Q‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍1a) Why must labor and management be able to accurately det

Q‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍1a) Why must labor and management be able to accurately determine the cost of wage proposals? Give examples and use sources. AND Q1b) Unions have long come out to support measures that 1) support social causes, such as gay marriages and funding for medical treatments, etc. and 2) laws that enhance their belief it will support worker’s rights. While this class does not promote/support any political viewpoints or groups, it is important to understand how politics plays a role in union and businesses and political functions. Recently, the San Francisco Teacher’s Union has taken a rather controversial stance with a historic vote to support Palestine in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Now a Jewish parent is responding. One of the articles is below. Is this legal for a union? Does it make a difference if it is a union who represents public employees? How does the union’s actions impact their organization (the school district, the employees and their stakeholders)? From the position of HR director, give three ideas on how to manage this situation including what to say to the parent(s). Once the student posts, search for the instructor’s response with a resource for your reference. if the below source does not work, you are free to find other articles on the net to gain background information on this event only. It is preferable we all have one starting point. You must start a thread before you can read and reply to other threads Answer Questions 2a and 2b (Balance the word count between both questions but be sure to use the required sources to find the answers.) After posting, look for the answers posted by the instructor. 2a) Did the employees get the turkeys? How do you think the arbitrator ruled? Why? What is the supporting evidence for your decision? The answer will be shown by the instructor’s post and visible once you submit your answer. Facts: The company had paid its employees a cash bonus totaling $30 turkey money at Christmas and Thanksgiving for the thirteen years prior to 1970. In 1970, the company signed its first union contract, which made no mention of the turkey bonus. It did, however, contain a zipper clause that read: It is acknowledged that during negotiations that resulted in this agreement, the union had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to all proper subjects of collective bargaining. Therefore, for the life of this agreement, the union agrees that the company shall not be obligated to bargain collectively with respect to any subject or matter not specifically referred to or covered in this agreement. That year, the company did not pay employees the Christmas and Thanksgiving bonus. The union filed charges against the company with the National Labor Relations Board. The union claimed that the company’s unilateral action in discontinuing the bonus was a refusal to bargain in good faith. The company responded that the bonus was not in the contract and it was under no duty to provide it. Further, it contended that the zipper clause precluded any claim for bargaining during the term of the contract and that the matter was an issue for arbitration, not board action. Q2b: How do you think the arbitrator ruled? Why? What is the supporting evidence? The answer will be shown by viewing the instructor’s post and visible once you submit an answer. Vacation disagreement goes to the Arbitrator Facts: When Bruce Reaves quit his job at the end of January 2019, the payroll ‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍manager ensured to that his final check included all pay and allowances due as of his last day of work. Management assumed that was the last they would see of this former employee, but seven months later—shortly before August 1 of that year—Bruce showed up to collect his one week of vacation pay. The payroll manager said he was not due the vacation pay. Bruce being a shrewd character expected that response and had a copy of the union contract with him, with sentences in the vacation pay clause underlined. “It says here that to be eligible for a week of vacation an employee must have worked 100 days prior to August 1 of the vacation year,” he pointed out. Bruce told the payroll manager that finished his last vacation on August 10, and worked more than 100 days before he quit, so I’m entitled to the money. “But that clause, and the reference to August 1, presupposes that an employee would still be on the payroll when the new vacation season rolls around,” the payroll manager explained. Bruce flamboyantly asserted, “Maybe that’s what you presupposed, not what the union presupposed. I checked with the union and they agree with me that I’ve got the money coming to me.” As Bruce was no longer an employee, he could not file a grievance directly. The union, however, filed one on his behalf. When the company denied Bruce his vacation pay, a few months later the union summoned an arbitrator to rule on how the following contract language applied to Stan’s case: CONTRACT LANGUAGE: ARTICLE XVII—VACATIONS: Employees to be eligible for one week’s vacation with pay shall have worked 100 working days prior to August 1 of the vacation year. An employee’s vacation pay is to be based upon the straight time average earned for the months of January, February, and March or February, March, and April of the vacation year. The period selected to be on a departmental basis. Employees on leave of absence due to injury, sickness, or other need for medical care shall be considered as working during such leaves of absence for purposes of computing vacations. The company’s chief arguments were: 1. The reference to August 1 means that only those on the payrolls as employees on that date are entitled to vacation pay, provided they also meet the 100-day requirement. 2. According to union interpretation, a man who quits after working 100 days after his last vacation can still get vacation money the following year. This was not the intention of the negotiators. 3. The fact that the rate of vacation pay is based upon earnings during the first three or four months of the year reinforces management’s judgment that a man can’t quit in January and still collect for a vacation. The union’s answer was: 1. According to management interpretation, a man who quits or dies at the end of July would not be entitled to any vacation money, no matter how many days he worked since the last vacation. It is not believable that the negotiators could have intended such a result. 2. The August 1 date is merely the cutoff point for meeting the 100-day requirement. It doesn’t mean that a man who already qualified for vacation money has to be employed on that date. 3. The reference to January through April is just a convenient way of computing the amount of vacation pay. It has nothing to do with eligibility. We will have no trouble determining the amount of money Bruce is supposed to receive. You must start a thread before you can read and reply to other threads Writer please use 275 for each question answer (4). Also use scholarly sources and sources from text book ISBN: 97801327300138601271776 Labor Relations and collective bar‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍gaining