National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted to safeguard the civil and constitutional rights of employees. Workers from the private sectors formed trade unions, organized strikes, and engaged in activities that could forward their demands. NLRA (Wagner Act) excluded domestic employees and supervisors. Agricultural employees and those who are covered by Railway Labor Act were also excluded. In addition, local government workers and self-sponsored contractors were hardly covered by NLRA. Other groups that were not included in the act incorporated individual employers, their family members, and the local government workers.
Why the workers were excluded from the Wagner Act
Agricultural employees were excluded on the principle that collective negotiations between employers and workers would be too difficult. This is because the individual farms were too small; only run by family members. Additionally, local government workers were mandated to offer necessary government services like public transport and education for the poor. These services are beneficial to all the people in society and the community at large. This does not compete with other profit-making organizations. Supervisors were also given excellent opportunities and incentives by their employers. Therefore, their chances of going on strike were limited. Besides, self-sponsored contractors have their own rules and regulations to meet their demands thus can hardly organize strikes. As discussed earlier, close associates of the employers and their family members were not included in this act since they would be greatly favored during strikes. This was a vital consideration in the formulation of the provisions of the act.
Sections of the Taft-Hartley Act that significantly constrain the ability of labor unions to represent workers and bargain with employers
Taft-Hartley Act was an adjustment to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It was brought up to benefit everybody involved in the labor agreement. Some of the sections of the Taft-Hartley Act that significantly constrain the ability of labor unions to represent workers and bargain with employers include section 14(b) in the Taft Hartley Act, section 301, section 302, and the Taft Hartley act section 8. Section 14(b) of this act was established to guarantee some power to individual states to constrain the labor unions from presenting workers in case they have problems with their employers. Besides, they also contained some rules that trade unions applied to employers. This is a vital provision when considered critically in the context of NLRA and the Taft-Hartley Act.
Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act was introduced to legalize and enforce collective negotiations between employers and the trade unions. Employers were able to take legal actions (by going to court) when the union violated their contracts. In case of strike, the union would be forced to compensate employers for the damages caused. This would only occur if the employer decided to sue the union. Taft-Hartley Act section 8 was introduced to bar the union from discharging employees. Finally, section 302 of this act was to stop any form of graft, corruption, and making payments to the trade union officials unnecessarily.
Advantages and disadvantages of appointing members of the NLRB and the Office of the General Counsel by the president
Comparatively, “fixed-term” appointments had several benefits. Nonetheless, it also fronted various disadvantages. This is a crucial provision in the context of employment. Depending on the performance of the members, the president could decide to terminate or renew the contracts of the concerned employees. Evidently, this was advantageous to hardworking employees who still wanted to retain their jobs. Additionally, members of the “fixed-term” appointment were able to perform much better compared to those employed “for life” since their fates were based on performance. Besides, through fixed-term appointments, new and specific skills could be established, nurtured, and embraced within the concerned organization. On the other hand, permanent employment criteria limitedly incorporated new ideologies. “Fixed-term” appointments lasted for a given period of time. This gave room for employing new staff members. Additionally, the term majorly stops in the completion of a stated task. Conversely, the member’s job security is not guaranteed as their job cannot be renewed at the end of the contract. This was disadvantageous to the concerned employees since they could be rendered jobless at the end of their term.
Advantages and disadvantages of appointing members on fixed terms as opposed to appointments made subject to removal
Through “fixed-term” employment, the president has no right to dismiss any member until the end of the contract. Therefore, members enjoy job security. Besides, the president cannot terminate or execute new appointments at his own will. Appointments were done at a stipulated period of time. On the contrary, the president could not dismiss any member in case of misconduct. It also encouraged laziness as some members would not perfectly perform their duties having in mind that their contracts could not be terminated. It was also prone to some irregularities. Some members could misbehave with impunity since their contracts could not be dismissed before the end of their term. This was a vital provision in the context of job security.
Factors considered in preparing the remedy for termination
For the dismissed workers (in ACME Widget Co.) to be reinstated back to their job positions, the NLRA board could put several considerations into place. First, ACME Widget Co. went against section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the NLRA since investigations were done without the union’s assistance. Additionally, the board had the power to construct its remedial commands to make the NLRA’s provisions more effective. It also had the power to order for assistance is believed to be appropriate. The company believed that the reinstatement of Jane Smith was appropriate. It had dishonored the agreement, which stated that; in case of any dismissal, durations of continuous duties control other factors including skills. Thus, the reasons behind the layoffs could be negotiated upon. Moreover, it was challenging to make agreements when employers could easily make changes to the terms and conditions put in place for the negotiations.
Another considerable factor is that Jane Smith was dismissed from her duties before the expiry of her contract. This was a violation of labor laws. The termination could be due to discrimination based on gender, race or sexual orientation. Hence, the judgments should be reconsidered. According to the National Labor Relations Act section 8 (a) (4), discrimination against workers who file complaints is not allowed. Jane Smith should be given time to file charges and testify before her dismissal. Under section 8 (a) (1), an employee has a right to freedom of association. Thus, the company violated the law by dismissing Jane Smith. Precisely, it is crucial to follow the stipulations of the law so as to avert such incidences.