HRM 3302 Three-Part Paper: Labor Relations Article Review, Wage Compression and Case 14.2 “You Are Not Hurt? Good, You’re Fired!”

HRM 3302: Employee rights and labor relations, total compensation (wage compression) and workplace safety

Write one APA paper with a title page and one reference list (minimum three pages of text). Use at least one external source from 2019 or later for each part.

• Part 1: Employee rights and labor relations. Review an HR Magazine article from the CSU Online Library related to employee rights or labor relations: its premise, the employee rights or labor relations points (including ethical and legal considerations), how the situation contributes to the organization’s success or failure and the role of HR. Include the full APA reference with DOI information.
• Part 2: Total compensation/wage compression. Review the Wage Compression section of Chapter 11 and an article on wage compression: its premise, how the situation affected employee performance and well-being and the role of HR.
• Part 3: Workplace safety. Analyze Case 14.2, “You Are Not Hurt? Good—You’re Fired!” with headings for Introduction, OSHA, Employer Responsibilities, Stress, Workplace Violence, Signs of Potential Violence, Workplace Safety Issues or Trends and Summary.

Original example for study purposes (about 1,600 words, roughly six double-spaced pages). Add your textbook citations and your own HR Magazine article.

Part 1: Employee Rights and Labor Relations

Premise of the Article

Shepherd (2023) reports that a panel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in February 2023 that Starbucks illegally fired two workers and interfered with union organizing at two Philadelphia stores. The board found that managers fired the two employees because of their union activity, reduced other employees’ hours, questioned workers about union activities, monitored their social media, withheld a training opportunity from a worker and prohibited employees from discussing their terms and conditions of employment. Starbucks argued that the employees were fired for secretly recording managers, which violated company policy and Pennsylvania’s all-party consent law, but the board concluded that the company knew about the recordings and did not fire the workers for that reason. The NLRB ordered Starbucks to reinstate the workers with back pay and cover their job-search expenses.

Employee Rights and Labor Relations Points

The case centers on Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which gives employees the right to organize, join unions and engage in “concerted activities” for mutual aid or protection, including discussing wages and working conditions. Section 8 prohibits employers from interfering with these rights, discriminating against employees for union activity or retaliating against them. Legal considerations include unfair labor practice charges, reinstatement and back pay remedies and the possibility that some employee recordings can be protected when they document unionization meetings. Ethical considerations include respecting employees’ freedom of association, avoiding surveillance and intimidation and applying policies consistently rather than using them as a pretext for retaliation.

Contribution to Organizational Success or Failure

The situation contributed to organizational failure in several ways. Legal violations led to costly litigation and remedies, management time was diverted to disputes and Starbucks’ reputation as an employee-friendly company, built partly by calling employees “partners,” was damaged. Antiunion tactics also can harm morale and trust among remaining employees and fuel further organizing. A more effective approach would have been to listen to employees’ concerns and address them directly while respecting their legal rights.

Role of HR

HR should have trained store and district managers on what they can and cannot do during union campaigns, often summarized by the acronym TIPS (no threats, interrogation, promises or surveillance). HR should review discipline decisions involving union supporters to ensure consistent, documented, nonretaliatory reasons and should audit policies, such as rules prohibiting discussion of pay, that conflict with the NLRA. Finally, HR can build channels for employee voice, such as surveys and listening sessions, that address concerns before they escalate.

Part 2: Total Compensation and Wage Compression

Premise of the Article

Sammer (2019) explains that pay compression occurs when new hires earn more than, or nearly as much as, tenured employees in the same or higher-level jobs. It often occurs when labor markets are tight and employers raise starting pay to recruit while current employees receive only small annual raises. The article, based on interviews with compensation experts and examples from employers such as Integral Ad Science and Hawaiian Airlines, describes how organizations should diagnose and correct compression.

Points Related to Wage Compression

Sammer (2019) emphasizes that HR should first determine whether compression is isolated or systemic. A new hire with scarce skills may justifiably start higher in a range, but recurring compression suggests that the organization is using outdated market data or pay ranges. Recommended solutions include reviewing whole job families rather than individual cases, making smaller off-cycle adjustments more frequently, using hiring bonuses for new employees instead of permanently higher base pay and using spot bonuses or equity to reward long-term employees. The article also warns that regulatory changes, such as raising the overtime salary threshold, can create compression for employees just above the new threshold unless related salary scales are adjusted.

Effects on Employee Performance and Well-Being

Compression violates employees’ sense of fairness. Under equity theory, experienced employees who learn that newcomers earn as much or more may reduce effort, lose commitment or leave for jobs that pay market rates. The article notes that unaddressed compression can create discord, lower morale and cause turnover, which costs the organization experienced talent and institutional knowledge. It can also damage relationships between new and long-term employees and between employees and managers who must explain pay decisions.

Role of HR

HR is responsible for monitoring market data, auditing pay to identify compression, recommending adjustments within the budget and training managers to explain the organization’s pay philosophy honestly. Sammer (2019) stresses involving front-line managers, who understand the skills required, and looking at total rewards such as extra time off and flexibility. As pay transparency laws spread, HR’s ability to identify and correct compression proactively becomes even more important.

