It's been a while since I've shared my thoughts, but I was inspired to write after spending a week with the great folks at Allen University. For those of you who don't know who Allen University is, it is a 141-year old Historically Black University (HBCU)closely tied to the AME Church that opened its doors in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War as a place for higher education for newly freed slaves. The leadership of Allen University, specifically President Pamela Wilson, invited my wife and I to attend a leadership retreat, where we spent a wonderful week working hard to ensure the future success of Allen University while getting to know one another outside of the confines of the workplace. Witnessing the openness in which the leaders shared their thoughts, both personally and professionally, with each other made me remember the golden rule of Human Resources - that building relationships is more important now than it has ever been.
The old adage that "People are an organization's greatest asset" is commonly stated in mission statements around the world, yet it should really state that "The RIGHT people are an organization's greatest asset." Getting the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right position is the real key to an organization's success. In order to do this, organizations, and their leaders, must remember to take the time to build relationships - with their employees, customers, suppliers and each of their stakeholders, including their families and friends.
Such common sense, yet so many organizations and leaders fail at this simple notion. It makes you wonder - if so many leaders are so bad at building relationships at work, are they just as bad at building relationships in their personal lives? If experience has taught me anything, it is that people are inherently who they are whether it is at work with employees or at home with family and friends. I know that I have struggled the most when I have had to be one person in my professional life and another in my personal life. Long-term, it just doesn't work.
So, how do you ensure that you are building relationships that ensure success in your professional AND personal life? Well, that's another blog subject that I will write about in the near future. What I can say is that if you fail to build relationships, you will find life MUCH more challenging. Isn't it hard enough without this added burden? If you're struggling at home or at work, look in the mirror, and ask yourself, "Am I doing everything that I can to strengthen my relationships?" If you're not, you have a mid-year goal to begin immediately!
If you need help in Building Relationships, give me a call...someone at Human Resource Dynamics will be happy to help! And to those wonderful leaders of Allen University, who have focused on building relationships as a strategic goal - your future looks bright! Thank you for the enlightening and spiritually fulfilling week.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Battle in Wisconsin Likely to Show Outcome of 2012 Presidential Election
I wonder if Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin realized that the decision to end collective bargaining with most public employees of the state would turn into a pivotal battle for the Presidency in 2012?
As I watch events unfold in the state that I lived in for 12 years before moving to South Carolina, I can't help but feel that Walker and the Republicans with the majority in Wisconsin have overplayed their hands. You cannot be viewed as uncompromising and expect to be able to lead people, yet he and the state Republicans are coming across that way more and more each day the protests continue at their doorstep.
The union has offered concessions to meet budget needs this year, and most likely would be willing to negotiate long-term concessions if Walker allowed them the compromised position of holding onto their collective bargaining rights. The unions would claim victory, yet Walker would get what he began with as his position statement: ensuring Wisconsin gets out of the red. What makes Walker's position so weak is that the union's have offered these concessions, yet he has stated that he will not compromise on his views of collective bargaining. You cannot state that you will not compromise, especially in a liberal-leaning, pro-employee state like Wisconsin and not expect consequences.
Sure, big business is behind Governor Walker, because working with a union is very difficult. As I have stated in numerous blogs and posts, I do not feel that a unionized workforce gives any advantage to any party, union members or management. Unions in my opinion offer very little to dues-paying members outside of seniority, and they are socialist in nature with their "All for one and one for all mentality" that stresses the collective good vs. the individual contributor.
I have been called to task over the past couple of days for lacking compassion and being pro-management in terms of my views. I do feel that there is a time and place for collective good (defending our borders from an enemy, cheering our Olympians when they compete against the rest of the world) but there must also be a place for individual effort and contribution. My biggest issue with unions has always been that elected leaders "speak" for the entire body, and an individual's ability to succeed can be held back by negotiated language in a contract. What motivates an employee to do his or her best when that employee will only be paid what the negotiated rate of pay is for his or her job, regardless of how good (or bad in some cases) the person does the job? Would I try my best if I knew that I was getting the same hourly rate as some slacker working next to me that puts little or no effort into his or her job? It would be hard for me to stomach knowing that no matter how well I did my job, I was only able to be paid the same as the worst employee in my pay grade.
Likewise, should I feel bad that I went to school and got my Masters Degree in an attempt to secure the type of employment opportunity that I wanted in my life? Should I apologize that not everyone gets the opportunity or doesn't have the desire to achieve that level of education? Do I feel that I should be paid exactly what everyone else is paid, even though I've worked hard to earn those degrees? No. I feel that there is a place for individual achievement in a democracy, and that America was formed by entreprenuers and risk-takers who decided to outwork, outsmart or bet the farm on their abilities to succeed. Would America be where it is today if it were a socialist nation, where individual achievement is relegated to the background behind the collective good? Good or bad, America is where it is at because of the democracy that it installed, and taking away the ability for individual excellence would be like turning our backs on what our forefathers fought so valiantly for - Freedom to be as great as you want to be.
While many argue that America is not a true democracy, I am not going to get into that debate today. If I believe in democracy, which I do, then I must also believe that the protestors outside of the capital building in Wisconsin have the right to do what they are doing. They have the right to speak out, to be heard, without fear of the government shooting them or killing their families (Libya, Iran, North Korea, etc.). The Democrats are winning the PR battle in Wisconsin right now because they have shown a willingness to negotiate with the Republicans, while the Republicans are simply sounding uncompromising. America came into being because of uncompromising views from across the pond (England), and today we send our armies to fight for people all over the world whom we feel are not being heard or are being led by leaders who will not compromise with the people. If we are going to lead in life, at work, in relationships or as a world policeman (America), then you must show that you are willing to compromise.
There are some things in which you cannot compromise. You cannot negotiate with terrorists holding a hostage, at least in public avenues, or you invite every terrorist in the world to take a hostage. There are more examples of uncompromising positions, but saying that you will not collectively bargain is not one of them. I still feel that Wisconsin would be better off without unions, and without having to collectively bargain, but sometimes you have to compromise in order to lead. There are very few decisions that you make that are absolute black and white decisions, and great leaders know that there are always shades of gray in everything that we do.
If Governor Walker stands by his statements and refuses to collectively bargain, he will eventually be able to pass that law because the Senate Democrats cannot stay away from Wisconsin until the next election. If they don't return, they will eventually be replaced, and the bill will pass.
If this happens, the Democrats and President Obama will win the White House in 2012. Chances are, the Democrats will win the White House anyway, because there is no good Republican candidate out there right now. It will take someone special to beat President Obama in the next election, and there is no one special out there that has stepped forward for the Republicans. You better believe that the Democrats are watching this closely, because this is a case of losing a battle to win the war.
The Democratic Senators in Wisconsin can come home to vote and still emerge victorious even if the bill is eventually passed as is. They can show that they were "forced" by the Republicans to come back to pass the bill or face arrest or expulsion from the Senate, and that wave of discontent will carry over to the next election unless the economy miraculously explodes over the next few years. Other states have said that they will follow Wisconsin's example if the bill is passed. It is not hard to envision this "attack on unions by Republicans" being turned into this "attack on freedom by Republicans." If I'm a Democratic strategist, I'm licking my lips right now thinking about the different ways to spin this "uncompromising" position against Republicans.
Governor Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin are in trouble here, and I'm sure they know it. They better hope that they are right - that taking away collective bargaining rights from public employees leads to a booming economy for the state of Wisconsin - or they will be toast come next election time. Perhaps this is a case of the squeaky wheel getting the oil - perhaps there really are a majority of people in Wisconsin and across the nation who agree with what he is doing. However, if you believe the data being thrown out by various groups, a large majority of Americans, and an even larger majority of Wisconsinites, are on the side of the protestors. They believe in collective bargaining, even if they don't view unions in a positive light. When you start saying that you won't collectively bargain, that sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship, and is the very argument that many Republicans used when President Obama was passing his many bills while he enjoyed the majorities in the US House and Senate. You can't state that the President is failing to compromise, then do the same thing back that you have accused the President of doing. Our parents always told us that two wrongs don't make a right - I guess unless you are in politics.
