UNION AND MANAGEMENT INTERACTIONS: ORGANIZING Why Do Employees Join Unions?

If you were an employee of any company, you would understand why it is always better to join a union for the purpose of better protection of your rights as a worker. If you are not, here is an example of how a union works. For instance you worked at a company with a boss who gives you a wage that is lower than the expected minimum wage, a union leader thus forms a union of people within the company who share the same sentiments and then at the same time, acts as the voice who delivers the complaint to the big boss. This is where the importance of a union takes place. Having a voice at work is important for any employee because it is through this that they are able to relate their concerns and exercise their rights as workers. This is one of the many advantages of having a union membership and it is also called a union advantage. Union members all over the country actually represent a cross section of people ranging from women and men of all ages, races and multi-cultural groups. Some work 9-5 jobs, others work in hospitals and clinics, while others are automechanics, some are construction site workers, pilots, cabin crews, and janitors you name it. Although their wage rates and incomes may vary, it is essential for all of these people to be union members because it is through this that they are able to gain more decent wages, benefits, good working conditions and have a say in their jobs. In a gist, when unions are formed, its sole purpose is to make better or improve their jobs and advocate each workers choice. If they win a case against a company protocol that they feel is violating their rights, the company would somehow resort to negotiating and compromising to meet their workers needs.

Top Reasons Why people Join Unions: Unions and the act of unionization are not gone forever. People are still joining unions and with the uncertainty facing the American labor market in the future there is a good chance that unionization may increase in the near future. Therefore, employers need to

know why people want to join a union. Employers desire to avoid unionization as much as possible. Unfortunately many employers don't start worrying until it is already too late and the union organizers are embedded within their company. Being proactive and knowing what your workers want will help you in the long run. 1.) Unfair: People join unions because they feel that management is unfair. When managers engage in patronage, promote their friends, terminate the employment of people without cause and have poor management skills people are not going to trust them. This low worker-to-management trust is a primary reason people choose to be unionized. 2.) Compensation: As wages are declining in many industries due to global competition and a slow down in U.S. manufacturing, workers desire to have higher wages. Wages can be considerably low in the hospitality environment which is ripe for unionization and is part of the reason why unionization has been growing in this industry. The goal is to get wages affixed and raise them higher through joining a union. 3.) Benefits: Unions often have a strong benefits package which they are able to extract from the employer. Workers have seen declining benefits levels, increased co-pays and a squeezing of drug prescription plans. Few want to worry about whether their families will have medical coverage. 4.) Retirement: Traditional retirement plans are gone and workers would like to have something to live off of when they become too old to work. Even though nearly half of all workers don't put any money way for their retirement they do want company matching. Joining a union helps them to not only install a 401K program but also company matching. 5.) Work Conditions: If the workplace is dirty, poorly lit, and simply a nasty place to people there is a good chance that workers will want to unionize. They do so because through the union's health and safety committees they can lobby for more improvements to the conditions of their work areas as well as the conditions associated with their employment.

6.) Safety: Nothing damages the credibility of a company more then having either a major injury or death at the workplace. If the workers assume that this is the sole cause of the employer many workers will want to join a union. They will feel as though the company is trying to make as much money as possible; even at the expense of the workers. Workers might join a trade union because

They believe that there is strength in number and they will be listened to when they in a group.

To negotiate a better pay, more holidays and less hours of work. To pressurize the employer to provide them with a healthier and safer working environment.

Improved benefits for retrenched workers To get the benefits of advice, financial support and welfare activities carried out by Trade Unions.

Many workers may also join a trade union because there is a closed shop policy. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) NAFTA is an agreement among Canada, United States, and Mexico that has created a free market even larger than European Community. The United States and Canada already have an agreement since 1989, but NAFTA brought Mexico into the consortium. The agreement was promoted by Mexicos increasing willingness to open its markets and facilities in an effort to promote economic growth. NAFTA has increased the U.S investment in Mexico because of Mexicos substantially lower labor costs for low-skilled employees. This has had effects on employment in the United States. First, many low-skilled jobs went south, decreasing employment opportunities for U.S citizens who lack higher level skills. Second, it has increased employment opportunities for Americans with higher-level skills. Second, it has increased employment opportunities for Americans with higher-level skills beyond those already beyond those already observed.

