List the goals of collective bargaining. 2. List two pros and list two cons of collective bargain

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation between a labor union and an employer regarding the terms and conditions of the employment relations. The overall goal of the collective bargaining process is to reach a collective bargaining agreement that will govern the relationship between the employees and employers including such matters as wages, benefits, hours, promotion, grievance procedures, and other conditions of employment. The process is started when a union selects an exclusive agent to represent it in negotiations. Both the employer and the union must negotiate in good faith regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining until they reach an agreement or become deadlocked. If they become deadlocked, both have the right to use certain legal tactics to pressure an agreement such as strikes and lockouts.


Pros

Collective bargaining gives workers a larger voice.
Collective bargaining can improve a worker’s quality of life.
Collective bargaining creates enforcement consistency.
Collective bargaining encourages cooperation.
Collective bargaining creates a binding result.
Collective bargaining creates relationships.
Collective bargaining must represent every member of the unit.
Collective bargaining can be changed.

Cons

Collective bargaining comes at a cost.
Collective bargaining may require a dues payment.
Collective bargaining requires governance duties.
Collective bargaining may require everyone to be bound by the contract.
Collective bargaining is not always a process of fair representation.
Collective bargaining highlights personal differences.
Collective bargaining can change the workplace environment.
Collective bargaining doesn’t guarantee a good deal for either party.


Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case whose ruling stated that prison inmates do not have a right under the First Amendment to join labor unions.

Supreme Court concluded restrictions were reasonable

A three-judge federal district court ruled in favor of the prisoners’ union, finding that the no solicitation ban was too restrictive and not necessary to advance prison security concerns. The prison officials appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed and upheld the restrictions.

Writing for the majority, Justice William H. Rehnquist criticized the lower court for not giving appropriate deference to prison officials and “appropriate recognition to the peculiar and restrictive circumstances of penal confinement.” He applied a rational basis analysis, concluding that the restrictions were reasonable because prison officials could conceivably believe that allowing prisoner union activities could stir up trouble among the inmates.

“The case of a prisoners’ union, where the focus is on the presentation of grievances to, and encouragement of adversary relations with, institution officials surely would rank high on anyone’s list of potential trouble spots,” Rehnquist wrote.

The majority also rejected the equal protection claims, noting that the Jaycees and Alcoholics Anonymous did not have “the avowed intent to pursue an adversary relationship with the prison officials.”

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger’s concurrence emphasized that prison reforms must come not from the federal courts but from prison administrators, who have more expertise in these matters.