Governor Walker should make the decision to accept the union concessions (ensuring that the concessions match the state's budgetary needs) and should allow the union to claim victory while bringing the state the economic recovery that it needs. Then, come election time, he and the Wisconsin Republicans can show that they listened to the people, they compromised, and they balanced the state budget. They can stand on the economy and declare themselves visionary leaders. If they don't compromise, they may still fix the budgetary mess in Wisconsin, and the economy may still grow. However, come election time, they will not maintain Republican control, because you cannot defend being uncompromising in most circumstances. Who is going to lead the Republican Party? Someone better step up pretty soon, or you can bet that the outcome of the battle in Wisconsin will likely show the outcome of the 2012 Presidential Election.
Just my thoughts on a Monday afternoon.
As I watch events unfold in the state that I lived in for 12 years before moving to South Carolina, I can't help but feel that Walker and the Republicans with the majority in Wisconsin have overplayed their hands. You cannot be viewed as uncompromising and expect to be able to lead people, yet he and the state Republicans are coming across that way more and more each day the protests continue at their doorstep.
The union has offered concessions to meet budget needs this year, and most likely would be willing to negotiate long-term concessions if Walker allowed them the compromised position of holding onto their collective bargaining rights. The unions would claim victory, yet Walker would get what he began with as his position statement: ensuring Wisconsin gets out of the red. What makes Walker's position so weak is that the union's have offered these concessions, yet he has stated that he will not compromise on his views of collective bargaining. You cannot state that you will not compromise, especially in a liberal-leaning, pro-employee state like Wisconsin and not expect consequences.
Sure, big business is behind Governor Walker, because working with a union is very difficult. As I have stated in numerous blogs and posts, I do not feel that a unionized workforce gives any advantage to any party, union members or management. Unions in my opinion offer very little to dues-paying members outside of seniority, and they are socialist in nature with their "All for one and one for all mentality" that stresses the collective good vs. the individual contributor.
I have been called to task over the past couple of days for lacking compassion and being pro-management in terms of my views. I do feel that there is a time and place for collective good (defending our borders from an enemy, cheering our Olympians when they compete against the rest of the world) but there must also be a place for individual effort and contribution. My biggest issue with unions has always been that elected leaders "speak" for the entire body, and an individual's ability to succeed can be held back by negotiated language in a contract. What motivates an employee to do his or her best when that employee will only be paid what the negotiated rate of pay is for his or her job, regardless of how good (or bad in some cases) the person does the job? Would I try my best if I knew that I was getting the same hourly rate as some slacker working next to me that puts little or no effort into his or her job? It would be hard for me to stomach knowing that no matter how well I did my job, I was only able to be paid the same as the worst employee in my pay grade.
Likewise, should I feel bad that I went to school and got my Masters Degree in an attempt to secure the type of employment opportunity that I wanted in my life? Should I apologize that not everyone gets the opportunity or doesn't have the desire to achieve that level of education? Do I feel that I should be paid exactly what everyone else is paid, even though I've worked hard to earn those degrees? No. I feel that there is a place for individual achievement in a democracy, and that America was formed by entreprenuers and risk-takers who decided to outwork, outsmart or bet the farm on their abilities to succeed. Would America be where it is today if it were a socialist nation, where individual achievement is relegated to the background behind the collective good? Good or bad, America is where it is at because of the democracy that it installed, and taking away the ability for individual excellence would be like turning our backs on what our forefathers fought so valiantly for - Freedom to be as great as you want to be.
While many argue that America is not a true democracy, I am not going to get into that debate today. If I believe in democracy, which I do, then I must also believe that the protestors outside of the capital building in Wisconsin have the right to do what they are doing. They have the right to speak out, to be heard, without fear of the government shooting them or killing their families (Libya, Iran, North Korea, etc.). The Democrats are winning the PR battle in Wisconsin right now because they have shown a willingness to negotiate with the Republicans, while the Republicans are simply sounding uncompromising. America came into being because of uncompromising views from across the pond (England), and today we send our armies to fight for people all over the world whom we feel are not being heard or are being led by leaders who will not compromise with the people. If we are going to lead in life, at work, in relationships or as a world policeman (America), then you must show that you are willing to compromise.
There are some things in which you cannot compromise. You cannot negotiate with terrorists holding a hostage, at least in public avenues, or you invite every terrorist in the world to take a hostage. There are more examples of uncompromising positions, but saying that you will not collectively bargain is not one of them. I still feel that Wisconsin would be better off without unions, and without having to collectively bargain, but sometimes you have to compromise in order to lead. There are very few decisions that you make that are absolute black and white decisions, and great leaders know that there are always shades of gray in everything that we do.
If Governor Walker stands by his statements and refuses to collectively bargain, he will eventually be able to pass that law because the Senate Democrats cannot stay away from Wisconsin until the next election. If they don't return, they will eventually be replaced, and the bill will pass.
If this happens, the Democrats and President Obama will win the White House in 2012. Chances are, the Democrats will win the White House anyway, because there is no good Republican candidate out there right now. It will take someone special to beat President Obama in the next election, and there is no one special out there that has stepped forward for the Republicans. You better believe that the Democrats are watching this closely, because this is a case of losing a battle to win the war.
The Democratic Senators in Wisconsin can come home to vote and still emerge victorious even if the bill is eventually passed as is. They can show that they were "forced" by the Republicans to come back to pass the bill or face arrest or expulsion from the Senate, and that wave of discontent will carry over to the next election unless the economy miraculously explodes over the next few years. Other states have said that they will follow Wisconsin's example if the bill is passed. It is not hard to envision this "attack on unions by Republicans" being turned into this "attack on freedom by Republicans." If I'm a Democratic strategist, I'm licking my lips right now thinking about the different ways to spin this "uncompromising" position against Republicans.
Governor Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin are in trouble here, and I'm sure they know it. They better hope that they are right - that taking away collective bargaining rights from public employees leads to a booming economy for the state of Wisconsin - or they will be toast come next election time. Perhaps this is a case of the squeaky wheel getting the oil - perhaps there really are a majority of people in Wisconsin and across the nation who agree with what he is doing. However, if you believe the data being thrown out by various groups, a large majority of Americans, and an even larger majority of Wisconsinites, are on the side of the protestors. They believe in collective bargaining, even if they don't view unions in a positive light. When you start saying that you won't collectively bargain, that sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship, and is the very argument that many Republicans used when President Obama was passing his many bills while he enjoyed the majorities in the US House and Senate. You can't state that the President is failing to compromise, then do the same thing back that you have accused the President of doing. Our parents always told us that two wrongs don't make a right - I guess unless you are in politics.
Governor Walker should make the decision to accept the union concessions (ensuring that the concessions match the state's budgetary needs) and should allow the union to claim victory while bringing the state the economic recovery that it needs. Then, come election time, he and the Wisconsin Republicans can show that they listened to the people, they compromised, and they balanced the state budget. They can stand on the economy and declare themselves visionary leaders. If they don't compromise, they may still fix the budgetary mess in Wisconsin, and the economy may still grow. However, come election time, they will not maintain Republican control, because you cannot defend being uncompromising in most circumstances. Who is going to lead the Republican Party? Someone better step up pretty soon, or you can bet that the outcome of the battle in Wisconsin will likely show the outcome of the 2012 Presidential Election.
Just my thoughts on a Monday afternoon.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Are We Witnessing a World-Wide Revolution?
I must say that witnessing the dynamic changes that are occurring right in front of our eyes makes me think that we are witnessing a world-wide revolution that may change everything we think that we know.
We watched in the late 80's when the Berlin Wall came crashing down, the Soviet Union crumbled, and the brave Chinese students were crushed by tanks in Tiannemin Square, and we all wondered what history-making event was going to happen next?
The 90's were much different than the 80's. Glam rock was finished when Nirvana and Pearl Jam introduced the Seattle Grunge Scene. The wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia shaped America's news until Bill Clinton's escapades in Oval Office. People were earning more money, and the overall sentiment was that we were on the right path.
