Evaluating Disparate Impact and Employee Selection

HRMN 300

Discussion & learning Activities

Question 1: Thoughts About Your Learning

Please take a moment to reflect on your thoughts about Human Resources at the beginning of the semester. (Take the time to scroll through your Weeks 1 and 2 responses.) Think about your learning over the course of the semester. What has changed for you? Is there one concept or idea that’s most important to you? Can you summarize the change in your learning and awareness as the semester progressed?

Question 2: Achieving the course outcomes?

Our stated Course Outcomes are listed below. Do you believe you have achieved the Course Outcomes? Is there one assignment or reading that has contributed most to your learning? Is there one question or area of interest you would like to have seen explored more?

After completing this course, you will be able to:

1.Apply current knowledge of human resource management to work productively in an organization as part of, or in relationship with, the human resource function

2.Demonstrate knowledge of and critically evaluate human resource programs and make recommendations for improvement

3.Apply knowledge of workplace rules and regulations to create a working environment that is safe, fair, and legally compliant

Assignment 3 : Evaluating Disparate Impact and Employee Selection

You are employed as an HR consultant for a mid-sized bank. The bank employs 200 tellers across its branches.  You need to recommend to the bank what to consider when hiring for the position of Bank Teller. At this point you have completed Assignment 2 and you have created a selection system for the job of a Bank Teller.  Now you are moving to Assignment 3 to verify the selection system works properly.

For this second assignment there are two main tasks you need to complete:

• Assignment 3: Part A Evaluating Disparate Impact Discrimination
• Assignment 3: Part B Reflection on Employee Selection

Both tasks should be included in one document 3 to 5 pages in length, double spaced, use Times New Roman font (12 point), use tables when needed, and use APA format for referencing and citing. Include a cover page and a reference page. For the complete instructions see Content> Course Resources> Three Major Assignments.

HRMN  300 Responses

HRMN 362

Learning Outcomes

Since we are at the end of this class, this is the perfect time to reflect upon the achievement of Course Outcomes.

As the Syllabus states ….  After completing this course, you will be able to:

• identify, interpret, and apply rules and policies governing the labor relations process
• research and prepare background materials to support the labor relations process
• differentiate between unionized and nonunionized environments in order to maintain legal compliance
• identify, analyze, and classify potential labor relations issues in order to support the decision-making process

Considering the activities, assignments, etc.

What has been most useful ? How has this course helped you?

You don’t need to respond to another student.

Learning Activities 

Discussion #1

Review the your reading this week, Future State of Federal Labor Relations.  Provide a response to this article based upon our discussions during this course.  Interact with at least one other student.

Final Written Assignment 3 

Requirements include,

• Cover Page with Name, Date, and Title of Assignment
• Use headings to separate the sections of the paper (use the Questions selected)
• Page numbers
• Double-spacing
• Times New Roman, size 12
• Use a minimum of four sources (from the past four years) for each response
• In-text citations in APA style
• Reference page using APA style

Select any four of these six topics for your Final Written Assignment and address each question comprehensively:

1. It has been said that “a company that deserves a union gets one,” suggesting that if proper leadership and motivation techniques are employed and desirable policies devised, the workers will not want to unionize. Either agree or disagree with this philosophy. Support your position and explain what a company could do to create an environment where workers will not want to unionize.
2. Some means of resolving negotiations impasses involve economic weapons (e.g. strikes and lockouts). There are other means of impasse resolution that do not involve the use of economic weapons (e.g. fact finding, mediation, med/arb/interest arb, etc.). Select two (2) non- economic means of impasse resolution, 1) explain how each one functions and 2) discuss the relative pros and cons of each.
3. Unions have declined as a percentage of the workforce in the private sector. With this decline, have career and workplace dissatisfaction and alienation increased? If so, why is this so? If not, why not? Support your position.
4. List and discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages in using seniority as a factor to determine shift preference or overtime assignments.
5. Identify two different steps a company should take to prepare for its first round of bargaining with the union pre-negotiation activities. Explain why each of the steps you have identified is critical to achieving an initial successful collective bargaining agreement with the union.
6. Identify and explain the major ways in which the government is an important participant in the labor relations.
   HRMN 362 Responses

   Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 33, supplement 1, Winter 2015 S101 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Confl ict Resolution Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21145

   Future of Federal-Sector Labor-Management Relations

   Robert M. Tobias

   Since the inception of the federal-sector labor-management program in 1963 with the issuance of Executive Order 10988, the program has experienced sixteen years of trending toward collaboration and thirty- fi ve years of adversarial labor-management relations. Adversarial labor-management relationships are antithetical to collaborative labor- management relationships. Notwithstanding the fact that collabora- tive labor-management relations can satisfy the interests of managers and employees through their unions to create better delivery of public service, the confl uence of presidential, managerial, and union leader support is hard to create and maintain.

