What Makes a Good Mediator? Insights from a Mediation Training Program Participant

Mediation is a popular form of alternative dispute resolution for settling conflicts occurring in employment settings. Such workplace conflicts handled by mediation, for example, include discrimination, wrongful termination, as well as various labor-management issues. Defined as a structured process where a neutral third party assists the two conflicting parties in arriving at a voluntary resolution, individuals have undergone mediation training in order to become mediators. While research exists on how mediation-training programs should be structured, the purpose of this research is to determine the key attributes required to develop good mediators and whether such characteristics can be acquired through mediation-training program participation. Utilizing an autoethnographic methodology as a mediation training program participant, it was discovered that effective mediators demonstrate strong communication skills, flexibility, neutrality, composure and ethicality during the mediation process which can be attained through participation in mediation-training programs.     

“Glorified Messengers for Management” or “Legitimate Unionism”? An Analysis of Local Independent Unions in the Post-Company Union Era

Local independent unions (LIUs), which have represented a sizable minority of union members, largely emerged from company unions once they had been declared illegal upon the upholding of the National Labor Relations Act. This paper constructs and analyzes three distinct patterns of the organizational transformation of company unions into LIUs to determine if these LIUs became autonomous and independent of management or remained controlled by the employer. It was discovered that, in a majority of the cases, these LIUs were legitimate unions that operated independently of employer domination.     

Lenin as Scientific Manager Under Monopoly Capitalism, State Capitalism, and Socialism: A Response to Scoville

I argue that Lenin's views on scientific management did not shift as drastically as Scoville (2001 ) claims from 1913 to 1918. The seeds of Lenin's 1918 views on Taylorism actually were contained in an article he wrote in 1914, three years before the October Revolution. In addition, I argue that Lenin did not uncritically embrace the implementation of scientific management in the construction of socialism in the Soviet Republic, as argued by Scoville. I present evidence that Lenin viewed Taylorism as only a temporary measure to be used in the transitory stage of state capitalism that he believed characterized the Soviet Republic in 1918. Finally, because Scoville does not differentiate between the transitory stage of state capitalism and socialism in the Soviet Republic's early years, he states that Lenin advocated the use of scientific management under socialism. I argue that there is insufficient evidence to support this position.