ A supportive point of concern on their side is many jobs are done ‘at-will.’ It is also the case in the section of article 37 which states that ‘the employer agrees that unless it gives written notice, overtime will not be mandatory unless a job task is on and/or time-sensitive deadlines for expedited projects.’
The above negotiation is not varied from the first one by far. A few aspects that can be pointed out to differ however include the subject of the negotiation as well as the party that is likely to benefit from the negotiation. In module one, the subject matter was about the provision of safety gear to employees to ensure their lives are not at risk while in the workplace. In this negotiation, however, it is about overtime payment. Besides this, the employer is favored more in comparison to the employee in module one while in this one, both parties benefit to some extent.
For more follow-on negotiation sessions to be successful, it is highly necessary that both parties must understand laws and policies that concern the workplace. When the law acts as a guiding principle, it is highly possible that neither side will benefit less. Also, negotiations are likely to take a lesser period of time since with the law being a spearheading manual, there are unspoken rules that are likely to prevail in the interaction between the two parties.
In conclusion, no party was favored. Considering the overtime agreement, the subject is not compulsory. Unless there’s notification from the employer, no action could be permitted to extend normal work-time. The overtime should be voluntary. It will only be assigned when necessary, so this meets opponents’ side. For the union’s side, the employer agrees to give first consideration to skilled employees within the subjective department. It also agrees to discuss overtime issues with the union’s representative. Generally, the overtime income could help others with financial problems. However, others become so dependent on the money that they end up in financial crises when there is no more overtime. Also, the overtime could cause divisions among workers, to the extent of breaking their solidarity. People should just work, and earn enough for themselves, to afford decent lives.
