Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/410E-V5CW-9DAC-5HJK
David M. Snyder
One of the most rapidly evolving areas of employment law is privacy. Tech nological innovation in the workplace continually challenges our conceptions of privacy. E-mail is the latest tool to exceed the grasp of existing privacy law. The common law's inability to adapt to e-mail exemplifies the need for legislative action to protect employee privacy. This article explores possible legislative solutions and attempts to identify procedures that reflect the core values of those solutions. One of the most rapidly evolving areas of employment law is privacy [1]. The right to privacy in general is a young concept, "discovered" in 1890 by Samuel Warren and Supreme Court Justice-to-be Louis Brandeis [1, 2]. The authors of The Right to Privacy were alarmed by the "modern enterprise and invention" of turn-of-the-century technology, particularly the rapid dissemination of informa tion via the burgeoning field of mass communication [2]. The "instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise" threatened not only to "proclaim [ ] from the housetops" what was "whispered in closets" and ruin reputations, but also, Brandeis and Warren feared, to invade the "spiritual" value of the "inviolate personality" [2, p. 205]. Thus, invasion of privacy would cause damage beyond reputation to affect "the estimate of [one's] self and upon his feelings" [2, p. 197]. Since then, legal scholars have struggled to categorize the bundle of interests contained within the "inviolate personality." Dean Prosser reduced the privacy
{"title":"Electronic Mail Privacy in The Workplace: E-Mail Shows Need for Legislative Action, But Opportunity May Have Been Missed","authors":"David M. Snyder","doi":"10.2190/410E-V5CW-9DAC-5HJK","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/410E-V5CW-9DAC-5HJK","url":null,"abstract":"One of the most rapidly evolving areas of employment law is privacy. Tech nological innovation in the workplace continually challenges our conceptions of privacy. E-mail is the latest tool to exceed the grasp of existing privacy law. The common law's inability to adapt to e-mail exemplifies the need for legislative action to protect employee privacy. This article explores possible legislative solutions and attempts to identify procedures that reflect the core values of those solutions. One of the most rapidly evolving areas of employment law is privacy [1]. The right to privacy in general is a young concept, \"discovered\" in 1890 by Samuel Warren and Supreme Court Justice-to-be Louis Brandeis [1, 2]. The authors of The Right to Privacy were alarmed by the \"modern enterprise and invention\" of turn-of-the-century technology, particularly the rapid dissemination of informa tion via the burgeoning field of mass communication [2]. The \"instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise\" threatened not only to \"proclaim [ ] from the housetops\" what was \"whispered in closets\" and ruin reputations, but also, Brandeis and Warren feared, to invade the \"spiritual\" value of the \"inviolate personality\" [2, p. 205]. Thus, invasion of privacy would cause damage beyond reputation to affect \"the estimate of [one's] self and upon his feelings\" [2, p. 197]. Since then, legal scholars have struggled to categorize the bundle of interests contained within the \"inviolate personality.\" Dean Prosser reduced the privacy","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117264733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/PGL0-EB3J-NVKT-G48V
Theresa Zechman
This article will attempt to provide answers about the extent of an employee’s 4th Amendment rights. The first section will provide an overview of the requirements of the 4th Amendment. The following sections will explore specific issues including urinalysis, the privacy of an employee’s desk, video surveillance, and lockers. Joe, a truck driver for Trucking Inc., arrives at work to begin his shift. Following normal protocol, he places his jacket and other personal belongings in his locker in the employees’ locker room in the Trucking Inc. terminal. Joe talks with the other employees in the locker room who are changing their clothes as their shift has ended. Unbeknownst to Joe and his fellow employees, Trucking Inc. is watching. Placed in the smoke alarm above their lockers is a minuscule video camera which records the employees’ every move. Has Joe’s 4th Amendment right to be secure in his person and free from unreasonable search and seizures been violated? It depends. THE FUNDAMENTAL CASE LAW The 4th Amendment to the United State Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
