WORKER PARTICIPATION

EI: Tough Choices for Unions

Unions face a number of questions when they try to develop a response to an employer's demand for an Employee Involvement (EI) program. Is this an attempt to circumvent or even to bust the union? Should the union agree to participate, or should the union resist the effort to implement EI? Where can the union turn to find information and advice in dealing with EI? Even fundamental questions like "what is EI?" or "Why is the company trying to implement EI?" are difficult to answer.

To begin to understand and develop strategies about EI, a union must not only ask the obvious questions, such as should we participate, but must also examine EI as more than an isolated event occurring in a vacuum. EI programs, operating under a number of names, has been going on in a variety of forms and under a variety of names since the 1970s and are present in virtually all industries. The experimentation period is coming to a close as there is developing some consistency in the implementation of the Japanese-style management system or as Mike Parker has accurately described it, the Management-by-Stress (MBS) system. Although MBS has built into it a system for increasing workers' involvement in decisions relating to their jobs, the purpose of MBS is not to combat worker alienation through de-Taylorizing work. Rather, MBS is designed to eliminate costs in the production process, to increase the quality of whatever is being produced, and to increase flexibility in the production process. What appears to be occurring is not only some attempt to involve workers more in decision making at work, but an attempt to reshape the labor relations process, management structure and, to a certain extent, the production process.

In order to achieve "lean production" (another name for MBS), management must redesign how it manages its work force. Excessive supervision is an added cost in production. Experiments in teamwork have as one of their goals self-management, thus reducing the need for direct supervision. Team production meetings, peer pressure, "Attaboys," training designed to develop company loyalty, and reduced job classifications are all examples of a changing labor relations system.

Management is also undergoing substantial change. Restructuring is the new buzzword that categorizes the changing structure of corporate management. Corporations are challenging the rigid, bureaucratic, and highly centralized management structure that dominated in the postwar era, and are attempting to implement a more decentralized, leaner, and more responsive structure. In many cases, "business units" are being set up that are wholly responsible for their own success. These business units exist not only in the corporate hierarchy, but extend all the way down the ladder to the shop floor. Clearly, management also faces challenges in its need to restructure.

It is very significant that in much of manufacturing, EI is a component of a more general reconfiguration of the production process. An integral part of implementing a MBS system is the introduction of changes, such as Just-in-Time Inventory, Cell Manufacturing, and an increasingly greater reliance upon computer technology in the production process. Manufacturing is moving away from long production runs and is moving toward running small batches of production. This requires the flexibility to make changeovers quickly and efficiently. Just as important is the need to ensure a high level of quality in the goods that are produced. Increasingly, management has the need to have quality built in as opposed to having it inspected in at the end of the production process. The change in the production process appears to be an attempt to convert traditional assembly line production into a system that is similar to a continuous process flow operation.

All of these changes are occurring in the context of the end of the period when American corporations were completely dominant in the world economy and when the bulk of their production occurred in the United States. Corporations are deindustrializing in the United States, while facing competition from Asian and European based multinational corporations. Corporations have become dependent upon technology and telecommunications to manage their empires. In the midst of this, corporations are coming to workers trying to implement their model of empowering workers to make more decisions about production. Unions obviously must make some difficult yet vitally important decisions.

What are our options in EI? Some unionists argue that EI is not really a traditional union issue and that we should take no position or action. Others take the approach that the adversarial approach no longer works and that we should therefore agree to cooperate with management in implementing its EI program. Still other unionists argue that employer-dominated EI programs are a dagger pointed at the heart of the labor movement and that unions should do all they can to resist the implementation of EI programs. Finally, some unionists are beginning to approach EI not from a cooperative model but from a collective bargaining view. They believe that neither cooperating nor just saying no to EI deals with the fundamental change that is occurring in the workplace and that by viewing EI as a vehicle to expand the union’s influence into areas that have been traditionally the domain of management expands the union's power and influence and that only by the union controlling EI can workers have real empowerment.

These are difficult choices for unions to make. What is clear is that doing nothing is not working. Union membership is declining at an alarming rate. Union power, both politically and economically, is much less than it was 25 years ago. Worker participation in their unions is often nonexistent. We are facing a crisis that may lead to the end of the American labor movement. The time to act is now.

