" The position of manager has become more multifaceted and complex, while the comprehensive classification and exclusion of management from bargaining agreements as observed by the NLRB has remained unchanged. As the dynamics of the workplace change, so should the dynamics of labor-management relations. .
Many factors, such as technological advancement, global economic development, and improvement in working conditions on a national scale have expanded the number of professional workers in the labor force, consequently increasing the number of managerial positions. Logically, the response to the substantial increase in the number of "supervisor" positions ought to be accounted for in labor relations. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the current structure of labor relations in the United States and comparatively substantiate the argument that lower/middle level management should be included in bargaining agreements, being that the model of management-friendly unions has been successfully implemented in various countries throughout Europe and Asia.
There is a clear disparity in the responsibility held by supervisors and managers due to increased complexity of corporate structure in the U.S., which is why the exclusion of even lower level management from labor relations is a predicament caused by an outdated definition. The foremost problem with this obsolete definition is that the distribution of power in many business models takes the tangible decision-making authority away from middle and lower management. In essence, this makes the managers and supervisors merely employees of their higher authority. The rules stated in the LMRA pertaining to the exclusion of supervisors in bargaining agreements should be adapted to accommodate lower and middle management because there is a strong argument to be made that certain management positions do not hold the same weight as they have historically.