{"title":"When Does an Employer Violate an Employee's Fourth Amendment Rights? Case Law and Applications","authors":"Theresa Zechman","doi":"10.2190/PGL0-EB3J-NVKT-G48V","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/PGL0-EB3J-NVKT-G48V","url":null,"abstract":"This article will attempt to provide answers about the extent of an employee’s 4th Amendment rights. The first section will provide an overview of the requirements of the 4th Amendment. The following sections will explore specific issues including urinalysis, the privacy of an employee’s desk, video surveillance, and lockers. Joe, a truck driver for Trucking Inc., arrives at work to begin his shift. Following normal protocol, he places his jacket and other personal belongings in his locker in the employees’ locker room in the Trucking Inc. terminal. Joe talks with the other employees in the locker room who are changing their clothes as their shift has ended. Unbeknownst to Joe and his fellow employees, Trucking Inc. is watching. Placed in the smoke alarm above their lockers is a minuscule video camera which records the employees’ every move. Has Joe’s 4th Amendment right to be secure in his person and free from unreasonable search and seizures been violated? It depends. THE FUNDAMENTAL CASE LAW The 4th Amendment to the United State Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117281922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/KVG7-NYTC-M8M3-GB3X
D. J. Petersen
This study, based on 122 published arbitration awards, covering the years 1980 to 1996, is concerned with arbitral rather than court standards used in sexual harassment cases. Arbitrators deal almost exclusively with hostile environment harassment cases as quid pro quo sexual harassment must be carried out by a supervisor. Supervisors are not typically covered by collective bargaining agreements. Hostile environment sexual harassment takes the form of verbal, physical, written, and visual harassment. Arbitrators, aware that their decisions may be reversed in the courts on public policy grounds, are less likely to reverse an employer's penalty imposed for an alleged sexual harassment violation. Indeed, an employer may not even be required to have a sexual harassment policy in order to discipline/discharge for such misconduct. Sexual harassment often has more to do with the exploitation of one's power than with sex or harassment per se [I]. Sexual harassment cases appear to be on the increase. For example, the number of sexual harassment cases filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis sion (EEOC) grew from 4,400 in 1986 to 15,342 in 1996 [2]. Roughly parallel ing this increase in EEOC sexual harassment cases were those published arbitra tion awards reported by the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) and Commerce Clearing House (CCH), e.g., two such cases in 1980, but nine reported cases in 1996 [3]. This article is concerned solely with the arbitral approach to resolving sexual harassment cases. While arbitrators are no doubt cognizant of judicial approaches to sexual harassment matters, their primary responsibility is to
{"title":"Issues and Standards in Arbitral Approaches to Sexual Harassment Cases","authors":"D. J. Petersen","doi":"10.2190/KVG7-NYTC-M8M3-GB3X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/KVG7-NYTC-M8M3-GB3X","url":null,"abstract":"This study, based on 122 published arbitration awards, covering the years 1980 to 1996, is concerned with arbitral rather than court standards used in sexual harassment cases. Arbitrators deal almost exclusively with hostile environment harassment cases as quid pro quo sexual harassment must be carried out by a supervisor. Supervisors are not typically covered by collective bargaining agreements. Hostile environment sexual harassment takes the form of verbal, physical, written, and visual harassment. Arbitrators, aware that their decisions may be reversed in the courts on public policy grounds, are less likely to reverse an employer's penalty imposed for an alleged sexual harassment violation. Indeed, an employer may not even be required to have a sexual harassment policy in order to discipline/discharge for such misconduct. Sexual harassment often has more to do with the exploitation of one's power than with sex or harassment per se [I]. Sexual harassment cases appear to be on the increase. For example, the number of sexual harassment cases filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis sion (EEOC) grew from 4,400 in 1986 to 15,342 in 1996 [2]. Roughly parallel ing this increase in EEOC sexual harassment cases were those published arbitra tion awards reported by the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) and Commerce Clearing House (CCH), e.g., two such cases in 1980, but nine reported cases in 1996 [3]. This article is concerned solely with the arbitral approach to resolving sexual harassment cases. While arbitrators are no doubt cognizant of judicial approaches to sexual harassment matters, their primary responsibility is to","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130554403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/JNP3-11J3-BP1H-60XR
G. Lacy