Discussion Questions
  1. Prioritize (1 being best option, 4 being worst) the list of alternatives unions face when they are dealing with Employee Involvement.
  2. Based on the option you selected in the preceding question, can the union implement its choice through the traditional service model structure of unions? Why or why not?
  3. What dangers and/or risks do unions face when they adopt a position of opposing an employer-initiated EI program?
  4. Is, as the reading suggests, Employee Involvement part of a broader challenge for unions as management is trying to adapt to rapidly changing economic conditions? Explain.
  5. What are goals and objectives that unions should have if they choose to develop a union empowering model of Employee Involvement?
  6. What are the pitfalls and barriers facing unions that attempt to implement their own model of Employee Involvement?

 

A Survey of Union Membership Attitudes and Perceptions
Toward Jointness Programs
(Center for Labor Education and Research, Florida International University)

PURPOSE

The purpose of the following survey is to study the experiences of union members toward specific jointness programs. The phrase "jointness program" is used inclusively to mean any company and/or union program whose stated objective is to include employees in the managing of an enterprise. This would include among others QWL or employee involvement programs, quality circles or networks, labor/management participation teams, team concept, and autonomous and semi-autonomous work groups.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Read each statement in the survey carefully. Then record your answer based on your experience with the jointness programs. Feel free to use the other side of the survey should you need additional space to explain any answer.

QUESTIONS:

Given your experience with jointness programs, review the following statements. Do you (strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree) that jointness programs have...

  Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
  1. Improved overall working conditions

______

______

______

______
  1. Resulted in greater reliance on employee skill and intelligence

______

______

______

______
  1. Resulted in less regimentation and more worker autonomy

______

______

______

______
  1. Resulted in greater respect and dignity for employees

______

______

______

______
  1. Improved job security

______

______

______

______
  1. Increased job satisfaction

______

______

______

______
  1. Resulted in greater emphasis on education and retraining

______

______

______

______
  1. Have reduced health safety violations and workers’ compensation claims

______

______

______

______
  1. Resulted in labor management equality in the workplace

______

______

______

______
  1. Empowered employees and participating unions

______

______

______

______
  1. Increased management flexibility in managing the workforce

______

______

______

______
  1. Improved product/service quality

______

______

______

______
  1. Improved productivity

______

______

______

______
  1. Resulted in greater employee identification with employer concerns, competition costs, etc.

______

______

______

______
  1. Reduced absenteeism

______

______

______

______
  1. Been used in conjunction with the introduction of new production/service systems

______

______

______

______
  1. Been used in conjunction with introduction of new technology

______

______

______

______
  1. Been used in conjunction with increased outside subcontracting

______

______

______

______
  1. Been used in conjunction with concessionary bargaining

______

______

______

______
  1. Resulted in speedups

______

______

______

______
  1. Resulted in fewer job classifications

______

______

______

______
  1. Undermined the seniority system

______

______

______

______
  1. Resulted in layoffs (RIF)

______

______

______

______
  1. Reduced the need for the union grievance procedure

______

______

______

______
  1. Undermined employee identification with the union

______

______

______

______

 

Necessary Elements for Effective Worker Participation in
Decision Making
(Center for Labor Education and Research, Florida International University)

From an article by Dr. Paul Bernstein, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. X No. 2 June 1976.

In this classic article on work place democracy efforts Bernstein identifies six necessary components for successful programs on worker participation in decision making:

  1. Workers must have an increased degree of power vis-a-vis management regarding various levels of decision making in the company.
  2. Workers must have access to and sharing of management level information. If employees are to make decisions on the issues that go on in areas outside their normal jobs, they will need information such as engineering reports and company economic information that was previously only available to accounting or finance departments. A corollary to this component is that workers must be trained to understand and use this information in a correct and effective manner.
  3. A guaranteed right of protection from reprisal for employees who voice criticisms of management.
  4. An independent board of appeals to settle disputes between labor and management (grievance procedure).
  5. A participatory/democratic consciousness or a set of beliefs and traits among the work force and among management that tends to worker participation in decision making. The belief that workers have the ability to make good decisions or a strong feeling of self-reliance are two such traits.
  6. A guaranteed economic return on cost savings or surplus produced above the employee's regular salary. This sometimes is labeled as "gainsharing."

Attached is Bernstein's diagram of levels of worker influence on company decision making. Notice that he puts collective bargaining (level 5) one step above employee involvement or QWL programs (level 4) Bernstein argues that the major thing which distinguishes collective bargaining from joint control (level 6) is the limited area of decision making not its degree of power. Some trade unionists have begun to design labor/management programs as an expansion of collective bargaining into areas that have traditionally been considered exclusive management domain.