   Collaboration is going the way of the dodo bird in federal-sector labor-management relationships, as in so many other aspects of American life.

   For a brief period, collaborative labor-management relations were an agreed-upon management and union goal; the trend now, however, is back toward an adversarial relationship. Th is hardening of positions operates to the detriment not only of federal managers, employees, and the unions that represent them but also to the public.

   Th e causes of this retreat to the adversarial are a combination of (1) a reluctance by managers and union leaders to believe that spending time with the other will advance their goals, (2) a lack of presidential support for creating and maintaining collaborative labor-management relationships, and (3) a lack of a proven record of agency productivity success from col- laborative labor-management relationships. Th ese factors are leading once again to a period where each party seeks to preserve and protect its rights rather than to achieve mutual goals.

    

    

   S102 TOBIAS

   Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq

   Th e arena of federal-sector labor-management relationships has shifted quite dramatically over time based on changing law, executive orders, and presidential policy. From 1963 to 1992, executive order 10988, issued by President John F. Kennedy (1962), formally established a labor-management program. It provided for organizing, union elections, and mandatory bargain- ing and was followed in 1978, under President Jimmy Carter, by the Civil Ser- vice Reform Act, which codifi ed federal-sector labor-management relations.

   During those years, approximately 64 percent of the federal work- force chose to be organized, and unions’ challenges to the mandated scope of bargaining were fodder for many adversarial disputes. Federal-sector unions focused on expanding the narrow scope through litigation in order to satisfy their newly organized members, and managers responded by seeking to protect the right of managers to make unilateral decisions.

   A General Accounting Offi ce (GAO) report, Federal Labor Relations: A Program in Need of Reform, summarized the state of labor-management relations in the federal government: “We have never had so many people and agencies spend so much time, blood, sweat, and tears on so little. In other words, I am saying I think it is an awful waste of time and money on very little results” (GAO 1991, 76).

   Th e period from 1992 to 2000 period was characterized by President Bill Clinton’s (1993) executive order 12871, which recognized that “to reform government,” it was necessary to change “the nature of Federal labor-management relations so that managers, employees, and employees’ elected union representatives serve as partners” with the goal of trans- forming them “into organizations capable of delivering the highest quality services to the American public.”

   Sensitive to the thirty-fi ve-year fi ght about the scope of bargaining, President Clinton elected to expand the scope of unions’ infl uence by cre- ating labor-management partnerships. In partnership forums, managers and union representatives could freely discuss nonnegotiable matters such as eff orts to increase agency productivity. Labeled “predecisional involve- ment,” the forums allowed unions the opportunity to engage in unlimited talks, while at the same time management retained the right to make fi nal decisions after all discussions were completed. Th is approach satisfi ed the interests of management in increasing agency productivity and union member interests in participating in eff orts to better solve the problems that inhibit accomplishing agency mission.

   Moving from theory to practice, from adversarial to collaborative, was not easy. Inherent in an adversarial relationship is assuming the worst

    

    

   Future of Federal-Sector Labor-Management Relations S103

   Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq

   about the behavior of the other. Removing those barnacles was challeng- ing. Like the Hatfi elds and McCoys, management and unions found many reasons to distrust each other and no reason to believe that investing the time necessary to “transform” a labor-management relationship from adversarial to collaborative would work.

   Notwithstanding the parties’ well-founded wariness, several studies found partnering to be a successful cost-avoidance strategy. Th ere were fewer grievances, unfair labor practices, and lawsuits fi led, and fewer days were spent in bargaining. In addition, the studies reported a successful return on the time spent in training, developing trusting relationships, and solving agency production problems (Defense Partnership Council 1999).

   GAO (2001) studied management eff orts to involve employees in partnerships at the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Internal Revenue Service, Offi ce of Personnel Man- agement, and Veterans Benefi ts Administration, and concluded, “Eff ective changes can only be made through the cooperation of leaders, union rep- resentatives, and employees throughout the organization” (26).

   Th e National Partnership Council, created by executive order 12871, commissioned a study to “provide the National Partnership Council, and, ultimately, the President, with information about the extent to which partnership produces quantifi able improvements in Federal agency per- formance” (Masters 2001, 3). Masters reported that locally created part- nership councils represented 858,931 employees government-wide or 70 percent of the organized federal workforce.