Compulsory arbitration of individual employee statutory rights is inconsistent with the concept of exclusive representation in a collective bargaining setting. In negotiations or in grievance arbitration, it is not uncommon for unions to be involved in employment disputes where individual employee statutory rights are directly or indirectly implicated. Often these statutory rights can clash with the interest of a majority of the membership and even where there is no clash the complexity of a statutory violation enmeshed with a contract violation may be beyond the scope of a union's ability to provide adequate representation. A solution for unions may rest in providing flexibility in the representation process and allowing employees to use their own representative in disputes that involve statutory claims on the condition that the arbitration decision will not establish a precedent for interpretation of the agreement. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) [1] is one of the various statutes that established employment rights for individuals which may be included in a collective bargaining agreement. In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that the compulsory arbitration provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) [2], could be used to address an age discrimination claim in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. [3] Gilmer did not involve union representation, and the court distinguished it from cases that did, which included Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. [4], where it was held that an employee's use of arbitration to challenge race discrimination did not preclude any right to bring a lawsuit on the same claim. However, the one aspect of Gardner-Denver the court indicated it would no longer follow was the view that arbitration was inferior to the judicial process for resolving statutory claims. That rationale raised questions concerning a union's
雇员个人法定权利的强制仲裁与集体谈判环境中排他性代表权的概念不一致。在谈判或申诉仲裁中，工会参与直接或间接涉及雇员个人法定权利的就业纠纷并不罕见。通常，这些法定权利可能与大多数会员的利益发生冲突，即使在没有冲突的情况下，与违反合同有关的法定违法行为的复杂性可能超出工会提供充分代表的能力范围。工会的解决办法可能在于在代表程序中提供灵活性，并允许雇员在涉及法定索赔的争议中使用自己的代表，条件是仲裁决定不会为解释协议建立先例。《就业年龄歧视法》(ADEA)[1]是确立个人就业权利的各种法规之一，这些权利可能包含在集体谈判协议中。1991年，最高法院裁定，联邦仲裁法(FAA)的强制仲裁条款[2]可用于解决吉尔默诉州际公路/约翰逊巷公司(Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.)一案中的年龄歧视索赔[3]，吉尔默不涉及工会代表，法院将其与包括亚历山大诉加德纳-丹佛公司(Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.)[4]在内的其他案件区分出来。法院认为，雇员利用仲裁对种族歧视提出质疑并不排除就同一主张提起诉讼的任何权利。然而，法院表示它将不再遵循加德纳-丹佛案的一个方面，即仲裁在解决法定索赔方面不如司法程序。这一理论基础引发了有关工会权利的问题
{"title":"Gilmer: A Real or Imaginary Problem for Organized Labor?","authors":"G. Lacy","doi":"10.2190/JNP3-11J3-BP1H-60XR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/JNP3-11J3-BP1H-60XR","url":null,"abstract":"Compulsory arbitration of individual employee statutory rights is inconsistent with the concept of exclusive representation in a collective bargaining setting. In negotiations or in grievance arbitration, it is not uncommon for unions to be involved in employment disputes where individual employee statutory rights are directly or indirectly implicated. Often these statutory rights can clash with the interest of a majority of the membership and even where there is no clash the complexity of a statutory violation enmeshed with a contract violation may be beyond the scope of a union's ability to provide adequate representation. A solution for unions may rest in providing flexibility in the representation process and allowing employees to use their own representative in disputes that involve statutory claims on the condition that the arbitration decision will not establish a precedent for interpretation of the agreement. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) [1] is one of the various statutes that established employment rights for individuals which may be included in a collective bargaining agreement. In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that the compulsory arbitration provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) [2], could be used to address an age discrimination claim in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. [3] Gilmer did not involve union representation, and the court distinguished it from cases that did, which included Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. [4], where it was held that an employee's use of arbitration to challenge race discrimination did not preclude any right to bring a lawsuit on the same claim. However, the one aspect of Gardner-Denver the court indicated it would no longer follow was the view that arbitration was inferior to the judicial process for resolving statutory claims. That rationale raised questions concerning a union's","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121617204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/D4R9-YLTE-EYM3-LJ8Q
P. Staudohar
The use of pressure tactics by unions has become increasingly untenable. Factors such as membership decline, management resistance, global competi tion, and futile strikes indicate that union survival depends on adaptation. This article examines the need for unions to shift their emphasis toward coopera tion rather than confrontation. Collective bargaining, the core function of American unions, has received some heavy blows in recent years. A few unions have begun to resemble a boxer who has taken too many punches and seems ready to fall to the canvas. Not only have significant concessions been made in negotiations, but in pivotal confrontations— the air traffic controllers, Eastern Airlines, TWA, Caterpillar—unions have suf fered painful setbacks. A lesson that comes out of these struggles is that in the contemporary economic and political environment strikes have become unusually risky for unions and in most circumstances had best be avoided. Another lesson is that changes in variables such as markets, technology, and the work force neces sitate adaptation by unions for survival. This article examines a key aspect of that adaptation: cooperation between labor and management.
