The power to create or obstruct employee voice: does US public policy skew employer preference for 'no voice' workplaces?
2006
4
2
March
311-319
enterprise level ; trade unionization ; workers participation ; workers representation
Workers participation and European works councils
https://academic.oup.com/ser/issue/20/4?browseBy=volume
English
Bibliogr.
"Employer demand for voice organizations is severely constrained in the US by a National Labor Relations Act section that outlaws company unions and their functional counterparts. This case study of pertinent NLRB decisions since 1993 shows no relaxation in this strict public policy. Aside from ‘no voice' and ‘union voice' options, three ‘voice' organizations are available to employers: (i) self-managed work teams, (ii) disciplinary committees and (iii) teams or committees that address efficiency, work process or product quality. The first two types are allowed if employers cede control to these self-governing bodies. The third form has limited appeal because of the restrictive range of work subjects that can be addressed. The NLRB continues to prohibit more ambitious types of voice organizations. It is not surprising that substitute unions are found unlawful, but the Board has also ruled against a worker council that provided genuine expression of employee voice."
Digital
The ETUI is co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the ETUI.