Introduction
There are many ways to structure the work in the organization. One key component is the relations between employees and employers. In these relations, the main driver is the contract or term of employment and the avenues of employees’ influence from shared to traditional governance. The employees can form unions for collective bargaining for better conditions. The organization can decide on sharing the management with the employees for better client service outcomes. Research objectively shows that these two options lead to better consequences for everyone, including management and the employer. Thus, organizations and their employees must consider the different options and innovative solutions to improve and grow.
Collective Bargaining
Since its first modern attempt in the 1800s, unions have been a driving force for improving working conditions and bargaining for better benefits and wages. In recent years, their activity has decreased worldwide, with governments imposing more restrictions on their operations. Juravich (2018) even claims that unions’ past methods for collective bargaining are too narrow for the employees’ current necessities, and the alt-labor movement is the better alternative for the modern age. However, the alt-labor movement still bases its strategy on the main principles of collective bargaining, just expanding the scope. Therefore, it is still important for young professionals to know about collective bargaining and be able to implement it successfully.
Collective bargaining can benefit workers and employers by preventing work disruptions, including labor strikes, lockouts, and protests. It is the mechanism by which employees negotiate their contracts with their employers to determine or reestablish the term of employment, including wages, benefits, leave, safety policies, and other conditions. Collective bargaining is often done through the unions representing the employees’ collective interests and facilitating cooperation, enhancing the power of employees’ voices (Schnabel, 2020). If the union does the bargaining, the employers must deal only with a small number of people and opinions. However, this also may mean that some workers’ views are ignored. It can be good even for the governments, as they do not need to intervene in cases of prolonged and escalated conflicts. Even though it can be costly for both unions of workers and employers, collective bargaining still can bring better results relative to the accumulation of employees’ grievances.
The collective bargaining process consists of three stages: negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. This procedure suggests the presence of a third party or arbitrator, and legal representatives are also often involved in the process (Schnabel, 2020). Usually, arbitrators join during the mediation stage after the two sides have already discussed their position. They provide the settlement based on the demands of each side. Similar to the case between the United Steelworkers (USW) and United States Steel Corp (USSC), the two sides can accept or reject the settlement, leading to a new round of negotiations (Himes, 2021). In this case, the negotiations ran for four consecutive years before the workers voted to ratify the new contract in 2018.
Different types of collective bargaining exist, including distributive, integrative, productivity, composite, and concessionary. They all depend on the company’s unique situation, the workers’ goals, and the management’s position. For example, the case between the USW and USSC combines several collective bargaining types. Initially, the workers agreed to some sacrifices during the difficult economic time for the USSC, qualifying it for concessionary bargaining. However, later when the industry overcame the difficult times and began to prosper, the workers demanded higher pay and better benefits. This type of bargaining applies to the integrative one, as both sides announced a “win-win” outcome (Himes, 2021). It could be considered distributive if the previous workers’ commitment and sides’ positions were not taken into account.
Overall, the case between the USW and USSC represents the beneficial cooperation between employers and employees, showing the advantages of collective bargaining. If the USW did not exist or did not raise the issues of the workers, it would lead to an increase in grievances, potentially resiting in protests or strikes. Moreover, the workers might not be that willing to increase their productivity and make sacrifices during the difficult financial situation for the USSC. This behavior would have probably decreased the chance for the industry’s rebound and diminished profits. This outcome would also be disadvantageous for the workers, who would not receive a raise or benefits but would risk losing their jobs.
Shared Governance
Over the years, Magnet accreditation became an aspiring standard for many hospitals, with many employees wishing to work for such hospitals and patients reporting high quality of care. The main cause of such improvement lies in the shared governance principle. Magnet accreditation emphasizes the importance of nurses in successfully treating the patient and the overall functioning of the hospital. According to Speroni et al. (2021), hospitals with shared governance were scored higher by the patients compared to traditional ones, outperforming the average score benchmark. Thus, shared governance improves the outcomes for the organizations as a whole.
The usual basic structural principle of shared governance in the hospital is the representation of each unit on the general council, which handles the overall decision-making. ICU, labor and delivery, NICU, and surgical committees are examples of units. Each committee consists of nurses on the “frontlines,” working with patients daily (Khraisat, 2020). This experience allows them to understand the hospital’s needs and issues better. For example, if new equipment appears to be needed, these committees would be the first ones to examine it. As the nurses deal with the equipment firsthand and see the experiences of other colleagues like doctors, they are better suited to make the right call in deciding what is necessary. Then, according to Khraisat (2020), the executive branch is more confident and quicker to approve the investment decision after such an examination. As a result, the use of equipment is guaranteed, and money is not wasted. It also allows for avoiding the critical equipment shortage due to the executive branch’s prudence and substantial decline in service quality. This consideration for the “frontline” workers boosts the quality of services and efficiency of overall decision-making.
This example of shared governance can be applied to other organizations to improve financial decisions and company efficiency. Technology, in the same manner as equipment, can be examined for its usefulness. It is especially important in the modern day of constantly and quickly involving technology and high competition. Because of this high competition, the company that adopts the new technology faster and more efficiently usually wins and profits, even driving out other companies from the market. There are numerous examples of companies that failed to adapt to technology and went out of business. Therefore, shared governance in implementing technology or investing in the equipment can mitigate this risk, allowing the company to prosper and survive.
Conclusion
Overall, the evidence shows that innovative solutions like shared governance can help address the inherent risks to organizations’ well-being. On the other hand, some researchers deem collective bargaining to be outdated with the new alternatives arising. However, these alternatives still use the foundational principles of collective bargaining, showing its remaining importance. It also demonstrates that organizations must search for ways to improve, utilizing their workers’ potential while considering their demands.
References
Himes, H. (2021). Asserting Their Voice: A Brief History of Independent Steelworker Retiree Clubs and the United Steelworkers of America, 1946 to 1990. Ohio History, 128(2), 78-111. doi: 10.1353/ohh.2021.0013
Juravich, T. (2018). Constituting challenges in differing arenas of power: Worker Centers, the fight for $15, and Union organizing. Labor Studies Journal, 43(2), 104-117. doi: 10.1177/0160449X18763441
Khraisat, O., Al-Awamreh, K., Hamdan, M., Al-Bashtawy, M., khawaldeh, A. A., Alqudah, M., & Haliq, S. (2020). Shared governance: a children’s hospital journey to clinical nursing excellence. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(4), 347-358.
Schnabel, C. (2020). Union membership and collective bargaining: trends and determinants (pp. 1-37). Springer International Publishing.
Speroni, K. G., Wisner, K., Stafford, A., Haines, F., Al-Ruzzieh, M. A., Walters, C., & Budhathoki, C. (2021). Effect of shared governance on nurse-sensitive indicator and satisfaction outcomes: an international comparison. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 51(5), 287-296. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000001014