{"title":"Is it Deft or Daft to Cooperate","authors":"P. Staudohar","doi":"10.2190/D4R9-YLTE-EYM3-LJ8Q","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/D4R9-YLTE-EYM3-LJ8Q","url":null,"abstract":"The use of pressure tactics by unions has become increasingly untenable. Factors such as membership decline, management resistance, global competi tion, and futile strikes indicate that union survival depends on adaptation. This article examines the need for unions to shift their emphasis toward coopera tion rather than confrontation. Collective bargaining, the core function of American unions, has received some heavy blows in recent years. A few unions have begun to resemble a boxer who has taken too many punches and seems ready to fall to the canvas. Not only have significant concessions been made in negotiations, but in pivotal confrontations— the air traffic controllers, Eastern Airlines, TWA, Caterpillar—unions have suf fered painful setbacks. A lesson that comes out of these struggles is that in the contemporary economic and political environment strikes have become unusually risky for unions and in most circumstances had best be avoided. Another lesson is that changes in variables such as markets, technology, and the work force neces sitate adaptation by unions for survival. This article examines a key aspect of that adaptation: cooperation between labor and management.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"255 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124008525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/689C-TNXL-Q22E-DN06
J. D. Grant, T. Wagar
The purpose of this article is to examine factors influencing a court's decision that an employer had just cause for dismissal on the grounds of employee misconduct. Based on an analysis of 140 Canadian dismissal cases over the period 1975 to 1989, the results indicated that employers won about 47 percent of the cases. In addition to the nature of the misconduct, a number of factors including employer condonation, circumstances negating intent, the record of the plaintiff and whether the employee had obtained a new job were related to case outcome. Previous research has addressed specific aspects of the law of wrongful dismissal in Canada, including an analysis of the law [1], the determination of reasonable notice [2], and the determination of just cause in incompetence cases [3]. As noted in past studies, the termination of a nonunion employee without just cause is wrongful, and the dismissed worker may sue the employer for damages based on the common law remedy of wrongful dismissal. A very common employer defense to a charge of wrongful dismissal is that the employee was justifiably terminated because of misconduct related to the job [4]. The present study outlines the results of an analysis of 140 Canadian miscon duct cases decided over a fifteen-year period commencing in 1975. In all of the cases examined, the employer argued just cause existed for dismissal on the basis of employee misconduct.