Now we get to the 21st Century, and what we are witnessing as I write this is a complete lack of trust in anything or anybody, especially those related to governments or businesses. Believing in God has become a no-no, as many would make you feel stupid or ignorant for beliving in something based on faith and not evidence. Common sense has left us, and everyone wants to sue everyone else. There is an extreme lack of accountability, and almost zero ethical lines that will not be crossed.
What do you remember about the news in the last five years? Global economic meltdowns, businesses cheating by cooking the books, terrible decisions being made that in hindsight seem at least incompetent but at worst purposeful and criminal. Unending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while genocides are occuring in many other countries of the world without anyone lifting a hand to help. Government leaders around the world are embroiled in one scandal after another, and it seems that at least one leader a week is caught up in something sleazy.
Now, the people of the world have finally had enough. Revolutions have begun in countries long led by savage fear, and leaders are being deposed. While those governments try anything to hold onto power, including killing their own civilians, people are bravely standing up and saying, "Enough!" and demanding change. We are seeing it right in front of our own eyes - Egypt, Libya, even Wisconsin. What countries are next? What governments will fall? What ideologies will end?
I believe we are witnessing a revolution for change. It began with a clear lack of trust in those that we entrusted to lead us, and has escalated into a demand for accountability and a new path forward.
If I had to guess, I would think Libya's government will eventually fall. I think Iran's government should be wary. For any countries where al-Qaeda has a presence, I would bet that the people will finally say enough and do what the US has been unable to do with finality, shut the ideology down. What is going to happen in Wisconsin? I have heard of 25 year friendships breaking up over the debate that is occurring right now on the Capital steps. Say what you will, but the argument comes down to those that support unions vs. those that are against them. The outcome of the Wisconsin debate will certainly lead the way for others to take similar steps. What is going to happen? I don't know.
What I do know is that people everywhere are tired. Tired of having to work longer hours for less pay, tired of looking for employment, tired of being lied to, tired of hearing the same old things from leaders. People are tired of the status quo, and are looking for a change. They are revolting with their words, and now with their actions. People are tired of not being heard. I believe that is why we are witnessing a revolution that can encompass everything that we know about the world - PEOPLE WANT TO BE HEARD. THEY WANT TO MATTER.
Businesses better take note - revolutions don't just occur at government levels. Employees are tired of working for you too - and good employees will leave companies that didn't treat them well during the past five years. Companies better understand what people want - they want to be heard and they want to matter - before it is too late.
What can you do? Make sure that you are heard. Make sure that you matter. And make sure that you listen to and acknowledge those in your life that matter most to you.
Once a leader, a person, a government or a business forgets to hear the people and show them that they matter, revolutions occur.
PEOPLE WANT TO BE HEARD AND WANT TO KNOW THAT THEY MATTER!
We watched in the late 80's when the Berlin Wall came crashing down, the Soviet Union crumbled, and the brave Chinese students were crushed by tanks in Tiannemin Square, and we all wondered what history-making event was going to happen next?
The 90's were much different than the 80's. Glam rock was finished when Nirvana and Pearl Jam introduced the Seattle Grunge Scene. The wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia shaped America's news until Bill Clinton's escapades in Oval Office. People were earning more money, and the overall sentiment was that we were on the right path.
Now we get to the 21st Century, and what we are witnessing as I write this is a complete lack of trust in anything or anybody, especially those related to governments or businesses. Believing in God has become a no-no, as many would make you feel stupid or ignorant for beliving in something based on faith and not evidence. Common sense has left us, and everyone wants to sue everyone else. There is an extreme lack of accountability, and almost zero ethical lines that will not be crossed.
What do you remember about the news in the last five years? Global economic meltdowns, businesses cheating by cooking the books, terrible decisions being made that in hindsight seem at least incompetent but at worst purposeful and criminal. Unending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while genocides are occuring in many other countries of the world without anyone lifting a hand to help. Government leaders around the world are embroiled in one scandal after another, and it seems that at least one leader a week is caught up in something sleazy.
Now, the people of the world have finally had enough. Revolutions have begun in countries long led by savage fear, and leaders are being deposed. While those governments try anything to hold onto power, including killing their own civilians, people are bravely standing up and saying, "Enough!" and demanding change. We are seeing it right in front of our own eyes - Egypt, Libya, even Wisconsin. What countries are next? What governments will fall? What ideologies will end?
I believe we are witnessing a revolution for change. It began with a clear lack of trust in those that we entrusted to lead us, and has escalated into a demand for accountability and a new path forward.
If I had to guess, I would think Libya's government will eventually fall. I think Iran's government should be wary. For any countries where al-Qaeda has a presence, I would bet that the people will finally say enough and do what the US has been unable to do with finality, shut the ideology down. What is going to happen in Wisconsin? I have heard of 25 year friendships breaking up over the debate that is occurring right now on the Capital steps. Say what you will, but the argument comes down to those that support unions vs. those that are against them. The outcome of the Wisconsin debate will certainly lead the way for others to take similar steps. What is going to happen? I don't know.
What I do know is that people everywhere are tired. Tired of having to work longer hours for less pay, tired of looking for employment, tired of being lied to, tired of hearing the same old things from leaders. People are tired of the status quo, and are looking for a change. They are revolting with their words, and now with their actions. People are tired of not being heard. I believe that is why we are witnessing a revolution that can encompass everything that we know about the world - PEOPLE WANT TO BE HEARD. THEY WANT TO MATTER.
Businesses better take note - revolutions don't just occur at government levels. Employees are tired of working for you too - and good employees will leave companies that didn't treat them well during the past five years. Companies better understand what people want - they want to be heard and they want to matter - before it is too late.
What can you do? Make sure that you are heard. Make sure that you matter. And make sure that you listen to and acknowledge those in your life that matter most to you.
Once a leader, a person, a government or a business forgets to hear the people and show them that they matter, revolutions occur.
PEOPLE WANT TO BE HEARD AND WANT TO KNOW THAT THEY MATTER!
Monday, February 21, 2011
Unionism, the NLRA and a Governor with a Cause - What the Hell is Going on in Wisconsin?
Having to manage a relationship with a union didn't work out well for me, so I'll start off by saying that I am not a fan of unions on a personal level. I feel that there was once a very strong need for unions, and that there is no doubt that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was passed because companies full of corrupt and greedy managers treated employees like disposable commodities. I also feel that unions have led the way towards the passage of many of today's state and federal laws and guidelines that protect workers rights, and that many of the "Best Practices" that are present in good companies have come as a direct result of the efforts of unions from past negotiations. Unions have affected many great changes in the present day workplace, and they should be applauded for their efforts. That being said, they have done their jobs so well that they have made themselves irrelevant in today's global economy.
At one point, 35% of the American workforce were represented by a union. Today, that number is down to 12%, and most of those that still maintain membership in a union are public employees. Private sector employees make up less than half of that 12%, and only about 5% of all union employees are under the age of 25. I have written extensively about current state and federal labor laws, company best practices, and recruitment and retention initiatives that have made the need for unions all but nil, so I won't waste any more time on that subject (check out some of my past blogs for a recap on subject).
Regardless of how I feel about unions, however, one thing that I am confused about, even as an HR professional, is how the Governor of Wisconsin can decide that he no longer wants to be forced to collectively bargain with already established unions for various public employees? I'm not saying I don't agree with him, because when I worked with a union workforce I prayed every day that I could figure out a way to work with the 90% of great employees that were present at the company and avoid dealing with the 10% who had nothing but their own best interests in mind. But I was always under the impression that the union had elected leaders to represent them, and that I was following the NLRA by dealing with these elected representatives for the workforce. I have no doubt that dealing with individuals vs. a small team of elected union officials would do nothing but benefit those 90% of the employees who do a great job and who could stand out as individuals based on effort, experience, talent and promotability. Being able to negotiate your own future as an individual should be everyone's goal in a democracy, and being able to individually excel is every person's right in this world. Did I have the right to bargain individually with those 90% vs. the union leadership team? I don't think so. So I'm left wondering, how is Gov. Walker attempting to do this?
