the two questions below, minimum of 250 words and at least 1 source. 1. Considering the current rules regarding permissible conduct by unions to promote themselves and permissible conduct by employers to fight union encroachment, which side do you think the rules tend to favor and why? Do you think such favoritism is deliberate in the legislative design? Why or why not? 2. Do you think employers in certain industries might be more resistant to unionization than in others? Why or why not? Format replies to the two statements below, 100 words minimum to each statement, with a direct question at the end. 1.) Initially I believed that the rules tended to favor unions, but after doing some research, I somewhat believe they favor the employers. I believe the rules allow the employer to take a good hard look at their practices, how they treat employees, wages, benefits, and safety factors to help motivate the employer to be more conscious of the \"little guys\" and take care of them the best way they can. Yes it's a business and they still have to make those tough calls where the company comes first and employees may not like the outcome. But the employer has a chance to make the working environment better which will prevent the need for a union or needing to bargain with the union. You could say it favors the unions since it improves the aspects a union is created for, but I still say the organization because it pushed them to be a better organization and take care of its people in area they may have been blind to. I can see employers in certain industries being more resistant to unionization. With certain jobs come certain work hazards that even with all the necessary precautions in place, is still very dangerous. The employer may be doing everything they can to protect its employees and offer better health benefits and bonuses to compensate but accidents cannot always be avoided. In other industries, the product or service the company provides may be high in demand. If there was a union and should they go on strike, the company may not be able to provide that service and can ultimately have an impact on the company's reputation and financial stability. Not all industries require a union, and some do. As an employer, you have to be prepared if and when the day comes that your employees feel the need to unionize and be willing to accept it. If you are open and embrace it instead of trying to fight it, I believe the relationship between union and employer will become stronger from the get go and both parties can come out happy in the end. 2.) I would have to say that the rules tend to favor the unions rather than employers trying to fight them off. I say this because large companies went through a period in which unions were essential and it involved employers, unions, and even the government (Fossum, 2014). The laws actually favored the collective bargaining process to settle complications (Fossum, 2014). Overall the government wants employees to be able to settle any disputes and not cause a stoppage of any goods or services. The rules I feel are more in favor of unionization and I do feel like the rules are deliberate in design. The government wouldn't be invested in unions if it weren't deliberate for a reason. They want to be able to keep products moving without having any problems or having to deal with external factors from a stoppage. I do believe that certain employers would be more resistant to unions than others for a few reasons. The first reason is the type of work that they would be doing. If they are working indoors that requires a well-regulated environment, then it will be more comfortable for employees as well. An example would be working with electronics all day; they often require to be kept at a certain temperature so it doesn't overheat. Another reason is that if the employer just became a new business and opened up for the first time. They might be scared to have a union come in and start taking money that might not be available quite yet because of the new start up