Assembling all workers and seeking their opinion: By addressing all the workers from the same platform, the management would give out a strong statement of action and solidarity. However, as this would be a mass appeal, the leadership should be careful in not passing any provocative or un-necessarily negative/threatening statement. The address should be positive, encouraging, inspiring, and it should call forth employees participation in the drive against unionism.
Making selective pay variation: The management is hundred percent entitled to implement a selective and biased change in the pay structure and rewarding system, to reinforce its message against any possible advent of unionism among workers. But this strategic decisions should be taken as an indicative measure, without seeking to provoke employees, cause resentment or provide them with any dissatisfaction with the management. After all, workers join the unions only when they have grievances against management but no outlet/forum to discuss those grievances.
Replacing all the desk clerks by part-time work force: A sweeping lay off of all the desk clerks is unadvisable as it would create panic, stress and fear through the company, and mark the management as highly biased, arbitrary and irrational. Moreover, it may push the remaining employees towards creating their own union, or joining hands with the national union, as these are the likely options they would take to keep their job intact. Additionally, the step may would make the remaining workforce to lose trust in the management’s ability to make rational judgment in a crisis situation.
Also, the action is legally challengeable and if the company is dragged in the court, it would be hard pressed to justify this action. The action is morally unjustifiable and it constitutes a corporate purge, where management is sacking employees purely on apprehension and fear, when none of the employees may have an inclination to associate themselves with the union. There are no arguable justification for this act, and if taken, this step is likely to plunge the company’s reputation and standing among employees, customers and stakeholders.
Apart from the legal consequences involved, dismissing an entire level of employees en-masse, who have given value input to the company by their work, makes the management morally culpable in forcing them into an unnecessary and uncalled for plight. In any value based organization, people should be treated according to their performance, commitment and loyalty to their work; reflecting the very concept of jurisprudence that is based on evaluation as per performance. Corporate jurisprudence is no different; where people expect to get rewards when they perform well and help their companies achieve profit and growth.
Making selective pay variation: The management is hundred percent entitled to implement a selective and biased change in the pay structure and rewarding system, to reinforce its message against any possible advent of unionism among workers. But this strategic decisions should be taken as an indicative measure, without seeking to provoke employees, cause resentment or provide them with any dissatisfaction with the management. After all, workers join the unions only when they have grievances against management but no outlet/forum to discuss those grievances.
Replacing all the desk clerks by part-time work force: A sweeping lay off of all the desk clerks is unadvisable as it would create panic, stress and fear through the company, and mark the management as highly biased, arbitrary and irrational. Moreover, it may push the remaining employees towards creating their own union, or joining hands with the national union, as these are the likely options they would take to keep their job intact. Additionally, the step may would make the remaining workforce to lose trust in the management’s ability to make rational judgment in a crisis situation.
Also, the action is legally challengeable and if the company is dragged in the court, it would be hard pressed to justify this action. The action is morally unjustifiable and it constitutes a corporate purge, where management is sacking employees purely on apprehension and fear, when none of the employees may have an inclination to associate themselves with the union. There are no arguable justification for this act, and if taken, this step is likely to plunge the company’s reputation and standing among employees, customers and stakeholders.
Apart from the legal consequences involved, dismissing an entire level of employees en-masse, who have given value input to the company by their work, makes the management morally culpable in forcing them into an unnecessary and uncalled for plight. In any value based organization, people should be treated according to their performance, commitment and loyalty to their work; reflecting the very concept of jurisprudence that is based on evaluation as per performance. Corporate jurisprudence is no different; where people expect to get rewards when they perform well and help their companies achieve profit and growth.
Source: law aspect
Comments
Post a Comment