The Power to Create or Obstruct Employee Voice: Does Us Public Policy Skew Employer Preference for 'No Voice' Workplaces?

Posted: 29 Feb 2008

See all articles by Michael H. LeRoy

Michael H. LeRoy

University of Illinois College of Law

Date Written: May 2006

Abstract

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.

JEL Classification: J5, J48, K42

Suggested Citation

LeRoy, Michael H., The Power to Create or Obstruct Employee Voice: Does Us Public Policy Skew Employer Preference for 'No Voice' Workplaces? (May 2006). Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 4, Issue 2, pp. 311-319, 2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=922895 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwl010

Michael H. LeRoy (Contact Author)

University of Illinois College of Law ( email )

504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, IL 61820
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
545
PlumX Metrics