Introduction
The rapid rates of industrialization in combination with the increasing global population are some of the major factors that have led to increased unemployment rate. This is because most employers are turning to the use of machinery in their industries so as use less human labor. As a result most people are rendered unemployed, a factor which increases the pool of choice for the employers. Since the employers have a large pool of employees to select from, they end up discriminating the employees they have with the notion that they can easily replace them under any circumstances (Beverly, 2003, p.98).
Some of the common discriminatory concerns that employees face are that of long working hours, low wages, and delayed payments, among other poor working conditions. The employees facing such discriminatory issues may approach their employers for negations. Some employers may be willing to listen and resolve the issues, however, in circumstances where the employers put a deaf ear the employees may decide to go on strike so as to raise their issues. This paper is therefore an in-depth analysis of whether employees who engage in lawful strike activity should be protected from permanent replacement.
Lawful Strike
Employees strike may be defined as the act of stopping work whereby the employees consent to refuse to perform the work assigned to them so as to demand certain concessions from the employer. As mentioned above, these concessions could be low wages or rather poor working conditions for the employees. A strike could thus be organized by the employees themselves or their union. Strikes could either be lawful or unlawful depending on how it is conducted. A lawful strike is one that is conducted in a very orderly manner such that there are no incidences of violence or crime (Holley et al, 2008, p.384).
An unlawful strike on the other hand is one where there is intimidation and coercion as the employees protest (Ilicita, 2009, p.1). Other than the way it is conducted, it is important to determine whether the stoppage of work as a result of the strike has economic impacts on the employer or organization. Nevertheless, lawful strikes are those that bargain for management rights, wages and working hours.
An opinion based discussion on whether employees engaged in lawful strike activity be should protected from permanent replacement
According to the labor laws of the United States of America, the employees in the private sector under the umbrella of the National Labor Relations Act may be permanently replaced but not fired if at all they engage in a lawful strike concerning economic issues such as wages. At the same time, the law states that employers who subject their employees to poor working conditions should not in any case replace them if they strike over the poor conditions (Holley et al, 2008, p.397). They are authorized to only temporary replace them so as to avoid stoppage of the working process but reinstate them later.
Given the price that comes with permanent replacement, it is advisable that employees who engage in lawful strikes are not permanently replaced. For example, the cost of recruiting, selecting and hiring new employees is usually time consuming and very costly. Thus, if an organization decides to permanently replace their employees, it should be ready to incur the additional costs required for this process. At other times, the employees do not give a notice before going on strike and the employers just wake up one morning to find all processes at stand still. This means that, the employer does not have time to find other people to work in the organization. If they decide to recruit people from the large pool of unemployed population they will in most cases end up with unqualified and inexperienced employees.
On the other hand, the rapidly selected employees will not be efficient in their work because of lack of experience and qualifications thus lowering the productivity of the organization. The organization will in turn incur great losses as a result of the low productivity. Other than losses, the employer will have a difficult time training the new employees which is also a cost to the organization. Last but not least, is that the organization will have a bad reputation in the society thus affecting its market.
Despite the fact that the employer has permanently replaced the employees with new ones, if the working conditions and terms are not changed, the new employees will after some time result into another strike. Therefore, permanent replacement is not a solution to the problem of the strike but rather a way of evading the problem (Norwood, 2002, p.176).
Permanent replacement is not a just way of treating employees and especially if they have decided to engage in a lawful and peaceful strike. If anything, the employees’ decision to go on strike is usually the last option since they also care about their employment. Permanently replacing the employees would render them jobless something that is not fair and human. The best option to deal with employees who have gone on strike and especially the lawful strikes is to negotiate with them immediately.
If negotiating fails and the employer needs to have a replacement, they could opt to temporarily replace their employees until the matter is resolved. This way, the employer and employees will have created a mutual way of solving their issues. However, in the case that the employees decide to engage in unlawful strike whereby they destroy the organization’s properties as well as the social or public amenities on the street thereby causing so much havoc, the employer thus has every reason to permanently replace them
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it can be concluded that permanent replace is not the best option when it comes to dealing with employees who have engaged in lawful strikes. This is because of the price that permanent replacement comes with on the employer as well as the rights of the employees. Negotiation is usually the beast way of solving work issues between the employer and their employees. However, it is advisable that employees have mutual relationships with their employees so that they can be free to air out their views.
In addition to this, employers should provide suitable working conditions for their employees so as to avoid instances of strikes. The employers should ensure that they pay their employees on time, that their wages are in accordance with the National labor organizations, that there are no instances of discrimination in their organization. By doing this, they will ensure smooth running of the organization’s processes thus avoiding instances of strikes since the employees will be satisfied and comfortable.
Reference List
Beverly J. (2003). Forces of Labor: Workers’ Movements and Globalization Since 1870. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Holley, W. Jennings, K. And Wolters, R. (2008). The Labor Relations Process. Cengage Learning.
Ilicita, G. (2009). Unlawful Strike. Web.
Norwood, H. (2002). Strikebreaking and Intimidation. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.