WHAT IS LABOR - MANAGEMENT COOPERATION?

The term “labor-management cooperation” often implies different things to different people.  To some, it signals hope for a different, more effective future in which a collective employee voice will join with that of management in many discussions facing the organization.  To others, it may surface fears that hard fought gains will be eroded as employees and the union  participate in events leading to their own demise.   Still others may fear a loss of authority over things for which they will still be accountable.   In this paper, we will attempt to clarify what PIERS  means by labor-management cooperation,  review the possible subject areas  to which labor-management cooperation might be applied, provide examples of labor-management structures that organizations might apply, provide a brief history of labor-management cooperation, and attempt to dispel concerns that are often thought or articulated about labor-management cooperation.

 What Labor-Management Cooperation Is

As a concept, it is very simple.  Labor-management cooperation is a process in which both parties can identify at least one goal they have in common that they can work toward together. The parties may have one or many goals in common and may address a broad range of issues from scheduling, to the handling of equipment, to making resource decisions,  to strategic planning.  The cooperative effort  can take a wide variety of forms and structures, including committees, improvement teams, self- managing work groups, and joint councils and can take place at all levels of the organization, from the building or operations level to the boardroom.

The basic characteristic is that the cooperative effort is one in which union representatives and managers  come together to address and solve problems that affect them both.   The cooperative effort  is often extended beyond the leadership level so that both employees and managers  become involved in activities of the enterprise beyond their principal job responsibilities, though within the boundaries and with the sanction  of the joint labor-management leadership. 

The purpose of collaborative activity is to build a stronger labor-management relationship that supports involving workers in efforts  to improve the quality of work processes and work environment, manage changes effectively and increase the overall effectiveness of the organization.   This approach acknowledges that  those closest to the work are the real experts in their jobs and are often able to find solutions that are not readily evident to those not directly involved with the work  on a regular basis.

Scope of Cooperative Efforts

There is wide variation in the scope of cooperative initiatives undertaken by labor and management in both public and private sector organizations.  There does not appear to be a difference between public and private sector in the scope of collaborative activities addressed.  Rather, other variables account for differences in scope including  degree of trust between the parties, past initiatives, external challenges, competitive needs, and so on.  There is no single scope of activity that is best for all organizations.  The scope of cooperation should be determined by the needs of the parties that cooperation is intended to address.  The following areas give some example of the range of choices of labor-management collaboration:

Collective bargaining and contract administration: the focus is on improving the process and outcomes of collective bargaining and continuing to strengthen the relationship between the union and management through more effective contract administration.  The joint labor-management process may spill over in to other areas of operations and/or the relationship, or it may not.

Improve on the status quo but maintain a  traditional approach to the relationship: the focus is on maintaining the existing structure of the labor-management relationship , but making it less “us versus them” and more effective.  It may involve surfacing current as well as long-standing tensions and acknowledging their impact on the relationship.  At a minimum, the parties typically develop and commit to better ways to communicate with each other.  The parties may also address some of the tensions that impact negatively on their relationship.

Issue initiative strategy: the focus is on application of a collaborative process to a specific project or issue, such as improving the attendance policy or designing new employee orientation.  An organization may focus on a project as a means to “pilot” joint labor-management approaches, with an evaluation component included in the pilot effort.  Or, the organization may recognize that a joint approach is appropriate for a specific task or to address a specific issue but not be inclined to apply the approach more widely at the time.

Joint problem-solving strategy: the focus is on creating and maintaining an on-going forum for addressing issues that affect both members of the bargaining unit and administration.  Joint committee meetings might be held regularly with agendas and minutes.  A systematic problem solving process might be used along with a designated facilitator.  Meeting guidelines are followed to keep the discussions on track and focused on issues and not personalities.  Health and safety committees, labor-management committees, workers’ compensation committees, and diversity committees are examples of this category of cooperative activity.

Joint Labor-Management Committee (JLMC): the focus is on applying a labor-management lens to a wide range of contractual and organizational issues.  This is, perhaps, the most expansive application of a joint labor-management cooperative process as the parties look to the JLMC as a vehicle for achieving more productive operations and a higher quality of work life as well effective and enduring organizational change.