I've read as much on the internet over the past few days that I can find, and the only plausible explanations I can find are that there are differences in the NLRA regarding public and private sector employees, and differences in state statutes and rights vs. federal statutes and laws. We all had our Civics classes in school and we know that the Constitution is the "law of the land." The right to unionize, as far as I can tell, is loosely addressed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which states in part, "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of people peaceably to assemble." This right, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, has been interpreted to give public and private employees the right to free association, including the right to join a union. However, the Constitution does not grant the public employees the right to collectively bargain with employers. This right is based on applicable provisions in state constitutions, federal statutes or state statutes. In Wisconsin, statutes permit bargaining by municipal employees. Impasse resolution procedures include mediation and arbitration. Strikes are permitted after impasse resolution procedures have been exhauusted. What does this mean? Well, people a lot smarter than me obviously must feel that Governor Walker has every right to decide to end collective bargaining (outside of wages, which he is proposing to limit as well) with public employees.
Does he have this right under the NLRA, or Wisconsin State Constitution, or through state or federal statutes? I'd guess he feels he does or he wouldn't be pushing this bill through the legislature. I can tell you that if I had decided to limit or end the collective bargaining rights of the union that I worked with based on my desire not to do so, I would have been slapped with an NLRB charge much faster than I can type this blog. Did I have the right to do so? I don't think so. I know I didn't have the authority to do so. Does Governor Walker have the right? I don't know. He seems to think he does, and with all of the protests and arguing that I have seen and heard, I haven't heard anyone really bring up the NLRA. I'm guessing that he has every right to do so. The question is, what happens next to unions? Is this just a states rights issue where other states will certainly follow Wisconsin's lead if this vote is successful? You bet other states will follow Wisconsin's lead. Will a company try to use the same argument that the State of Wisconsin government is using to effectively end most collectively bargain with its employees? I don't know that either, but you better believe everyone is watching closely.
I for one believe the citizens of Wisconsin elected these leaders, and if they don't like what these leaders are doing, they need to elect new leaders during the next elections. That is what happens in a free democracy. I don't think unions provide anything to good workers outside of seniority, as I feel that an employer who fails to offer good wages, benefits and working conditions, and who fails to follow state and federal laws, will not only be unable to recruit or retain employees, but will risk shutting their doors as they become uncompetitive with other companies. Do you need a union to ensure that companies remain competitive with their competition? Absolutely not. It has the opposite effect in many instances.
I will finish by stating that the budget deficits in these states are not the unions fault. Very bad decisions have been made by executives and government leaders that have caused this issue to come to the forefront, and I believe as many people do that those that were responsible have not been held accountable, while the effects of their decisions are being felt by everyone beneath them. If you do a root cause analysis, you cannot say that the economic crisis affecting the world was caused by unionism. It wasn't. Unions get a bad rap because most people aren't in unions and they see or hear about wages or benefits that union employees receive that they don't. It's the "It's not fair" argument, and it's the Union's main argument for trying to unionize businesses. "Unionize and you too can get some of these wages and benefits..." This debate is much larger than I wish to get into on this blog, but I will conclude that it is not the union's fault that Wisconsin has a budget deficit in 2011.
Perhaps in my next blog we'll talk about corporate greed, shareholder value, acceptable value and ROI, what drives the world economy, what defines a socio-economic class, etc. Today, I'm just interested in what is going to happen in Wisconsin.
By the way, I'd like opinions on whether people believe the Democratic Senators in Wisconsin have abandoned their positions and should be replaced, or whether they are doing their jobs by leaving the state to force concessions? I'm trying to decide if I have the right to refuse to do my work if I don't agree with what my boss says...
At one point, 35% of the American workforce were represented by a union. Today, that number is down to 12%, and most of those that still maintain membership in a union are public employees. Private sector employees make up less than half of that 12%, and only about 5% of all union employees are under the age of 25. I have written extensively about current state and federal labor laws, company best practices, and recruitment and retention initiatives that have made the need for unions all but nil, so I won't waste any more time on that subject (check out some of my past blogs for a recap on subject).
Regardless of how I feel about unions, however, one thing that I am confused about, even as an HR professional, is how the Governor of Wisconsin can decide that he no longer wants to be forced to collectively bargain with already established unions for various public employees? I'm not saying I don't agree with him, because when I worked with a union workforce I prayed every day that I could figure out a way to work with the 90% of great employees that were present at the company and avoid dealing with the 10% who had nothing but their own best interests in mind. But I was always under the impression that the union had elected leaders to represent them, and that I was following the NLRA by dealing with these elected representatives for the workforce. I have no doubt that dealing with individuals vs. a small team of elected union officials would do nothing but benefit those 90% of the employees who do a great job and who could stand out as individuals based on effort, experience, talent and promotability. Being able to negotiate your own future as an individual should be everyone's goal in a democracy, and being able to individually excel is every person's right in this world. Did I have the right to bargain individually with those 90% vs. the union leadership team? I don't think so. So I'm left wondering, how is Gov. Walker attempting to do this?
I've read as much on the internet over the past few days that I can find, and the only plausible explanations I can find are that there are differences in the NLRA regarding public and private sector employees, and differences in state statutes and rights vs. federal statutes and laws. We all had our Civics classes in school and we know that the Constitution is the "law of the land." The right to unionize, as far as I can tell, is loosely addressed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which states in part, "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of people peaceably to assemble." This right, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, has been interpreted to give public and private employees the right to free association, including the right to join a union. However, the Constitution does not grant the public employees the right to collectively bargain with employers. This right is based on applicable provisions in state constitutions, federal statutes or state statutes. In Wisconsin, statutes permit bargaining by municipal employees. Impasse resolution procedures include mediation and arbitration. Strikes are permitted after impasse resolution procedures have been exhauusted. What does this mean? Well, people a lot smarter than me obviously must feel that Governor Walker has every right to decide to end collective bargaining (outside of wages, which he is proposing to limit as well) with public employees.
Does he have this right under the NLRA, or Wisconsin State Constitution, or through state or federal statutes? I'd guess he feels he does or he wouldn't be pushing this bill through the legislature. I can tell you that if I had decided to limit or end the collective bargaining rights of the union that I worked with based on my desire not to do so, I would have been slapped with an NLRB charge much faster than I can type this blog. Did I have the right to do so? I don't think so. I know I didn't have the authority to do so. Does Governor Walker have the right? I don't know. He seems to think he does, and with all of the protests and arguing that I have seen and heard, I haven't heard anyone really bring up the NLRA. I'm guessing that he has every right to do so. The question is, what happens next to unions? Is this just a states rights issue where other states will certainly follow Wisconsin's lead if this vote is successful? You bet other states will follow Wisconsin's lead. Will a company try to use the same argument that the State of Wisconsin government is using to effectively end most collectively bargain with its employees? I don't know that either, but you better believe everyone is watching closely.
I for one believe the citizens of Wisconsin elected these leaders, and if they don't like what these leaders are doing, they need to elect new leaders during the next elections. That is what happens in a free democracy. I don't think unions provide anything to good workers outside of seniority, as I feel that an employer who fails to offer good wages, benefits and working conditions, and who fails to follow state and federal laws, will not only be unable to recruit or retain employees, but will risk shutting their doors as they become uncompetitive with other companies. Do you need a union to ensure that companies remain competitive with their competition? Absolutely not. It has the opposite effect in many instances.
I will finish by stating that the budget deficits in these states are not the unions fault. Very bad decisions have been made by executives and government leaders that have caused this issue to come to the forefront, and I believe as many people do that those that were responsible have not been held accountable, while the effects of their decisions are being felt by everyone beneath them. If you do a root cause analysis, you cannot say that the economic crisis affecting the world was caused by unionism. It wasn't. Unions get a bad rap because most people aren't in unions and they see or hear about wages or benefits that union employees receive that they don't. It's the "It's not fair" argument, and it's the Union's main argument for trying to unionize businesses. "Unionize and you too can get some of these wages and benefits..." This debate is much larger than I wish to get into on this blog, but I will conclude that it is not the union's fault that Wisconsin has a budget deficit in 2011.
