Anderson School of Management Theses & Dissertations

Publication Date

5-31-1968

Abstract

The collective bargaining technique labeled "Boulwarism" derives its name from Lemuel R. Boulware who introduced a program of job marketing at GE in 1948. The major precepts of Boulwarism are:

1. That management is in the best position to allocate the resources of the company.

2. That a company offer will be changed only on receipt of new information supplied by the unions, but this should not occur because of the year round research conducted by the company.

3. That a direct communications approach with its workers is more desirable.

This study has attempted to evaluate "Boulwarism'' on the basis of accusations by labor and other collective bargaining authorities that “Boulwarism assigns unions a subordinate collective bargaining role.” Under the direction of Boulware, GE chartered a new course in employee relations because of the difficulties it encountered with workers and elements of the community during the 1946 strike. The company oriented its employee and community relations program to:

1. Develop and maintain the loyalty of its employees.

2. Answer all union charges.

3. Get recognition from employees and the community for GE's performance on behalf of its employees.

4. Gain support of employees and the community in any dispute with the union.

The traditional type of collective bargaining was considered by GE as "pointless haggling,” which allowed the union to appear to get more for the employee than the employer was willing to give. In making a determination of what was "right," GE left no doors open for the union to participate in an "ask­and-bid" form of bargaining. This was one of the fundamental issues in the charges against GE by the IUE. The NLRB trial examiner ruled that negotiations, although maintaining the form of '' collective bargaining,” fell short of the concept of meaningful negotiation as envisaged by the NLRB. It found that:

1. GE refused to bargain in good faith.

2. GE failed to furnish information necessary or relevant to bargaining issues.

3. GE bargained directly with employees.

4. GE discouraged membership in the IUE.

5. GE interfered and coerced employees in their right to self-organization.

Under the NLRA of 1935, the NLRB and the courts have

held that the duty to bargain required an employer to negotiate with the union in "good faith” and with an openmind. Going through the motions is not enough to qualify as “good faith" bargaining. The GE case is now pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York which is likely to make one of the following decisions:

1. Agree with the NLRB ruling and sustain its conclusions on refusing to bargain.

2. Condemn the entire process of “Boulwarism."

3. Rule that “Boulwarism" is not a violation of the Act.

4. Not consider "Boulwarism" and throw the case out of court.

The author has concluded that to abolish or tamper with the traditional approach to collective bargaining under the pretense of "paternalism" is wrong. It is through the traditional approach to collective bargaining that labor and management have created the opportunity to earn a living wage and the opportunity to establish an industrial enterprise.

Language

English

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Business Administration (MBA)

Level of Degree

Masters

Department Name

Anderson School of Management

First Committee Member

Howard Vivian Finston

Second Committee Member

Arthur A. Blumenfeld

Third Committee Member

Roland Beall Kool

Download

Share

COinS