History of Labor-Management Cooperation

Each of the above forms has some degree of historical precedent.  It would be useful to briefly review the history of labor-management  cooperative efforts to see the factors that contributed to the various forms that evolved and to gain perspective as to what each was designed to accomplish.

The history of joint labor/management cooperation can be divided into a number of different eras.  Each of these eras will be explained here with illustrations of the possibilities and limitations present in each era.

Forced cooperation in the national interest --  the War Labor Boards:  

During World Wars I and II, the United States government deemed labor conflict to be antithetical to the war effort and even unpatriotic. To answer the need for peace at home to aid war abroad, the government installed a tripartite relationship between labor, management, and government to foster worker commitment, tap worker knowledge, insure continuous production and formalize cordial  industrial relations where none had necessarily existed before. The parties were encouraged to find solutions to production problems, solve inter-party conflicts, and align all levels of the organization to a common goal. The war labor boards pushed collective bargaining and they stand as one of the first instances of the government as a promoter of trade union rights and stable adversarialism. Their major limitation existed in relation to their dependence on government support and their inability to survive past the reaching of the common goal, an allied victory.

Collective Bargaining:  

The Wagner Act in 1935 fostered joint activities between unions and their managements because it strongly favored the institutionalized adversarialism of collective bargaining. This was not totally a radical departure given the government's earlier experiments with such concepts during the World War One War Labor Board. Collective bargaining has changed in the issues it addresses (subcontracting, ownership, corporate board seats, etc.), and in the sophistication of the parties in reaching the potential of bargaining as a problem solving method (with such new innovations as win-win, target-specific and mutual gains bargaining styles).  Joint outgrowths of bargaining have included such initiatives as joint educational funds, EAP's and joint health and safety efforts.

The "Human Relations" School of the Postwar United States: 

The post-war strike wave and a new desire to operate non-union, coupled with the rise of new organizational psychological interests and professionals, led to the rise of an emphasis on the individual  as an important object of research and workplace action. This new emphasis on the individual sought, either directly or indirectly, to weaken the collective nature of industrial relations and the union movement. Individual suggestions systems became an important programmatic  outgrowth of  these programs, but representation committees were not.

The "Blue Collar Blues" and the rise of Quality of Worklife and Employee Involvement:

  Worker alienation in the 1960's reached epidemic proportions and found its greatest symbol in the disgruntled workforce at the Lordstown Ohio General Motors (GM) plant. The direct sabotage of product and the worsening sense of self esteem and connectedness led both the United Auto Workers (UAW) and GM to conclude that something needed to be done to address the "quality of worklife" (QWL) of the shopfloor workers. The joint labor/management effort that resulted took the form of shopfloor meetings where blue collar workers were allowed to vent about conditions in the workplace.  These quickly turned serious as workers explained their desire for better efficiency and quality in the workplace.  Joint structures were put in place which oversaw their efforts.  These structures were steering committees (half union and half management, using consensus) which changed over time in their focus and their form.  QWL groups spread like wildfire and the original focus of helping alienated workers was lost to others who wanted to use the groups to address special or common workplace problems.

The Japanese Miracle and the Rise of the Quality Circle:   

With the acceleration of interest in the rising economic power of Japan, QWL gave way in specific plants and workplaces to the "quality circle" (QC), a problem solving group which was more focussed in its attention and had the added dimension of quality control tools, i.e. Statistical Process Control (SPC). The use of SPC gave greater explanatory power to the problem solving group. Quality circles were designed to aid in the spurring of higher quality and productivity.  Human factors were not meant to have equal billing with the business factors.

Workplace Team structures: Japan, Sweden and the U.S: 

The last innovation which is really decades old is the team and its function as the basis of performance and decision making in the workplace.  Started in different forms in both Japan and  Western Europe, the semi-autonomous work team is a logical outgrowth of earlier versions of worker empowerment. Teams virtually run their work area without traditional supervisory oversight and/or leadership. The teams may be responsible for any number of organizational decisions including scheduling, production planning, quality assurance, product and process improvement and so forth.  Teams may be led by a team leader who has the role of facilitator and problem solver.  Greater use of process skills is one hallmark of a team system. 

Current Initiatives:

Labor-management cooperative efforts  can currently be found in both public and private sector organizations in a wide range of industries and organizations: manufacturing, health care, federal, state, and local governments and agencies, police departments, public schools, service agencies, non-profit organizations and higher education.  They can take any of the forms, singularly or in combination, highlighted in the previous sections.