Perhaps in my next blog we'll talk about corporate greed, shareholder value, acceptable value and ROI, what drives the world economy, what defines a socio-economic class, etc. Today, I'm just interested in what is going to happen in Wisconsin.
By the way, I'd like opinions on whether people believe the Democratic Senators in Wisconsin have abandoned their positions and should be replaced, or whether they are doing their jobs by leaving the state to force concessions? I'm trying to decide if I have the right to refuse to do my work if I don't agree with what my boss says...
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
28 Thoughts on Many Things Not Necessarily HR
I've blogged about many HR topics over the last few months, but today I decided to let my mind wander.
Here goes, and I look forward to your responses!
1. I'm waiting impatiently for the next Wikileaks leaks...
2. What is really going on with all the bird and fish deaths? I just watched Signs last night and one part talks about the impact death that the bird suffered while hitting the invisible UFO hovering over Mexico City. Hmmm...
3. Signing Day for college football is almost as exciting as the NFL Draft, unless of course your favorite recruit decommits at the last moment and signs a letter of intent with your favorite team's biggest rival!
4. The Super Bowl is going to be great Sunday. For the first time in as long as I can remember, I actually really like both teams, to the point that I don't care who wins. I just want a good game!
5. It's crazy how much kids run your life...
6. I keep saying that I'm getting really sick of reality shows, then I just keep watching...
7. I miss the show Medium, but it was time for it to go. How many times can DA Davallos question Allison's visions when they always come true in the end?
8. West Virginia Football is going to be fun to watch again with Dana Holgorson on board. Don't know who he is? Look him up. WVU consistently has a great defense, now with the top offensive mind in the country taking the helms, watch out...
9. I don't miss snow at all. I don't miss the cold at all. It's almost 70 degrees here today - how about where you are?
10. Facebook and Twitter are going to be around for a while. Any tips on the next hot site to sink investment money into (too late for Groupons!)?
11. If you have to have a business meeting somewhere, Puerto Rico is a beautiful place to go.
12. Working with clients who inspire you is much more important and fulfilling than working with clients who simply pay their monthly invoice.
13. Dieting stinks.
14. Looking in the mirror stinks more when you're overweight.
15. Placing a monetary bet on a diet contest is a very risky proposition, but the only way that I've found the willpower to stay on it!
16. Companies are going to see a mass exodus of very talented employees in the next 18 months as the economy grows stronger and employees who have taken their lumps to keep their jobs find better opportunities elsewhere.
17. I miss my mom, who will have been gone for three years on March 16, 2011. Tell your parents you love them, as you never know when you won't be able to.
18. One niece due today, another due on March 17. I cannot wait!
19. Owning your own business is challenging but the most rewarding work you will ever have.
20. I don't think anyone in government gets "it" once they're elected into office. No way they all forgot everything they learned on the outside. Can you imagine how fast you would get fired if you did one-tenth of what both sides do on a daily basis to each other and their constituents?
21. Cherish your friends and your mentors, as there are very few of them who will stand by you in good times and in hard times. Likewise, be more of a friend or mentor to someone that you really care about or love.
22. Wondering how all of the unrest in Egypt is going to play out throughout the rest of the Middle East and the world. What happens if millions of Americans march on Washington demanding that the entire government resign?
23. If you're ever in a bad mood and want to laugh, just about any Judd Apatow comedy will do the trick. May be a little raunchy for some viewers, but you will literally not be able to stop laughing at many parts of the movies. I particularly like "The 40-Year Old Virgin." I will miss Steve Carrell on "The Office".
24. If I butt-dial someone one more time as my touch screen, "Smart" cell phone presses against my wallet in my pocket, I am going to throw it in the Atlantic Ocean. I think I miss flip phones.
25. Do guns kill people or do people kill people? If there were no guns, would people stop killing other people, or would there be more stabbings, suffocations and strangling? Not meant to be a controversial question - just wondering if tightening gun control laws would really decrease murders? Most countries without an armed citizenry do have much less murders. If this is true, then why do Americans tend to murder people more than in other countries? Is it the guns, or is there another root cause?
26. There are times when I am frustrated with my job, but then I think about bill collectors and how much I hate them. Can you imagine BEING a bill collector and having to hear the hatred through the phone every time you called a delinquent account? Sorry bill collectors, but I still hate receiving those calls. Don't kick the family dog as you walk in from work.
27. Phone conferences, live meetings and email are convenient and necessary, but nothing takes the place of a face-to-face meeting.
28. I'd really love a Reesee's Peanut Butter Cup right now...I hate dieting!
See you next time when maybe I'll feel like writing about HR again!!!
Here goes, and I look forward to your responses!
1. I'm waiting impatiently for the next Wikileaks leaks...
2. What is really going on with all the bird and fish deaths? I just watched Signs last night and one part talks about the impact death that the bird suffered while hitting the invisible UFO hovering over Mexico City. Hmmm...
3. Signing Day for college football is almost as exciting as the NFL Draft, unless of course your favorite recruit decommits at the last moment and signs a letter of intent with your favorite team's biggest rival!
4. The Super Bowl is going to be great Sunday. For the first time in as long as I can remember, I actually really like both teams, to the point that I don't care who wins. I just want a good game!
5. It's crazy how much kids run your life...
6. I keep saying that I'm getting really sick of reality shows, then I just keep watching...
7. I miss the show Medium, but it was time for it to go. How many times can DA Davallos question Allison's visions when they always come true in the end?
8. West Virginia Football is going to be fun to watch again with Dana Holgorson on board. Don't know who he is? Look him up. WVU consistently has a great defense, now with the top offensive mind in the country taking the helms, watch out...
9. I don't miss snow at all. I don't miss the cold at all. It's almost 70 degrees here today - how about where you are?
10. Facebook and Twitter are going to be around for a while. Any tips on the next hot site to sink investment money into (too late for Groupons!)?
11. If you have to have a business meeting somewhere, Puerto Rico is a beautiful place to go.
12. Working with clients who inspire you is much more important and fulfilling than working with clients who simply pay their monthly invoice.
13. Dieting stinks.
14. Looking in the mirror stinks more when you're overweight.
15. Placing a monetary bet on a diet contest is a very risky proposition, but the only way that I've found the willpower to stay on it!
16. Companies are going to see a mass exodus of very talented employees in the next 18 months as the economy grows stronger and employees who have taken their lumps to keep their jobs find better opportunities elsewhere.
17. I miss my mom, who will have been gone for three years on March 16, 2011. Tell your parents you love them, as you never know when you won't be able to.
18. One niece due today, another due on March 17. I cannot wait!
19. Owning your own business is challenging but the most rewarding work you will ever have.
20. I don't think anyone in government gets "it" once they're elected into office. No way they all forgot everything they learned on the outside. Can you imagine how fast you would get fired if you did one-tenth of what both sides do on a daily basis to each other and their constituents?
21. Cherish your friends and your mentors, as there are very few of them who will stand by you in good times and in hard times. Likewise, be more of a friend or mentor to someone that you really care about or love.
22. Wondering how all of the unrest in Egypt is going to play out throughout the rest of the Middle East and the world. What happens if millions of Americans march on Washington demanding that the entire government resign?
23. If you're ever in a bad mood and want to laugh, just about any Judd Apatow comedy will do the trick. May be a little raunchy for some viewers, but you will literally not be able to stop laughing at many parts of the movies. I particularly like "The 40-Year Old Virgin." I will miss Steve Carrell on "The Office".
24. If I butt-dial someone one more time as my touch screen, "Smart" cell phone presses against my wallet in my pocket, I am going to throw it in the Atlantic Ocean. I think I miss flip phones.
25. Do guns kill people or do people kill people? If there were no guns, would people stop killing other people, or would there be more stabbings, suffocations and strangling? Not meant to be a controversial question - just wondering if tightening gun control laws would really decrease murders? Most countries without an armed citizenry do have much less murders. If this is true, then why do Americans tend to murder people more than in other countries? Is it the guns, or is there another root cause?
