Week Two Discussion Block 2 As we enter this week’s DB’s be sure to read your feedback from Week I. Also, as a reminder, reusing sources and companies fro
As we enter this week’s DB’s be sure to read your feedback from Week I. Also, as a reminder, reusing sources and companies from one DB to another are not permitted. Find new topics/sources. Also, news sources and quick internet sources are not counted towards the required min. sourcing.
Who are the principal parties involved in the collective bargaining process? What are their roles? How might the selection of the “right person” benefit either side?
Reply to Rakeem
Week Two Discussion Block 2
Contains unread posts
Rakeem Williams posted Feb 8, 2022 11:24 AM
The collective bargaining process is at the heart of the employer-employee relationship. That process, however, is not a simple one. The 1935 National Labor Relations Act, as subsequently amended, defines the process and limits the parties to it (Carrell & Heavrin, 2014). When you have collective bargaining agreements, the goal is for both parties to reach a mutual understanding, and somewhat both come halfway to favor both sides ultimately. That is the goal when you have this process in action. However, that is not always the case, and with the
More recent studies generate measures of union strength that capture the policy content of CBAs and find adverse effects of unions on achievement. And create measures of CBA “restrictiveness,” or the degree to which a given contract sets boundaries on the district. And school leadership in their management of teachers, and study the relationship between restrictiveness and achievement in samples of California school districts. For example,( Strunk 2011) finds that one standard deviation (SD) increase in CBA restrictiveness is associated with a 4.4- to 4.8-point decrease in average achievement. Strunk and McEachin (2011) It gets very tricky to appease both sides when you have different parties at play. So in this CBA agreement, it was clear where contracts increased, and that was in the achievement gaps proved to be minor and dependent upon the subgroups and race between White and Blacks. In so many words, where success was imminent, these contracts were entertained, and in lesser areas of success, these contracts were not as successful. This is what sometimes happens in CBAs when you have one side selected. It opens the door for more research and analysis to be done to help in the long run solve the issues at hand, and in this case, even though in some areas contracts we’re implemented, others were left out. However, it still opened the door to help fix this problem.
Additionally, increases in the restrictiveness of teacher leave policies appear to be associated with a widening of the student achievement gap. Improvements to the amount of parenting, maternity, and sabbatical leave (as captured by the leave subarea) might lead to the midyear replacement of classroom teachers. Younger teachers are more likely to utilize these policies and are also more likely to teach ED students (Grissom et al.,2015). Students who will be more impacted positively will also have the teachers that receive the support. That all makes sense and therefore is why it is crucial to have these issues and collective bargaining agreements to raise awareness to solve problems and in this case in California the problem was solved and the door is open to spread and correct this issue throughout America in rural school districts.
Carrell, M., R. & Heavrin, C. (2014). Introduction to labor relations. In. Carrell, M., R. & Heavrin, C. Labor relations and collective bargaining: Private and public sectors. Pearson.
Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S. (2015). The micropolitics of educational inequality: The case of teacher–student assignments. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(5), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1087768
Marianno. (2021). A Negotiated Disadvantage? California Collective Bargaining Agreements and Achievement Gaps. Educational Researcher, 50(7), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211006357
Strunk, K. O., McEachin, A. (2011). Accountability under constraint: The relationship between collective bargaining agreements and California schools’ and districts’ performance under No Child Left Behind. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 871–903. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211401006