Part 3: Workplace Safety, Case 14.2

Introduction

Mr. Yang worked as a help desk technician at a call center run by ActioNet under a federal contract. A co-worker, Tymony, had a history of erratic, disruptive and threatening behavior toward co-workers, including angry outbursts, cursing and hitting a cubicle during a meeting; co-workers reported his behavior, but managers did not take corrective action. In July 2012, after a dispute about noise and seating, Tymony allegedly grabbed Mr. Yang by the neck and threatened, “I will kill you. I will shoot you if you do that again.” Security and federal officers separated the two men, and Tymony was detained. The next day, ActioNet fired Mr. Yang “for cause,” reportedly without a full investigation, while Tymony was not disciplined. Mr. Yang later sued, alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to protect him from harm and negligent supervision (Yang v. ActioNet, Inc., 2015).

OSHA

OSHA does not have a specific workplace violence standard, but the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, requires employers to provide a workplace “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” If Mr. Yang had filed a complaint, OSHA would have evaluated it and, for a serious hazard, could have conducted an on-site inspection: an opening conference, a walkaround, employee interviews and records review, and a closing conference. OSHA would examine whether the employer knew of Tymony’s threatening behavior, whether violence was a recognized hazard and whether feasible measures such as discipline, removal or a violence prevention program existed. Possible citations would most likely be serious (a hazard that could cause death or serious physical harm that the employer knew or should have known about), and possibly willful if managers knowingly ignored repeated threats. As of the January 2025 adjustment, maximum penalties are $16,550 per serious violation and $165,514 per willful or repeated violation (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], 2025). Separately, Mr. Yang’s firing after reporting a safety concern could support a Section 11(c) retaliation complaint, which must be filed within 30 days and can result in reinstatement and back pay.

Employer Responsibilities

Under OSHA, ActioNet must provide a workplace free of recognized serious hazards; comply with applicable standards; inform employees of hazards and their rights; keep required injury records; and not retaliate against employees who raise safety concerns. In this case, ActioNet’s responsibilities included investigating reported threats, disciplining or removing the aggressor, protecting the victim and maintaining a workplace violence prevention policy with clear reporting procedures.

Stress

Possible causes of Tymony’s stress include the high-pressure call center environment, with constant calls, performance metrics and little control over work; crowded open cubicles with noise and lack of privacy, which fueled conflicts over seating and noise; interpersonal conflict with co-workers; unclear supervision and unresolved complaints; and possible personal stressors such as financial or family problems or untreated mental health conditions. Stress does not excuse violence, but it helps explain how ongoing frustration escalated when it was never addressed.

Workplace Violence

Causes of workplace violence include individual factors (a history of aggression, poor anger management, substance abuse or mental illness), organizational factors (high stress, perceived unfairness, poor management, lack of policies and failure to respond to warning signs) and environmental factors (crowding and lack of security). In this case, organizational factors were critical: managers ignored repeated aggressive behavior, which signaled that such conduct was tolerated, and then punished the victim. Understanding these causes shows that the assault was predictable and preventable.

Signs of Potential Violence

Common warning signs include verbal threats, intimidation, angry outbursts, hitting or throwing objects, blaming others, an obsession with grievances, increased conflict with co-workers and a history of violence. Tymony exhibited several: repeated confrontations with Mr. Yang over minor issues, cursing and striking a cubicle during a meeting, berating co-workers and, ultimately, a direct threat to kill and shoot a co-worker. Co-workers had reported these behaviors, so the signs were visible and known to management.

Workplace Safety Issues or Trends

Relevant trends include growing employer attention to workplace violence prevention programs and threat assessment teams; the expectation, under the General Duty Clause, that employers act on known threats; increased protection for whistleblowers and employees who report safety concerns; legal exposure for negligent hiring, retention and supervision; and the use of joint-employer and contractor arrangements, which can confuse responsibility for safety when several companies share a workplace, as ActioNet and its partner did on this federal contract.

Summary

Case 14.2 shows how failing to respond to warning signs and treating a victim as a problem can turn a manageable conflict into an assault, a wrongful termination claim and potential OSHA liability. ActioNet should have investigated earlier complaints, disciplined or removed Tymony, protected Mr. Yang and conducted a fair investigation before taking any action. HR’s role is to create and enforce a zero-tolerance violence policy, train managers to recognize warning signs, provide safe reporting channels and ensure that employees who report threats are protected, not punished.

References

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2025, January 14). US Department of Labor announces adjusted OSHA civil penalty amounts [Trade release]. https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/osha-trade-release/20250114

Sammer, J. (2019, March 7). What to do when new workers out-earn current staff. SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/when-new-hires-out-earn-current-workers-pay-attention.aspx

Shepherd, L. (2023, February 16). Agency finds Starbucks illegally fired union organizers. SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/agency-finds-starbucks-illegally-fired-union-organizers

Yang v. ActioNet, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00792 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2015) (third amended complaint).

[Your HRM 3302 textbook, including Chapter 11 and Case 14.2, in APA format.]

[Your HR Magazine article from the CSU Online Library, with DOI or database information.]

More model assignments posted today

• Ecological systems theory paper (Precious)
• Calm app services marketing case
• Starbucks Rewards and price elasticity
• Regulation interview questions (banking)
• Vertical integration journal (sugar farms)
• HRM 3302 3-2-1 reflection
• Hofstede training design for Japan
• MSW 547 Grameen pilot proposal