Socio-Economic Review Advance Access originally published online on March 10, 2006
Socio-Economic Review 2006 4(2):311-319; doi:10.1093/ser/mwl010
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The power to create or obstruct employee voice: does US public policy skew employer preference for ‘no voice’ workplaces?
115 LIR Building, MC-504 504 E. Armory Avenue, Champaign, IL 61820-6297, USA
Correspondence: m-leroy{at}uiuc.edu
Employer demand for voice organizations is severely constrained in the US by a National Labor Relations Act section that outlaws company unions and their functional counterparts. This case study of pertinent NLRB decisions since 1993 shows no relaxation in this strict public policy. Aside from ‘no voice’ and ‘union voice’ options, three ‘voice’ organizations are available to employers: (i) self-managed work teams, (ii) disciplinary committees and (iii) teams or committees that address efficiency, work process or product quality. The first two types are allowed if employers cede control to these self-governing bodies. The third form has limited appeal because of the restrictive range of work subjects that can be addressed. The NLRB continues to prohibit more ambitious types of voice organizations. It is not surprising that substitute unions are found unlawful, but the Board has also ruled against a worker council that provided genuine expression of employee voice.
Key Words: employee voice • company unions • employers • JEL classification: J5, J48, K42