Why Can’t
We All Just Get Along
Improving Performance and Morale Through Union and
Management Cooperation
Summary
Batman and the Joker. Superman and Lex Luthor. Unions and
Management. What makes these relationships different?
Well, unlike most adversarial relationships, the latter
has no good or evil party. Occasionally one will slip
into a devious role, depending on which side of the table
you are on, but each party represents their constituents
to the best of their ability. In doing that, they go for
all they can. Is that a good practice? That question can
be confusing.
In this day and age, cooperation in the
workplace is gaining recognition—much more than in
previous decades. However, it is not spreading through
the corporate world with as much speed as it should. Some
labor relations professionals are trying to change that
by making themselves into an example. They are changing
the face of union/management relations, and in turn,
making the lives better for both groups.
With the economy continuing to evolve into a
global entity, corporations are jumping at change. How
does business become faster, leaner, cheaper—namely
better? As paradigms and buzzwords crowd business section
shelves at bookstores around the world, gurus have begun
to think about the future. As they’ve put thoughts
onto paper, managers and executives alike have tried to
put them into action—some successfully, some not.
Well, is that the final answer? Is an open-door policy
with employees going to fix anything? Is a flatter
corporate structure solving any major problems? Are
employees genuinely happier than in years past? Perhaps
not. What we’ve realized is that we shouldn’t
ask if we could work harder and cheaper. The key question
is, how do we work smarter and more productively?
One sector of the business environment
attempting to answer that question is labor relations.
For decades, it had been normal practice for union and
management to be at each other’s throats. It was
accepted as the best of what was around. That is no
longer true. As the need for quality and productivity
explode in importance and vitality, these two adversarial
bodies are partnering for change—positive change.
And what an alternative it has been. Exploring and
embodying the tactics, unions and management are now
realizing the value of cooperation.
A “How To” Guide
“One of the reasons it is so difficult to create a
cooperative workplace is because we have so little
cooperative experience to draw on,” states Stephen
E. Barton, Ph.D., AICP, president of the city of Berkeley
Chapter, SEIU Local 535, and senior planner in the
Berkeley Planning and Development Department. He is
right. That is why one has to take a new view on the
subject in order to see a new perspective. In its most
fundamental state, the bond between the union
representing employees and the management representing
the company is a relationship. Although not at all the
same as a relationship among family, friends, or spouses,
it is based upon the same simple rules. The most basic
rule in any union/management cooperation philosophy is
respect. Would you maliciously lie to your husband or
wife? Would you try to trick your children or parents out
of money in order to keep it for yourself? Would you use
power over your friends to make their lives difficult? I
have to hope that the answer to most, if not all, of
these questions is a firm “NO!” Fortunately,
Ford Motor Company felt the same way. At their assembly
plant in Wayne, Mich., Ford decided to add an integrative
stamping department. When they approached the UAW Local
900 about what to do with existing agreements and
additional labor, the two decided to work together. Since
the addition to an already existing plant was something a
bit new, their joint work agreement was a perfect choice.
Ford was going to have to make some decisions on work
design, classification and such. They needed the
assistance of the union to ensure the understanding of
their motives by their employees. They knew they
couldn’t do it alone. The respect they had for the
union was sure to pay dividends—they both would
gain from the success—and ultimately did. A team
environment was created by the new stamping
area—not just with union and management, but in the
production facility as well. The union leadership
involved the membership in all aspects of the process and
made substantial efforts to communicate and garner
support. With all groups on the same page, the rollout
succeeded. Cooperation was the key.
Another key component in fostering a quality
relationship between unions and management is
specificity. As in any other relationship, vague language
can hurt. More so, holding back feelings can rupture any
trust that has been built. If specific goals are set,
their achievement is much easier. We’ve been told
that since elementary school. However, it is terribly
difficult to do alone. Try to look at the
union/management relationship as a friendship. That is a
good way to cover specificity. There are no ulterior
motives with friends—no hidden agendas. When
friends’ ideas aren’t parallel, they meet in
the middle. Compromise and specificity are related.
Although compromise is a key component to negotiations,
it is often the end to a bitter battle. Why not start
with compromise? “Genuine partnership is only
possible if it is based on empowerment,” Barton
says. In order to be democratic, everybody has to be
equal at the table—in knowledge and in attitude.
“Now, I have seen three annual budgets that talk
about ‘flattening the hierarchy,’
‘teamwork,’ and ‘investing in
employees,’” Barton adds, “and these
phrases ring as hollow as the annual promises to consult
with line staff before reorganizing.” You cannot
create trust without truth. Truth comes from laying out
specific goals. Both sides have to do this and
effectively compromise for the best of their respective
constituencies.
Even though respect and specificity are very
important to the success of any union/management
partnership, leadership can make or break any advances.
Talk is cheap. Action gets things done. The strong men
and women who call the shots in the bargaining parties
have the power to accept or reject change. By opening the
avenues of communication, they can find mutual respect.
They are on the same page already—which they may
not understand. They are trying to get the best they can
get. It is not a power trip. It is not malicious intent
to hurt. It is business. But who says business cannot be
nice? The leaders can make it so. Yes, much easier said
than done, but is it? As Jack Welch, noted former CEO of
General Electric once said, “The world of the 1990s
and beyond will not belong to ‘managers’ or
those who can make the numbers dance. The world will
belong to passionate, driven leaders—people who not
only have enormous amounts of energy but who can energize
those whom they lead.” It is the 21st century.
People should be able to cooperate and work together.
After all of the struggles of the past for equality and
freedom, is it not time yet to stop the bickering over
detail after detail? Leaders need to set the precedent.
Meet in the middle is the goal—anything beyond is
success.
Sharing in the Outcome
Unions and management—do they represent the same
people? The union represents the company’s
employees in bargaining. The management represents the
company the employees work for. Yes, they do share one
key group—the employees. Is it not almost worthless
for a company to fight with a union that is trying to
make that company’s employees happier? After all, a
happy employee is a more productive employee. Vice versa,
is it smart for a union to fight with a company that
ultimately manages the employees they represent? They
both have a vested interest in the employee. It is time
to focus on that. “Management and employees have
both different and similar interests, and neither can
function without the other,” Barton says.
Can’t you add unions into that statement too? Now I
don’t think anyone is asking unions and management
to yield to all demands. Some are in fact outrageous.
However, compromising when possible for the greater good
of the end users—the employees—is not a bad
practice. If you make them happy, they’ll return
the favor.
When discussing the happiness of people
involved in the union/management question, do not
overlook the public. They will be the end users of the
products manufactured by the employees who sign the
contracts. Consumers are smart—borderline crafty.
Especially in this economy, they look to products that
they know—products that make them smile. When
unions and management cooperate and partner for the
better good of the employees, public perception goes up
both for the company and the products. It is natural. In
a time when people are losing jobs and are uncertain
about their next steps, finding a company that cares is
nice.
The End of the Story
Making the best out of tough situations is a great fight.
However, it isn’t easy. If all union/management
relationships could be optimistic, they could all be
cooperative. It may take a while for that to happen, but
it is worth the wait. “Ideals are still
worthwhile,” Barton states, “even if they are
difficult to put into practice.” In the end,
nothing succeeds like success. The final outcomes must be
visible and measurable. Union/management cooperation
should make a real difference in the operation of the
organizations involved and the lives of the people within
them. Not all relationships have to be easy, but we can
try, right?
November 2001 News for a
Change Homepage
