The issue with an employee having two jobs also relates the fact of the lack of impartiality exposed by an employee. In other words, employees who work on both job face the issue of taking sides. For instance, as union members they would hope that their labor interest would be protected through the union. The question actually remains open as for the extent ot which employer may be allowed to work in the two positions. If an employer works in a company or an organization, he primarily should priorize his interests as to the interests of the organization or a company he represents. His employer should decide whether an employee can undertake both jobs at the same time and receive the two sources of funding.

In my opinion, having a union in a nursing home would significantly help the situation, especially if it concerns high employee turnover. First and foremost, the union would study the situation and review the reasons for the high turnover in-depth. That way, the nursing home could benefit from their contribution at large. At the same time, if a non-professional job would entail a low reward, there would be very little what a union could do in that case. Given the sensitivity of the issue, one should be very careful approaching it from different perspectives. But essentially, the nursing home could benefit from approaching the issue from the right perspective, allowing a union to take an action and study the problem.

Clearly, by taking such course of action the company has evidenced the anti-union attitude. To a large extent, employees who were also union members, were placed in a very sensitive position. The absence of the light-duty policy is actually a shortcoming of the company, and not the employees and union negotiators. Otherwise, employees would be placed in a really uncomfortable positions as well as would indirectly face the violation of their labor rights.