   Eight agencies covering approximately 313,000 employees agreed to participate in the Masters study. Masters used three sets of surveys (employ- ees, labor-management partnership council participant, and union lead- ers) to measure the impact of the labor-management councils, structured interviews, and archival data concerning partnership activities, and labor relations trends, including the number of grievances, arbitrations, unfair labor practices, and information on the partnerships, including minutes, partnership council charters, and accomplishments to gather data. He found that 95 percent of those interviewed “believed that partnerships had reduced adversarialism and improved the climate reducing the fre- quency of formal confl icts or disputes in the form of grievances fi led, arbi- trations held, and unfair labor practices processed” (51). Notwithstanding the shared perception of success, because of insuffi cient record keeping, there was no proof that the eff orts caused increased agency productivity and effi ciency.

    

    

   S104 TOBIAS

   Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq

   One study, however, conducted by Booz-Allen & Hamilton (1998), used quantifi able data to reach its conclusions concerning the National Treasury Employees Union and the US Custom Service partnership eff ort. After carefully gathering cost and results data, Booz Allen & Hamilton concluded, “Th e benefi ts generated since the implementation of partner- ship from 1994 to 1998 equate to total return on investment (ROI) of approximately 25%” (28).

   Success in any form, however, made little diff erence to President George W. Bush (2001), who issued executive order 13203 abolishing President Clinton’s executive order 12871. With few exceptions, both labor and management quickly reverted to adversarial relationships, in which vilifying the other is much easier than working collaboratively.

   President Barack Obama (2009) resurrected collaborative labor- management relations when he issued executive order 13522 and added a requirement that the parties document the increased productivity that occurred as a result of their collaborative work.

   Although there is less public vilifi cation, there has been little broad acceptance and implementation of the idea in President Obama’s execu- tive order that collaborative labor-management relations increase agency productivity and provide a process for unions to satisfy employees’ desire to be engaged in fi xing agency operation problems. Th e reasons are many:

   • Labor and management leaders do not have to exert much uncom- fortable eff ort to assume the worst. Th e eff ort is focused on litigation, winning, and protecting rights, and there is no obligation to create a positive relationship, which for many is inconceivable.

   • A change from an adversarial to a collaborative relationship requires the time and attention of high-level political appointees, who are much more comfortable focusing on public policy creation than on public policy implementation and increasing governance eff ectiveness.

   • Union-elected leaders were reluctant to once again risk their time and political capital as elected leaders to engage in a process that might disappear with the end of President Obama’s term.

   • Th ere is a failure to recognize that successfully changing a labor- management relationship requires changed behavior from every manager and union leader, from the top of each organization to the steward and fi rst-line supervisor. Such a signifi cant change eff ort requires time, patience, and discipline.

    

    

   Future of Federal-Sector Labor-Management Relations S105

   Conflict Resolution Quarterly • DOI: 10.1002/crq

   • President Obama has off ered no public support for the eff ort. While there has been talk about increasing agency productivity through better performance metrics, there has been no talk about linking those desires to the need to include employees through their union representatives to achieve the goal.

   Th ere is no question that collaborative labor-management relations yield better results for taxpayers. But President Obama seems to have missed his chance. Will the next president recognize the need for collabora- tive labor-management eff orts as necessary to restore taxpayer credibility in the eff ectiveness of government and provide the personal support that any signifi cant change eff ort needs to be successful? Or will the Hatfi elds and McCoys once again take center stage?

   References

   Booz-Allen & Hamilton. 1998. Cost Benefi t Analysis of the Labor-Management Partnership. Washington, DC: Booz-Allen & Hamilton.

   Bush, George W. 2001. “Revocation of Executive Order and Presidential Memo- randum Concerning Labor-Management Partnerships.” Executive Order 13203. Federal Register 66:11227.

   Clinton, William. 1993. “Labor-Management Partnerships.” Executive Order 12871. Federal Register 58:52201.

   Defense Partnership Council. 1999. Report on the Examination of Partnership and Labor Relations in the Department of Defense. Washington, DC: US Govern- ment Printing Offi ce.

   General Accounting Offi ce (GAO). 1991. Federal Labor Relations: A Program in Need of Reform. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Offi ce.

   General Accounting Offi ce (GAO). 2001, September. Human Capital: Practices Th at Empowered and Involved Employees. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Offi ce.

   Kennedy, John F. 1962. “Employee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Ser- vice.” Executive Order 10988. Federal Register 27:551.

   Masters, Marick. 2001. “A Final Report to the National Partnership Council on Evaluating Progress and Improvements in Agencies’ Organizational Perfor- mance Resulting from Labor-Management Partnerships.” Washington, DC: Offi ce of Personnel Management.

   Obama, Barack. 2009. “Creating Labor Management Forums to Improve Delivery of Government Services.” Executive Order 13522. Federal Register 74:66203.

   Robert M. Tobias is an Executive in Residence in the Key Executive Leader- ship Program at American University.

    

    

   Copyright of Conflict Resolution Quarterly is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.