'Labor Management Relations\r'

'Katszuba’s write-up, which appears in the Star Tribune, is similar to Lulli and Henson’s (2006) expression in two aspects. First, both words tractor trailer issues associated with persistence amount of money organizing. Katszuba’s denomination describes a problem associated with efforts to organize a cranch party conjunction in an office that appears to be exempt from lying-in northward organizing according to relegate Laws. In the resembling manner, Lulli and Henson ar resideed in the dynamics of proletariat union organizing in a growingly difficult purlieu where businesses be much interested in decrease working class costs and retaining their competitive improvement.\r\nAn other(a) semblance is that both words present the political promoters that affect labor union organizing wherein both explore the political motives canful union formation. Both Katszuba’s and Lulli and Henson’s member presents the order of busines s behind union organizing for the employees and other interest groups and personalities.\r\nOn the other hand, on that point atomic number 18 differences amid Katszuba’s report and Lulli and Henson’s (2006) article in terms of data and facts presented, specific issues raised, and the purview from which the public issue of labor union organizing is discussed. Lulli and Henson’s article clearly present the general business and stinting environment where labor unions atomic number 18 situated, the factors that promote labor union organizing activities, and the political, social, technological, and internal business practice agenda forwarded by the labor movement.\r\nThey attempt to provide a wide understanding of the innovations in strategies and tactics employed by labor unions in general. Meanwhile, Katszuba describes a to a greater extent particular scenario involving the organizing efforts of a labor union at the commonwealth attorney public’s office. His article focuses more on the conflicting interests amongst the labor union, the State attorney General as employer, and the employees of the Attorney General’s office.\r\nLikewise, Lulli and Henson raises the issue of the political, economic, and social shock absorber of more advanced strategies and tactics used by labor unions to further their sectoral interests. The article discusses in lucubrate the various ways in which labor unions are qualified to influence legislation, pressure politicians and investors into keeping businesses that are deemed anti-labor from opening new markets in some states, string out membership through a planned enlisting strategy targetting the younger generation of workers, take advantage of technology to advance their organizing efforts and reach a wider audience, and bend mergers and other business activities into opportunities to consolidate and strengthen their ranks.\r\nLulli and Henson business line how the results of cr edible surveys such and polls point to an uptrend for labor union power, support, and influence among the population and how an environment that is accessory of labor unions is encouraged by political and economic developments. They therefore give credit to the labor unions for existence able to stand up for their interests and being able to come up with better strategies in organizing. At the same time, the authors observe that human resource professionals essential be able to take note and field these developments in the labor movement critically in order to formulate appropriate approaches and tactics in dealing with increased union activity.\r\nKatszuba, on the other hand, highlights the tensions and problems created by the labor union organizing attempts in the State Attorney General’s office between employer and employees and within the labor union movement itself collect to the â€Å"illegality” of labor organizing in the AG’s office. Likewise, the a rticle not only raises the question of the validity of establishing a labor union in the State Attorney General’s office but alike the question of motive in such efforts.\r\nTo this effect, the article presents the controversy that a former candidate for the State General’s Office is behind the labor organizing efforts and is fanning the embers of employee dissatisfaction in order to destabilize the Office and close up the incumbent Attorney General. The question of motive is a crucial point in this article since it influences the indorser’s perception of the trouble arising from labor union activities and seems to discredit the efforts of the labor union to gain employee copy by ascribing their motives to an external force other than the employees.\r\nThe briny difference between the two articles lies in the military position from which union activities and tactics are discussed. Lulli and Henson’s article approaches the subject of evolving labor un ion strategies academically and in a neutral manner. They present the data in a way that attempts to provide Human election personnel with useful information on discussion labor union organizing efforts and activities.\r\nIn contrast, Katszuba’s article presents the story of the â€Å"organizing roam” in the Attorney General’s office in a more sensationalized manner. Although there is an attempt to establish objectivity by presenting both sides of the contending parties, the article is unfortunately lacking in more detailed explanation of the legislative factor that renders the organizing activities illegal.\r\nThus, Mike Katszuba’s report on the â€Å"organizing flap in the AG’s office” and Lulli and Henson’s (2006) article on â€Å"union organizing trends and tactics” are similar in that they examine the phenomenon and issues of labor union organizing. However, a deeper scrutiny of the two articles reveals that while there may be similarities between these reports, there are also salient differences in terms of the facts they present, the issues they raise, and the perspective and objectives that the respective authors wish to impart to their readers.\r\n \r\n'