Boundaries of Labor-Management Cooperation

A discussion of what  labor-management cooperation is must also include a discussion of some of its boundaries, for the lack of understanding about the boundaries of cooperative efforts often is what drives the fears and skepticism that unions and managers bring to initial discussions.

Labor-management cooperation does not deny the identity or fundamental responsibilities of either party.  In a cooperative venture, each party is clear about its interests and whom it represents.  They work together because they believe that it is in their own best interest to do so.  The cooperative effort must support each party’s efforts to continue to fulfill the responsibilities that they are required to fulfill.

Cooperation or collaboration does not equate to the absence of conflict.  In a joint labor-management initiative the parties will disagree. At times, the passions that individuals or groups feel about a certain topic or idea may lead to conflict.   Conflict brings out divergent opinions and perspectives and sparks creativity and change.  Conflict is not only inevitable, it is also desirable.  Conflict marks the surfacing of tensions that, if left unattended, can fester beneath the surface until they taint thoughts, conversations, and the relationship.  Conflict continues to exist in organizations even after successful, broad-ranging, union-management cooperative efforts have been implemented.  What is different is how the  conflict is managed and how it is creatively channeled to achieve common goals.

Labor-management cooperation is not a hands-off relationship, with each party doing its own thing or leaving one another alone. It is joint, intentional, deliberate, and structured. Cooperative practices require a great deal of effort and, often, training for both parties.  Some require facilitation by a third party to initiate a joint process or help move it along.

Labor-management cooperation is not a sweetheart deal.  It is not a cozy, self-serving relationship that is counter to the interests of the parties’ constituents.  It is a practical relationship that focuses on the interests of both parties in making and implementing decisions that affect them all. It does not require either party to abdicate its traditional responsibilities.

Labor-management cooperation is not an answer to all of an organization’s ills. It won’t solve all of an organization’s problems and it is not a miracle cure.  The truth is management is not always right and the union is not always right.  But, if they work together there is a better chance that they will craft solutions that are appropriate and best address the needs of each party than if they work apart.

Labor-management cooperation does not require that the parties initially like or trust each other. The process of cooperation is built on applications of interest based bargaining to contract negotiations and administration as well as to operational and relationship issues.  In an interest based process the parties specify the needs or interests that they must have addressed by any problem solution or decision.  Presumably, if a party’s need are being met by a solution, it would clearly not be in their best interest to do anything that jeopardizes  or sabotages implementation. Thus, decisions do not have to be made on the basis of  the degree of trust that exists between the parties.  However, effective cooperation does require that parties approach the process with honesty and integrity. Hidden agendas may get one party a temporary advantage but they will quickly scuttle cooperative efforts for a long time to come.

Summary

In this paper, we have attempted to provide some clarification about the concept of labor-management cooperation.  We admit that cooperation may not be for every unionized organization.  Moreover, we do not urge anyone to adopt a cooperative process without careful consideration and assessment of their organization’s readiness and capability to take on joint labor-management practices. 

Other papers in this packet provide information to help union and management with this exploration process.  One illustrates a model for labor-management change that provides several choice points to determine scope of the work and the authority of the labor-management group.  Another highlights a list of requirements for successful cooperative efforts.  Another profiles the continuum of labor-management relations while another  differentiates between the four main approaches to change experienced in unionized organizations.

We include these papers in this packet because we believe that unions and managements must make an informed choice to cooperate for a change to be effective.

Note:  We drew from the following references as well as the collective experience of PIERS staff in drafting the above comments:

Anstey, M., Negotiating Conflict.  Portland, Oregon: International Specialized Book, 1991.

Bennis, W.G., Benne, K.D., and Chin, R. (Eds.) The Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,  1969.

Cohen-Rosenthal, E. and Burton, C.E. Mutual Gains: a Guide to Union-Management Cooperation. Ithaca, New York: ILR Press, 1993.

Harbison, F.H., and Coleman, J.R. Goals and Strategy in Collective Bargaining.  New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951.

Schuster, M.H. Union-Management Cooperation: Structure, Process, Impact.  Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1984.

Woodworth, W.P. and Meek, C.B.  Creating Labor-Management Partnerships. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1995.