NAFTA is a trilateral free trade deal that came into force in January 1994, signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. The central thrust of the agreement is to eliminate the vast majority of tariffs on products traded among the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The terms of the agreement called for these tariffs to be phased out gradually, and the final aspects of the deal weren't fully implemented until January 1, 2008. The deal swept away export tariffs in several industries: agriculture has been a major focus, but tariffs have also been reduced on items like textiles and automobiles. NAFTA also implemented intellectual-property protections, established dispute-resolution mechanisms, and put into place regional labor and environmental safeguards, though some critics now lobby for stronger measures on this front. How do economists assess NAFTA's economic impact? It is difficult to quantify NAFTA's effect very precisely, given the complexities involved in assigning direct causality between NAFTA's implementation and economic shifts. Further, it is impossible to know the extent to which trade policy might have liberalized even without NAFTA. Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott, two experts at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the authors of say that on a basic level, NAFTA's impact on North American companies is clear. "NAFTA was designed to promote economic growth by spurring competition in domestic markets and promoting investment from both domestic and foreign sources," they write. "It has worked. North American firms are now more efficient and productive. They have restructured to take advantage of economies of scale in production and intra-industry specialization." A paper from three prominent trade experts, C. Parr Rosson, III, C. Ford Runge, and Kirby S. Moulton, notes that the idea of trade blocs is relatively new in North America, but argues that similar arrangements elsewhere in the world have shown consistent gains when viewed from a long-term perspective. The report outlines different forms of "preferential trading arrangements," from free trade deals like NAFTA to more limited customs unions and economic unions, which have been successful in parts of Europe. The report notes that preferential trading arrangements can actually divert trade in the

short-term--and can cause labor-market disruptions that are painful to some workers-but also "can be expected to have major long-term benefits." In May 2003, the Congressional Budget Office attempted a full-scale examination of NAFTA's economic consequences to date, taking care to note the challenges inherent in any effort to assign direct causation to one specific trade agreement. The report came to three main conclusions:

U.S. trade with Mexico was growing before NAFTA's implementation, and would likely have continued to grow with or without the deal on a scale that "dwarfs the effects" of NAFTA itself;

The direct effect of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexico trade is fairly small, and thus the direct impact on the U.S. labor market is also small; and Overall, the NAFTA deal has expanded U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) "very slightly," and has had a similar effect-both positive and small-on the Canadian and Mexican economies. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) GATT is the framework of rules and principles for reducing trade barriers. The most recent round of GATT negotiation resulted in an agreement to cut tariffs (taxes on imports) by 40 percent, reduce government subsidies to business, expand protection of intellectual property such as copyright, patents, and establish rules for investing and trading in services. It also established the World Trade Organization (WTO) to resolve disputes among GATT members. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was a multilateral agreement regulating international trade. According to its preamble, its purpose was the "substantial reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers and the elimination of preferences, on a reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis." It was negotiated during the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment and was the outcome of the failure of negotiating governments to create the International Trade Organization (ITO). GATT was signed in 1947 and lasted until 1994, when it was replaced by the World Trade Organization in 1995.

The original GATT text (GATT 1948) is still in effect under the WTO framework, subject to the modifications of GATT 1994. Impact of GATT in the Philippine Economy In terms of tariff change, the new GATT/WTO will not mean very much as far as the Philippine industries are concerned. The present tariff rates of almost all Philippine industries are below the initial bound rate of the GATT/WTO set in 1995. Tariff protection in the Philippines has declined considerably in the past years due to the series of tariff reduction programs embarked on by the government to liberalize the trade sector. However, the expected change in the world economy in terms of trade expansion is significant as shown in the different world growth scenarios presented in the paper. The paper presented two scenarios of the world economy. Together with the other changes, the paper simulated these to see the impact on the local economy. Based on the simulation results, the overall impact of the new GATT/WTO is positive in both scenarios. Under Scenario A, a real GDP will have an average increase of 0.7 percent. However, there will be three industries which will be affected negatively, all of which are under the agricultural sector. In terms of income distribution effects, the results are mixed. In fact, the richest income group will benefit the most, followed by the second household group. Under Scenario B, real GDP will increase at an average of 0.64 percent. Manufacturing will be the leading sector. Mining industries will be negatively affected. The effect on income distribution is progressive. The poorest income groups will benefit the most. Under this scenario, there will be industries which will register negative growth effect. These industries will come mostly from the agricultural and mining sectors