Essay Example on MasTec & DirecTV in Labor Dispute: Problems with Contract

Introduction

Both the entities the MasTec and the DirecTV were having a problem with the contract they had agreed regarding labor. MasTec, again in their activities of installing and maintaining satellites, needed service providers to enable the clients to connect to the services offered for air channels on their gadgets. This, by default, made MasTec, the intermediary between the clients and the TV service providers. The clients needed to have the satellite connections connect to their landlines and their telephones. Due to the assumed workload, the DirecTV company pressured MasTec technicians to get customers to have the capacity to access the connections (Francis et al., 2018). The unfortunate thing was that the clients declined to submit to the offer. That left the DirecTV no choice other than imposing penalties if more than half of the satellite installations did not yield the expected results of half of the new facilities did not include the landline connections. The DirecTV management was desperate and even chose to compel the technicians to coarse the clients to allow the links to occur. To avenge the damages carried out by MasTec, the employees decided to do a public presentation. In support of a famous TV station, they were able to execute their plans. The NLRB is deemed to protect the rights of the employees, and at this juncture, the people who were suffering were the employees (Acharya, Baghai, & Subramanian, 2013). The decision was made on the one who filled the claims first without inferring the root cause of the problem

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

What was the concerted activity in which the technicians engaged? What made that activity “concerted”?

The technicians were demanding their pays, and thus they rushed to a television station to air their grievances. This was the concerted activity in the case between MasTec and DirecTV technicians.

Why was this activity “protected”?

During the supposed uncalled-for practices that were executed by MasTec, they were assumptions that there was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (Krueger, 2017). The panel realized that the tech team was involved in protected concerted activities, which was aimed at magnifying labor disputes. When the set tuff in the air, they complained of poor management practices; they were pressured to disseminate unwanted services to the clients. The board listened and concluded that the newscast's tech teams' presence was not extensively malicious or untrue to allow removal of an act of protection (Francis et al., 2018).

What if the companies had shown that they suffered substantial losses in sales and revenue stemming from the news program? Would that have made a difference in the outcome of this case? Why or why not? (15 points)

The issue emanated from the management teams from both companies. It would not have influenced the outcome of the case because they had previously breached their contracts to the workers who later retaliated (Krueger, 2017). It is seen that the workers responded to a cause of action.

Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?

I agree with the verdict because the tech companies involved were supposed to make their plans and market surveys right before bringing in their products. From the look of things, the management never tested their capacity to disseminate their services reliably, and that means they hit themselves with their cane.

References

Acharya, V. V., Baghai, R. P., & Subramanian, K. V. (2013). Labor laws and innovation. The Journal of Law and Economics, 56(4), 997-1037.

Francis, B. B., Kim, I., Wang, B., & Zhang, Z. (2018). Labor law and innovation revisited. Journal of Banking & Finance, 94, 1-15.

Krueger, A. B. (2017). Where have all the workers gone? An inquiry into the decline of the US labor force participation rate. Brookings papers on economic activity, 2017(2), 1.