26. There are times when I am frustrated with my job, but then I think about bill collectors and how much I hate them. Can you imagine BEING a bill collector and having to hear the hatred through the phone every time you called a delinquent account? Sorry bill collectors, but I still hate receiving those calls. Don't kick the family dog as you walk in from work.
27. Phone conferences, live meetings and email are convenient and necessary, but nothing takes the place of a face-to-face meeting.
28. I'd really love a Reesee's Peanut Butter Cup right now...I hate dieting!
See you next time when maybe I'll feel like writing about HR again!!!
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
UAW Principles for Fair Union Elections Prove Unions Still Don't Get It
My father was a manager for most of his working career, and he had the opportunity to work with both unionized and non-unionized workforces. To say that he loved contract negotiations would be like saying that he loved the hip replacement surgery that caused him months of discomfort. Both are painful, can make you feel like giving up and can promote thoughts unhealthy for this blog. Yet, he survived both and came out on the other end a better person. Better? With his new hip, he can now swing through a golf shot without shooting pain down his leg. With his experience with unions, he found out that he was much happier working in a non-union environment, much to the chagrin of his very pro-union father and brothers (or, my grandpa and uncles). What does this have to do with the UAW Principles? Well, I'll tell you. As I progressed through my HR career, I decided that I needed experience managing in a unionized facility in order to beef up my resume. My father told me not to do it - that I'd be miserable. I told him I'd be fine, that I'd treat employees at the union facility with respect, honesty and compassion. I was under the impression that the Golden Rule applied everywhere - Treat Others as You Want to be Treated. Guess what I learned? I was wrong. While there were very many great employees, both union and non-union, that worked at the union facility where I managed, some of whom I still consider strong friends, I found that working with union leadership tended to be a lose-lose proposition much more often than win-win, or as it often happened during my time, win-lose. At a very basic level, the relationship cannot help from being adversarial most of the time - Unions want to get more for less, and companies want to give less for more. Once one side compromises more than they think they should have, it becomes a win-lose, and the relationship sours. Win-win was always the buzz word in grad school - and I've tried to utilize that win-win strategy in everything that I do in life. Win-win does not work with union leadership. It simply doesn't. If a company gives, the union will gladly take. If the company asks for something in return, it is fought with ferocity through a grievance process. The UAW seems to be trying to move away from this inevitable relationship with its printed Principles. The issue, as I see it, is convincing long-time union members to embrace these subtle changes in UAW vision, while convincing managers used to fighting with the union over every management decision to accept this paradigm shift by the UAW as a fundamental truth and not just a play on words. This will be a long blog, because I plan to discuss the Principles and Preamble in detail, so I apologize in advance. I don't have this blog pre-written, so I'm typing as I go on this very personal subject for me. However, I believe I know where I'm heading with this blog - that union leadership has failed once again to see the writing on the global wall. Unions belong in the past, as the 73% decline in UAW membership since 1979 clearly demonstrates. Writing a set of Principles proves that the UAW has finally taken notice about the realities of business in the 21st Century. What they don't get is that it's already too late to try to change the image of the new UAW. Business is no longer national, it is global, and unless it makes financial sense to build a product or conduct a service in America with a unionized workforce, companies are going to go where they can get more for less. It is not always fair, and it may not be in America's best interest for companies to move jobs overseas. However, who ever said that business was fair?
In its Preamble to its UAW Principles for Fair Union Elections, the UAW states:
"The UAW of the 21st century inhabits a global economy, therefore, the union must be fundamentally and radically different from the UAW of the 20th century. In the context of global competition, the only true path to job security is to produce the best quality products and services for the best value for consumers. In order to promote the success of our employers, the UAW is committed to innovation, flexibility, lean manufacturing and continuous cost improvement. Through teamwork and creative problem solving, we are building relationships with employers based upon a foundation of respect, shared goals and a common mission. We are moving on a path that no longer presumes an adversarial work environment with strict work rules, narrow job classifications or complicated contract rules. The UAW seeks to add value as advocates for consumer safety, energy efficiency and green technologies."
From a company or management standpoint, this first half of the Preamble is unarguable. This is the most truthful statement that I have ever read from the UAW leadership, and it shows that the UAW recognizes the challenges it, and companies, face in the 21st Century. The Preamble continues:
"Just as the UAW has embraced fundamental change, we call upon the business community to also change. They can demonstrate their openness to change by agreeing to the framework established in these principles.
The current federal framework under the National Labor Relations Act does not protect the rights of workers to freely decide whether or not to join the UAW. Unlike a truly democratic election, there is vastly unequal access to the electorate. In many cases, employers use explicit and implicit threats of loss of jobs or benefits if workers support a union. Screening job applicants to weed out potential union supporters, mandatory anti-union meetings, firing of union supporters and threats to close the facility are tactics used to create a climate of fear. Community-based business organizations employ explicit threats that would be illegal if they came directly from the employer. Employee attempts at redress are futile due to lengthy delays and a lack of penalties. A free, democratic election cannot take place in a climate of fear.
The UAW invites employers to endorse these Principles for Fair Union Elections. If employers abide by these Principles, we will respect the choice of the workers whether or not they choose to join the UAW."
From a company standpoint, this second half to the Preamble illustrates that the statements in the first paragraph were written merely for show. The union’s real agenda is easily understood in this second half. Any business would be foolish to embrace this second half, as this clearly is written in support of the Employee Free Choice Act, which stands for everything but freedom and democracy (see my previous blog!). The tactics of fear that the UAW accuses companies of committing are vastly overblown. While I am positive that there are cases where each of these tactics have been used, I am also equally convinced that most companies want employees - all employees - to be accountable for their job requirements and work performance, that they be flexible, that they work together towards a common goal and that are honest, hard-working and overall good people. Companies want to be able to communicate with employees without accusations of conspiracies or incompetence. Community-based business organizations are another word for local chambers of commerce and other chapters, such as The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), who have a very keen understanding of what ails companies and offer suggestions for improvements. The UAW would have you believe that these are faceless, emotionless and greedy harbingers of doom who align with a company viewpoint in order to get richer. Anyone who has served on a chamber of commerce or been a part of a local community-based business organization will tell you that they are made up of many people just like you and I who want to do what's best for all, not just the few. Finally, the UAW "invites" employers to endorse these Principles. Is it an all or nothing invitation? Are you asking a non-unionized employer to sign some type of statement agreeing with these Principles? I cannot for the life of me think of any employer who would sign these Principles based on what is written just in the Preamble. I now go on to the Principles, with my thoughts following in parentheses ().
The Principles
1. The right to organize a free trade union is a fundamental, human right recognized and respected in a democracy. (The wording seems strong and instantly puts me on the defensive - if I don't agree with this, does this make me a communist? A socialist? Something other than a human not recognizing a fundamental human right?)
2. Employees must be free to exercise the right to join a union or refrain from joining a union in an atmosphere free of fear, coercion, intimidation or threats. There is no free choice if a worker is afraid of losing a job or benefits as a result of his or her choice, or is intimidated into making a choice not of one's own making. (Who defines what is fear, coercion, intimidation or threats? Does talking about a company's global competitiveness regarding safety, quality, production, delivery, efficiency or cost metrics constitute a threat if you are informing employees during an all-employee meeting of facts? There is no guarantee of employment that any company can make with certainty - does the UAW wish for companies to not discuss the business strategies with employees?)
3. Management must clearly articulate that if workers choose to unionize, there will be no negative repercussions from the company. The UAW must clearly articulate that if workers choose not to unionize, there will be no negative repercussions from the union. Both the company and the union will negotiate in good faith, and any failure to reach agreement will not be caused by bad faith negotiations. (So this states that a company cannot decide to move its operations if it becomes clear that it cannot compete globally? Would that be a negative repercussion?)
4. Management will clearly articulate that it does not promise increases in pay or benefits if workers choose not to unionize. The UAW will clearly articulate that it does not promise increases in pay or benefits if workers choose to unionize. (Yep - can agree on that one.)