{"title":"Employee Misconduct and Dismissal for Cause: Evidence from Canada","authors":"J. D. Grant, T. Wagar","doi":"10.2190/689C-TNXL-Q22E-DN06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/689C-TNXL-Q22E-DN06","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to examine factors influencing a court's decision that an employer had just cause for dismissal on the grounds of employee misconduct. Based on an analysis of 140 Canadian dismissal cases over the period 1975 to 1989, the results indicated that employers won about 47 percent of the cases. In addition to the nature of the misconduct, a number of factors including employer condonation, circumstances negating intent, the record of the plaintiff and whether the employee had obtained a new job were related to case outcome. Previous research has addressed specific aspects of the law of wrongful dismissal in Canada, including an analysis of the law [1], the determination of reasonable notice [2], and the determination of just cause in incompetence cases [3]. As noted in past studies, the termination of a nonunion employee without just cause is wrongful, and the dismissed worker may sue the employer for damages based on the common law remedy of wrongful dismissal. A very common employer defense to a charge of wrongful dismissal is that the employee was justifiably terminated because of misconduct related to the job [4]. The present study outlines the results of an analysis of 140 Canadian miscon duct cases decided over a fifteen-year period commencing in 1975. In all of the cases examined, the employer argued just cause existed for dismissal on the basis of employee misconduct.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127722335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/YWM0-CRVA-88A7-4CJW
M. Masters, William S. Brown
{"title":"Managers' Workplace Privacy Rights: A Survey of Current Practice","authors":"M. Masters, William S. Brown","doi":"10.2190/YWM0-CRVA-88A7-4CJW","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/YWM0-CRVA-88A7-4CJW","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129394722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/UDFL-U9PQ-U4GD-XNQY
Kurt H. Decker
{"title":"Recent Litigation Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)","authors":"Kurt H. Decker","doi":"10.2190/UDFL-U9PQ-U4GD-XNQY","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/UDFL-U9PQ-U4GD-XNQY","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"321 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132446390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/LKRP-C8T8-AE9C-Y9VA
S. Griffin
This article presents the results of an investigation of the attitudes of Australian occupational therapy academics toward collective bargaining for themselves and clinical therapists. Data were collected using a mailed survey instrument which included scales measuring attitudes to collective bargaining and collecting demographic data. In general, Australian occupational therapy academics are supportive in principle, of collective bargaining for both them selves and clinical therapists to achieve a range of outcomes. However, in practice, less than 50 percent are members of a union and less than 25 percent are involved in any way beyond basic membership. Industrial relations and, therefore, unions have begun to play an increasingly important role in health services. This is due to an increasing dissatisfaction with working conditions due to the rationalization of health services [1]. Also con tributing to the increased need for representation to employers is what Brocket termed the socialization of health professionals into bureaucracies and away from more independent, autonomous practice [2]. The salaried professional requires collective bargaining with other employees to ensure that the professional's good will is not exploited by employers. The occupational therapy literature has called for occupational therapists to become more involved in lobbying, challenging decision makers, and power broking to secure the future of the profession within an increasingly tight financial •This research was supported by a grant from the Occupational Therapists' Vocational Branch of the N S W Public Service Association.
{"title":"Australian Occupational Therapy Academics' Attitudes to Collective Bargaining","authors":"S. Griffin","doi":"10.2190/LKRP-C8T8-AE9C-Y9VA","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/LKRP-C8T8-AE9C-Y9VA","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the results of an investigation of the attitudes of Australian occupational therapy academics toward collective bargaining for themselves and clinical therapists. Data were collected using a mailed survey instrument which included scales measuring attitudes to collective bargaining and collecting demographic data. In general, Australian occupational therapy academics are supportive in principle, of collective bargaining for both them selves and clinical therapists to achieve a range of outcomes. However, in practice, less than 50 percent are members of a union and less than 25 percent are involved in any way beyond basic membership. Industrial relations and, therefore, unions have begun to play an increasingly important role in health services. This is due to an increasing dissatisfaction with working conditions due to the rationalization of health services [1]. Also con tributing to the increased need for representation to employers is what Brocket termed the socialization of health professionals into bureaucracies and away from more independent, autonomous practice [2]. The salaried professional requires collective bargaining with other employees to ensure that the professional's good will is not exploited by employers. The occupational therapy literature has called for occupational therapists to become more involved in lobbying, challenging decision makers, and power broking to secure the future of the profession within an increasingly tight financial •This research was supported by a grant from the Occupational Therapists' Vocational Branch of the N S W Public Service Association.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127798703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：