Continuous bargaining
15/Feb/2007 20:23
Charley Richardson
(University of
Massachusetts-Lowell) has a lot of experience with
change in the workplace. He has studied how, time
and time again, Management introduces new
technology and systems to increase productivity,
profitability, efficiency and control at the
expense of workers. He has also studied how, time
and time again, unions fail to respond adequately.
Charley
Richardson has a lot of experience with change in the
workplace. He has studied how, time and time again,
Management introduces new technology and systems to
increase productivity, profitability, efficiency and
control at the expense of workers. He has also
studied how, time and time again, unions fail to
respond adequately to the challenge.
The problem is that work reorganization is seen as an exclusive management right. Management takes that view, but so too do many union leaders. Yet, how work is organized (how services are delivered or how products are made) has enormous short and long-term consequences for the things unions care about most: the wages, working conditions and wellbeing of our members. More importantly, management-inspired workplace reorganization almost always reduces the control of individual workers over their work, thereby reducing the strategic leverage of their unions.
Often union members understand the critical importance of technology and work organization better than their leaders. If you work as an office secretary, you understand that a change to even a single office procedure or a single piece of office machinery could affect your job and a range a related things: the job description, job classification, work hours, etc.
Most workers want to have a say over these things and so they want a say in the workplace changes. When the union does not get involved, members will find another way to have some influence. And employers take advantage of the union’s absence to engage workers directly, outside of the collective bargaining arrangement. For example, employers may invite workers to join work teams or “quality of life circles.” Workers who participate don’t realize that these processes are more about Management getting the workers’ knowledge to better control workers than they are about addressing workers’ concerns.
The better approach is for unions to actively address work reorganization by using their full organizational capacity and by exercising their bargaining power. This doesn’t mean waiting for the next round of bargaining by which time it will be too late to make a difference. Rather, it means engaging in what Richardson calls “continuous bargaining.” That is, being continuously alert to changes that will likely come down the road and continuously working with member to address the change through union processes.
Unions have to train their leaders on issues related to work organization. This includes training leaders (and members) to watch out for the tricks and traps of Management-controlled employee involvement programs. It also includes training union leaders how to anticipate workplace change and new technologies, how to develop strategies for forcing the employer to address the union’s concerns regardless of whether or not workers are protected in the collective agreement, and what language to negotiate in the collective agreement to increase the union’s leverage for addressing change. It also means training union leaders to work with members to identify positive workplace changes for members, and to make sure those are the ones that get put in place.
The problem is that work reorganization is seen as an exclusive management right. Management takes that view, but so too do many union leaders. Yet, how work is organized (how services are delivered or how products are made) has enormous short and long-term consequences for the things unions care about most: the wages, working conditions and wellbeing of our members. More importantly, management-inspired workplace reorganization almost always reduces the control of individual workers over their work, thereby reducing the strategic leverage of their unions.
Often union members understand the critical importance of technology and work organization better than their leaders. If you work as an office secretary, you understand that a change to even a single office procedure or a single piece of office machinery could affect your job and a range a related things: the job description, job classification, work hours, etc.
Most workers want to have a say over these things and so they want a say in the workplace changes. When the union does not get involved, members will find another way to have some influence. And employers take advantage of the union’s absence to engage workers directly, outside of the collective bargaining arrangement. For example, employers may invite workers to join work teams or “quality of life circles.” Workers who participate don’t realize that these processes are more about Management getting the workers’ knowledge to better control workers than they are about addressing workers’ concerns.
The better approach is for unions to actively address work reorganization by using their full organizational capacity and by exercising their bargaining power. This doesn’t mean waiting for the next round of bargaining by which time it will be too late to make a difference. Rather, it means engaging in what Richardson calls “continuous bargaining.” That is, being continuously alert to changes that will likely come down the road and continuously working with member to address the change through union processes.
Unions have to train their leaders on issues related to work organization. This includes training leaders (and members) to watch out for the tricks and traps of Management-controlled employee involvement programs. It also includes training union leaders how to anticipate workplace change and new technologies, how to develop strategies for forcing the employer to address the union’s concerns regardless of whether or not workers are protected in the collective agreement, and what language to negotiate in the collective agreement to increase the union’s leverage for addressing change. It also means training union leaders to work with members to identify positive workplace changes for members, and to make sure those are the ones that get put in place.
|