FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2993857894> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2993857894 startingPage "2" @default.
• W2993857894 abstract "unions might prefer, large units they add members and resources, and can inflict more harm to an employer during a strike than a small unit. In reality, however, the size and structure of a unit affects election outcomes, and recent literature suggests that unions win a higher proportion of representation elections involving smaller units.' In addition, a large unit may only be a successful striking unit if there is a union Shop contract (compelling union membership as a condition for employment, and thereby making everyone in the unit a union member). In addition, large units may be particularly susceptible to employer tactics such as granting employment preferences to a group of strikers who abandon their strike and return to work (for example, low seniority strikers who may be granted highly-prized domiciles or shifts left vacant by more senior strikers). 78 'In contrast, management prefers larger units. Management seeks administrative efficiency and prefers to conduct business with one entity rather than many. Management also wants to increase the diversity of interests among 175. A classic illustration of this point is presented in St. Francis Hosp. and Electrical Workers, IBEW, Local 474, 265 N.L.R.B. 1025 (St. Francis I). union sought to represent 39 highly skilled maintenance employees, but the hospital argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should be a combined maintenance and service unit. hospital employed approximately 400 service employees whose jobs generally required low-level skills. In contrast, the maintenance unit included boiler operators (whose job required a minimum of four years of boiler experience); painter/vinyl hangers (whose job required five years of experience); carpenters and cabinetmakers (whose job required four years of experience); and plumbers and electricians (whose jobs required two to three years of experience). By enlarging the unit, the hospital hoped to create such diversity of interests that no union would win election. See also Note, National Labor Relations Board's Proposed Rules on Health Care Bargaining Units, 76 VA. L. REV. 115, 117-18, 121-28 (1990). 176. See American Hosp. Ass'n v. NLRB, 899 F.2d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 1990), noting: [T]he larger and more heterogeneous the unit is, the harder it will be for the members to agree on a common course of action. diversity of. . . the interests of the members of a large and heterogeneous unit will make collective action more difficult, so it will be hard for a union to gain majority support ... or to use it to bargain effectively (for example, by making a credible threat to strike). 177. See Delaney & Sockell, supra note 75, at 271; Delaney, supra note 75, at 159. 178. See, e.g., Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Indep. Fed'n of Flight Attendants, 489 U.S. 426 (1988) (describing the problems with a large striking unit). Vol. 9: 1, 1992 Collective Bargaining for Hospitals employees, to build potential cleavages in the unit, and to increase a union's cost of organizing the unit. Bargaining unit determinations are especially difficult in the hospital industry because the work force of a hospital (or nursing home or rehabilitation center) tends to be at once small and heterogeneous.' 79 A hospital's workforce may include physicians, registered nurses ...nurses' aides, lab technicians, orderlies, physical therapists, dieticians, cooks, guards, clerical workers, maintenance workers, and others--but often only a few of each.' 1 80 Thus it is conceivable that a hospital of average size might have ten or twenty or even more units,'' if units were drawn to be strictly homogeneous. Unit proliferation in the health care industry' raises many concerns, including an increase in work stoppages, thus imperiling patient care; 82 whipsaw between units, leading to wage-leapfrogging 83 and inflation;' and an unacceptably high increase in employer administration expenses. s5 Section 9(b) of the Act gives the Board the authority to determine appropriate bargaining units.'86 In addition, it specifies that professional employees and guards must be granted separate bargaining units. 87 Act gives the Board flexibility in making other unit determinations, stating that the primary consideration should be to facilitate employee organization.8 8 However, the Board also takes other interests into account in making bargaining unit determinations, such as the employer's ability to administer efficiently one or more collective bargaining agreements.'8 9 Board's judgment in making unit 179. American Hosp. Ass'n, 899 F.2d at 655. 180. Id. 181. Id. 182. See Joshua L. Schwarz & Karen S. Koziara, Effect of Hospital Bargaining Unit Structure on Industrial Relations Outcomes, INDUs. & LAB. REL. REv. (forthcoming 1992). 183. See infra note 324 and accompanying text. 184. As of April 1991, the consumer price index for hospitals and related services increased 92.6% compared to a baseline period of 1982-1984. U.S. government scores the hospital baseline price index as 100 for the 1982-1984 period and the hospital index as 192.6 for April 1991. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, U.S. DEP'T OF LABOR, CPI DETAILED REPORT DATA FOR APRIL 1991 14 (column 2, table 3) (1991). Prices for hospitals and related services between April 1990 and April 1991 rose 10.9%. See id. at column 3. 185. In its rulemaking, the Board observed: Some commentators claimed that multiple units would increase costs by increasing expenses for contract negotiations, wage and benefit increases, administration and legal fees, grievances, supervision, and accounting. Collective-Bargaining Units in the Health Care Industry, 53 Fed. Reg. 33,900, 33,909 (1988) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 103) (proposed Sept. 1, 1988). 186. 29 U.S.C. § 159(b). 187. See id. at § 159(b)(1). 188. statute states: The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by [the Act], the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof .... Id. at § 159(b). 189. In its proposed rulemaking, the Board noted: Some unions question the relevance of costs in determining hospital bargaining units. In view of Congressional concern in the health care amendments with the ability of health care institutions to deliver uninterrupted health services, it is relevant to consider whether multiple units increase costs to health care institutions .... Collective-Bargaining Units in the" @default.
• W2993857894 created "2019-12-13" @default.
• W2993857894 creator A5017319566 @default.
• W2993857894 creator A5022980737 @default.
• W2993857894 creator A5066920500 @default.
• W2993857894 date "1992-01-01" @default.
• W2993857894 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2993857894 title "The Law and Economics of Collective Bargaining for Hospitals: An Empirical Public Policy Analysis of Bargaining Unit Determinations" @default.
• W2993857894 hasPublicationYear "1992" @default.
• W2993857894 type Work @default.
• W2993857894 sameAs 2993857894 @default.
• W2993857894 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2993857894 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2993857894 hasAuthorship W2993857894A5017319566 @default.
• W2993857894 hasAuthorship W2993857894A5022980737 @default.
• W2993857894 hasAuthorship W2993857894A5066920500 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConcept C122637931 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConcept C145236788 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConcept C2776665811 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConceptScore W2993857894C122637931 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConceptScore W2993857894C145236788 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConceptScore W2993857894C145420912 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConceptScore W2993857894C15744967 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConceptScore W2993857894C162324750 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConceptScore W2993857894C17744445 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConceptScore W2993857894C190253527 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConceptScore W2993857894C199539241 @default.
• W2993857894 hasConceptScore W2993857894C2776665811 @default.
• W2993857894 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2993857894 hasLocation W29938578941 @default.
• W2993857894 hasOpenAccess W2993857894 @default.
• W2993857894 hasPrimaryLocation W29938578941 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W1602922340 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W161920453 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W1911975360 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W2268758939 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W2300239936 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W2304282255 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W2339346956 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W235275881 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W2396730991 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W2397877692 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W2414456517 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W274400556 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W3122901240 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W3164519982 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W3198035610 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W342690944 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W756515052 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W761040928 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W2143167431 @default.
• W2993857894 hasRelatedWork W426897474 @default.
• W2993857894 hasVolume "9" @default.
• W2993857894 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2993857894 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2993857894 magId "2993857894" @default.
• W2993857894 workType "article" @default.