5. During the course of a union representational campaign, employees will have the opportunity to hear equally from both the union and management regarding this issue. There will be no mandatory meetings of employees on the issue of unionization unless the UAW is invited to participate in the meetings. Written and oral communications must be equal. The union must be granted the same ability as the employer to post campaign materials. (Will the UAW pay the employee's wages during the times that they are meeting with them? How do you determine that written and oral communication is equal - time allotment? Equal slides in a PowerPoint? What if the Union has more slides than the Company, or vice versa. Who makes the determination as to equal?)
6. Management will explicitly disavow, reject and discourage messages from corporate and community groups that send the message that a union would jeopardize jobs. Likewise, the UAW will explicitly disavow, reject and discourage messages from community groups that send the message that the company is not operating in a socially responsible way. (So, if a local chamber of commerce determines that it can't draw in new businesses because of a pro-union environment, it shouldn't share this with the community, who count on business expansion for growth? Does the UAW then not favor determining the root cause of an issue unless the root cause is favorable to the UAW? How does the UAW, or a community group for that matter, define a company not operating in a socially responsible way? Whose standards of social responsibility are we benchmarking?)
7. Both the UAW and management should acknowledge that the other party is acting in good faith with good intentions. Negative and disparaging remarks about the union or the company are not appropriate and not conducive to a spirit of mutual respect and harmony, and will not be made by either party. (What if one of the parties is not acting in good faith with good intentions? Is one side supposed to lie? How does a party know that the other party is acting in good faith with good intentions or not?)
8. Any disagreements between the UAW and management about the conduct of the organizing campaign, including allegations of discriminatory treatment or discipline relating to the union campaign, will be resolved immediately through an impartial, third party. (Again, if either party disagrees about the conduct, it immediately goes to a mediator or arbitrator?)
9. The democratic right of workers to freely and collectively choose if they want to form their UAW local union is the workers' First Amendment right. A secret ballot election incorporating these principles is an acceptable method of determining union representation if principles two through six have been adhered to, and if there is no history of anti-union activities. The parties may select an alternative method on a case-by-case basis that reflects the best process for demonstrating employee wishes. If the parties cannot agree on specifics of the procedure, an arbitrator may decide. (Makes it seem as if the UAW is saying they don't need the Employee Free Choice Act as long as stipulations are met. This is not the case. The unions, and the President, want the Employee Free Choice Act signed (again, see prior blog). Who determines anti-union activities? Does an all-employee meeting discussing negative metrics meet the definition of anti-union activities? Does disciplining an employee constitute anti-union activity? Way, WAY too general of a statement...)
10. If employees choose to unionize, the employer and union will engage in collective bargaining to achieve an agreement as soon as possible. The goal will be an agreement that takes into account the employer's need to remain competitive; the dignity, respect and value of every employee; the importance and value of full employee engagement and creative problem solving; and that provides a fair compensation system. The employer and the UAW commit to full information sharing and joint creative problem solving. The employees will vote on whether to accept the agreement. Disagreements between the union and company will be discussed in a respectful manner. If no agreement is reached within six months of recognition, the parties may mutually agree to mediate and/or interest arbitration to resolve any outstanding issues. (The most intriguing word in this Principle is "may". What if both parties don't mutually agree to mediate or take it to arbitration? The wording implies that the parties may do this, it doesn't instruct that this will occur if no agreement is reached. What is the alternative?)
11. The UAW pledges that if the workers choose union representation, the union as an institution will be committed to the success of the employer and will encourage our members to engage in the employer's successful achievement of its mission. The UAW and the employer will work together in fulfilling the mission of the employer. The UAW embraces a performance-based and participatory culture where the union contributes to continual improvement of processes and shared responsibility for quality, innovation, flexibility and value. (I can't argue with anything here - I actually believe this to be a very proactive statement. Of course, I'm left wondering if the union would work with the company to terminate a problem employee who is not meeting performance expectations? Wouldn't it be fulfilling the mission of the employer to have 100% of its employees meeting performance expectations? Who sets the expectations? Would the union leadership really accept shared responsibility for a failure, or accept responsibility for an employee not meeting performance expectations?)
I promised that I didn't pre-write this, and I didn't. As I look at the last Principle, it gives me hope that the UAW might actually understand and accept that good business means good employees, both management and union. I have not had the opportunity to work with many union leaders who actually believe this last Principle, but there are some out there who understand that a business is only as good as its employees. My personal belief is that most employees are protected by so many state and federal employment laws (rightly so) that there really is no need for union representation. Good companies pay their employees well, or they are not able to remain competitive and they lose those employees to other employers. I believe that bad managers and supervisors cause employers to become unionized, though this may change if the Employee Free Choice Act is ratified. Most employees in the United States are not unionized, and the majority of those employees value working in an environment where their work performance and contributions are individually recognized with salary and promotional opportunities. The only real advantage that I see in unionizing in the 21st Century is for seniority purposes, and that advantage only helps those employees that have been employed the longest. Seniority often fails to recognize the contributions of those employees without as much seniority, and tends to stifle opportunities for advancement or position change more than it helps. Seniority oftentimes also prevents employers from keeping its best employees in times of layoff. In Principle 11, the UAW states that it would work with the company to achieve the successful achievement of its mission. Wouldn't keeping your best employees help achieve this mission? If this is the case, and the union can no longer offer seniority protection, then what can a union actually do for an employee? The answer, as the UAW knows, is not much. Unions are a relic of the past. The Principles would have been a welcome change twenty years ago, and may have helped save thousands of jobs throughout the United States if accepted by membership. As it stands, the Principles are probably a case of too little, too late for the UAW, especially if the Employee Free Choice Act fails to become law. Can't union leaders understand that their time to fade into the sunset has come (and gone!)?
In its Preamble to its UAW Principles for Fair Union Elections, the UAW states:
"The UAW of the 21st century inhabits a global economy, therefore, the union must be fundamentally and radically different from the UAW of the 20th century. In the context of global competition, the only true path to job security is to produce the best quality products and services for the best value for consumers. In order to promote the success of our employers, the UAW is committed to innovation, flexibility, lean manufacturing and continuous cost improvement. Through teamwork and creative problem solving, we are building relationships with employers based upon a foundation of respect, shared goals and a common mission. We are moving on a path that no longer presumes an adversarial work environment with strict work rules, narrow job classifications or complicated contract rules. The UAW seeks to add value as advocates for consumer safety, energy efficiency and green technologies."
From a company or management standpoint, this first half of the Preamble is unarguable. This is the most truthful statement that I have ever read from the UAW leadership, and it shows that the UAW recognizes the challenges it, and companies, face in the 21st Century. The Preamble continues:
"Just as the UAW has embraced fundamental change, we call upon the business community to also change. They can demonstrate their openness to change by agreeing to the framework established in these principles.
The current federal framework under the National Labor Relations Act does not protect the rights of workers to freely decide whether or not to join the UAW. Unlike a truly democratic election, there is vastly unequal access to the electorate. In many cases, employers use explicit and implicit threats of loss of jobs or benefits if workers support a union. Screening job applicants to weed out potential union supporters, mandatory anti-union meetings, firing of union supporters and threats to close the facility are tactics used to create a climate of fear. Community-based business organizations employ explicit threats that would be illegal if they came directly from the employer. Employee attempts at redress are futile due to lengthy delays and a lack of penalties. A free, democratic election cannot take place in a climate of fear.
The UAW invites employers to endorse these Principles for Fair Union Elections. If employers abide by these Principles, we will respect the choice of the workers whether or not they choose to join the UAW."
