jcb
always emerging from hibernation
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,641
Teresa's story about Disney leasing the golf course to Arnold Palmer prompted Julie to ask why can't Disney just transfer the existing Disney employees to Palmer.
Jason Garcia's article says:
I expect the "others" to be hired by Palmer will be golf pro's and other professionals. I don't know, of course.
Golf operations are included in the bargaining unit. Assuming that means golf employees are represented by a union (it generally does), if all of the represented employees were transferred to Palmer, Palmer would have to recognize and bargain with the union. Generally, when a new employer continues a prior employer's operations and hires a majority of its employees from the prior employer's unionized workforce, the new employer must recognize and bargain with the union over any future changes in the terms and conditions of employment.
Palmer's employee's can still vote to be union. The difference is, the way the deal was structured, Palmer is not forced to recognize the union.
You might expect Disney's union to grieve the move. But if the copy of the bargaining contract I have is accurate (it came from the Internet so all bets are off), Disney has the "right" to subcontract out "where the subcontracting of work will not result in the termination or layoff, or the failure to recall 39 from layoff, any regular Full-Time employee qualified and classified to do the work."
Of course, labor costs might have nothing at all to do with it.
Jason Garcia's article says:
Roughly 330 Disney employees will be affected by the change. Disney said nearly all of the workers will be offered other jobs, at comparable pay, elsewhere in the resort. It expects others will be hired by Arnold Palmer Golf Management.
I expect the "others" to be hired by Palmer will be golf pro's and other professionals. I don't know, of course.
Golf operations are included in the bargaining unit. Assuming that means golf employees are represented by a union (it generally does), if all of the represented employees were transferred to Palmer, Palmer would have to recognize and bargain with the union. Generally, when a new employer continues a prior employer's operations and hires a majority of its employees from the prior employer's unionized workforce, the new employer must recognize and bargain with the union over any future changes in the terms and conditions of employment.
Palmer's employee's can still vote to be union. The difference is, the way the deal was structured, Palmer is not forced to recognize the union.
You might expect Disney's union to grieve the move. But if the copy of the bargaining contract I have is accurate (it came from the Internet so all bets are off), Disney has the "right" to subcontract out "where the subcontracting of work will not result in the termination or layoff, or the failure to recall 39 from layoff, any regular Full-Time employee qualified and classified to do the work."
Of course, labor costs might have nothing at all to do with it.