From a company standpoint, this second half to the Preamble illustrates that the statements in the first paragraph were written merely for show. The union’s real agenda is easily understood in this second half. Any business would be foolish to embrace this second half, as this clearly is written in support of the Employee Free Choice Act, which stands for everything but freedom and democracy (see my previous blog!). The tactics of fear that the UAW accuses companies of committing are vastly overblown. While I am positive that there are cases where each of these tactics have been used, I am also equally convinced that most companies want employees - all employees - to be accountable for their job requirements and work performance, that they be flexible, that they work together towards a common goal and that are honest, hard-working and overall good people. Companies want to be able to communicate with employees without accusations of conspiracies or incompetence. Community-based business organizations are another word for local chambers of commerce and other chapters, such as The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), who have a very keen understanding of what ails companies and offer suggestions for improvements. The UAW would have you believe that these are faceless, emotionless and greedy harbingers of doom who align with a company viewpoint in order to get richer. Anyone who has served on a chamber of commerce or been a part of a local community-based business organization will tell you that they are made up of many people just like you and I who want to do what's best for all, not just the few. Finally, the UAW "invites" employers to endorse these Principles. Is it an all or nothing invitation? Are you asking a non-unionized employer to sign some type of statement agreeing with these Principles? I cannot for the life of me think of any employer who would sign these Principles based on what is written just in the Preamble. I now go on to the Principles, with my thoughts following in parentheses ().
The Principles
1. The right to organize a free trade union is a fundamental, human right recognized and respected in a democracy. (The wording seems strong and instantly puts me on the defensive - if I don't agree with this, does this make me a communist? A socialist? Something other than a human not recognizing a fundamental human right?)
2. Employees must be free to exercise the right to join a union or refrain from joining a union in an atmosphere free of fear, coercion, intimidation or threats. There is no free choice if a worker is afraid of losing a job or benefits as a result of his or her choice, or is intimidated into making a choice not of one's own making. (Who defines what is fear, coercion, intimidation or threats? Does talking about a company's global competitiveness regarding safety, quality, production, delivery, efficiency or cost metrics constitute a threat if you are informing employees during an all-employee meeting of facts? There is no guarantee of employment that any company can make with certainty - does the UAW wish for companies to not discuss the business strategies with employees?)
3. Management must clearly articulate that if workers choose to unionize, there will be no negative repercussions from the company. The UAW must clearly articulate that if workers choose not to unionize, there will be no negative repercussions from the union. Both the company and the union will negotiate in good faith, and any failure to reach agreement will not be caused by bad faith negotiations. (So this states that a company cannot decide to move its operations if it becomes clear that it cannot compete globally? Would that be a negative repercussion?)
4. Management will clearly articulate that it does not promise increases in pay or benefits if workers choose not to unionize. The UAW will clearly articulate that it does not promise increases in pay or benefits if workers choose to unionize. (Yep - can agree on that one.)
5. During the course of a union representational campaign, employees will have the opportunity to hear equally from both the union and management regarding this issue. There will be no mandatory meetings of employees on the issue of unionization unless the UAW is invited to participate in the meetings. Written and oral communications must be equal. The union must be granted the same ability as the employer to post campaign materials. (Will the UAW pay the employee's wages during the times that they are meeting with them? How do you determine that written and oral communication is equal - time allotment? Equal slides in a PowerPoint? What if the Union has more slides than the Company, or vice versa. Who makes the determination as to equal?)
6. Management will explicitly disavow, reject and discourage messages from corporate and community groups that send the message that a union would jeopardize jobs. Likewise, the UAW will explicitly disavow, reject and discourage messages from community groups that send the message that the company is not operating in a socially responsible way. (So, if a local chamber of commerce determines that it can't draw in new businesses because of a pro-union environment, it shouldn't share this with the community, who count on business expansion for growth? Does the UAW then not favor determining the root cause of an issue unless the root cause is favorable to the UAW? How does the UAW, or a community group for that matter, define a company not operating in a socially responsible way? Whose standards of social responsibility are we benchmarking?)
7. Both the UAW and management should acknowledge that the other party is acting in good faith with good intentions. Negative and disparaging remarks about the union or the company are not appropriate and not conducive to a spirit of mutual respect and harmony, and will not be made by either party. (What if one of the parties is not acting in good faith with good intentions? Is one side supposed to lie? How does a party know that the other party is acting in good faith with good intentions or not?)
8. Any disagreements between the UAW and management about the conduct of the organizing campaign, including allegations of discriminatory treatment or discipline relating to the union campaign, will be resolved immediately through an impartial, third party. (Again, if either party disagrees about the conduct, it immediately goes to a mediator or arbitrator?)
9. The democratic right of workers to freely and collectively choose if they want to form their UAW local union is the workers' First Amendment right. A secret ballot election incorporating these principles is an acceptable method of determining union representation if principles two through six have been adhered to, and if there is no history of anti-union activities. The parties may select an alternative method on a case-by-case basis that reflects the best process for demonstrating employee wishes. If the parties cannot agree on specifics of the procedure, an arbitrator may decide. (Makes it seem as if the UAW is saying they don't need the Employee Free Choice Act as long as stipulations are met. This is not the case. The unions, and the President, want the Employee Free Choice Act signed (again, see prior blog). Who determines anti-union activities? Does an all-employee meeting discussing negative metrics meet the definition of anti-union activities? Does disciplining an employee constitute anti-union activity? Way, WAY too general of a statement...)
10. If employees choose to unionize, the employer and union will engage in collective bargaining to achieve an agreement as soon as possible. The goal will be an agreement that takes into account the employer's need to remain competitive; the dignity, respect and value of every employee; the importance and value of full employee engagement and creative problem solving; and that provides a fair compensation system. The employer and the UAW commit to full information sharing and joint creative problem solving. The employees will vote on whether to accept the agreement. Disagreements between the union and company will be discussed in a respectful manner. If no agreement is reached within six months of recognition, the parties may mutually agree to mediate and/or interest arbitration to resolve any outstanding issues. (The most intriguing word in this Principle is "may". What if both parties don't mutually agree to mediate or take it to arbitration? The wording implies that the parties may do this, it doesn't instruct that this will occur if no agreement is reached. What is the alternative?)
11. The UAW pledges that if the workers choose union representation, the union as an institution will be committed to the success of the employer and will encourage our members to engage in the employer's successful achievement of its mission. The UAW and the employer will work together in fulfilling the mission of the employer. The UAW embraces a performance-based and participatory culture where the union contributes to continual improvement of processes and shared responsibility for quality, innovation, flexibility and value. (I can't argue with anything here - I actually believe this to be a very proactive statement. Of course, I'm left wondering if the union would work with the company to terminate a problem employee who is not meeting performance expectations? Wouldn't it be fulfilling the mission of the employer to have 100% of its employees meeting performance expectations? Who sets the expectations? Would the union leadership really accept shared responsibility for a failure, or accept responsibility for an employee not meeting performance expectations?)
I promised that I didn't pre-write this, and I didn't. As I look at the last Principle, it gives me hope that the UAW might actually understand and accept that good business means good employees, both management and union. I have not had the opportunity to work with many union leaders who actually believe this last Principle, but there are some out there who understand that a business is only as good as its employees. My personal belief is that most employees are protected by so many state and federal employment laws (rightly so) that there really is no need for union representation. Good companies pay their employees well, or they are not able to remain competitive and they lose those employees to other employers. I believe that bad managers and supervisors cause employers to become unionized, though this may change if the Employee Free Choice Act is ratified. Most employees in the United States are not unionized, and the majority of those employees value working in an environment where their work performance and contributions are individually recognized with salary and promotional opportunities. The only real advantage that I see in unionizing in the 21st Century is for seniority purposes, and that advantage only helps those employees that have been employed the longest. Seniority often fails to recognize the contributions of those employees without as much seniority, and tends to stifle opportunities for advancement or position change more than it helps. Seniority oftentimes also prevents employers from keeping its best employees in times of layoff. In Principle 11, the UAW states that it would work with the company to achieve the successful achievement of its mission. Wouldn't keeping your best employees help achieve this mission? If this is the case, and the union can no longer offer seniority protection, then what can a union actually do for an employee? The answer, as the UAW knows, is not much. Unions are a relic of the past. The Principles would have been a welcome change twenty years ago, and may have helped save thousands of jobs throughout the United States if accepted by membership. As it stands, the Principles are probably a case of too little, too late for the UAW, especially if the Employee Free Choice Act fails to become law. Can't union leaders understand that their time to fade into the sunset has come (and gone!)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)