Levels of Worker Influence on
Company Decision Making
(Center for Labor Education and Research, Florida International University)

  1. Workers' Council or Assembly SUPERIOR to managers (and if outside constituencies have representatives on this body, they must be approved by the workers). Known as FULL WORKER CONTROL or "SELF MANAGEMENT" (WORKERS AUTONOMY)
  1. Joint power or PARTNERSHIP (workers and managers co-decide on joint board). This has many different voting proportions in existence and is considered JOINT MANAGEMENT or CODETERMINATION.
  1. Workers wait until management has decided; then may VETO or APPROVE: if veto, then management submits modifications. Also known as "collective bargaining."
  1. MANAGER DELEGATES some decisions generally to workers, reserving ultimate veto which is rarely used.
  1. Workers initiate CRITICISMS AND SUGGESTIONS and discuss them face-to-face with managers. Latter still have sole power to decide, but usually adopt workers' proposals.
  1. Same as immediately above but managers usually reject workers proposals.
  1. Managers give PRIOR NOTICE of a change, workers have a chance to voice their views, and perhaps stimulate reconsideration.
  1. Impersonal SUGGESTION BOX system; managers accept or reject without giving reasons.

Necessary Elements for Effective
Worker Participation in Decision Making
(Center for Labor Education and Research, Florida International University)

  1. Workers have increased power to influence decisions at various levels of the enterprise.
  2. Workers have access to and sharing of management level information.
  3. Protection from reprisal for workers who voice criticism of management.
  4. Appeals process to settle disputes between labor and management (grievance procedure).
  5. Set of beliefs that reinforce worker participation (management believes workers have ability to make good decisions and worker self-reliance).
  6. Gainsharing. Economic return above workers' salary.

 

Pre-Conditions for Union Participation in
Employee Involvement Programs
(Center for Labor Education and Research, Florida International University)

  1. Union is in on all discussions.
  2. Any decision relating to EI must have union input.
  3. Union representation on all committees.
  4. Program has top management support.
  5. Written guarantee that program will not lead to layoffs.
  6. No speed-up.
  7. Balance between union and management goals.
  8. Part of increased savings goes back to the workers.

 

The Union-Empowering Model of Participation
(Center for Labor Education and Research, Florida International University)

  1. Higher productivity

  2. Better quality and consistency

  3. Cost savings

  1. Include management costs in cost savings efforts

  2. Union influence all levels of the enterprise

  3. Traditional goals such as building a stronger union

  4. Union control over shopfloor component of program

 

Participating in Management
Union Organizing on a New Terrain
(Center for Labor Education and Research, Florida International University)

  1. An organizing model of participation programs will make the union stronger by:

    1. Increasing its bargaining power.

    2. Increasing membership identification and participation in the union.

  1. Participation works best for unions when they use a collective bargaining approach.

  2. Participation and access to company information can take place with or without management’s cooperation.

 

The Union Empowering Model of Participation
Consultants and Staffing

  1. Reject notion of neutral and joint consultants.

  2. Equal funding for lost time and consultants.

  3. Full-time union coordinator.

  4. Union facilitators selected as if they were assistant stewards.

 

The Union-Empowering Model of Participation
DUTIES OF UNION COORDINATORS AND FACILITATORS
(Center for Labor Education and Research, Florida International University)

  1. Assert the unions’ perspective in program activities.

    2.  

  2. Organize the knowledge and insight of workers into union proposals.

    3.  

  3. Mobilize members behind union-initiated programs to correct mismanagement.

 

Training & Meetings

  1. Independent union training includes stewards, officers, coordinators and facilitators.

    2.  

  2. Primary training objective is to advance internal organizing goals of union.

    3.  

  3. Teach skills in finding and analyzing management information and structures.

    4.  

  4. Keep joint training to a minimum.

    5.  

  5. Organize union strategy session prior to joint meetings.

 

Three Structural Components of
The Union Empowering Model of Participation

 

The Special Task Force

Autonomous Work Groups

Area-Wide Committees

 

(Center for Labor Education and Research, Florida International University)

Special Task Forces
A Case Study

A considerable amount of time is spent by neutral consultants on a variety of exercises and group activities that emphasize the importance of building trust between labor and management as a precondition for establishing a successful participation program. But UAW workers faced with the shutdown of the distribution center at Harrison Radiator in Lockport, New York didn’t want to trust management because they had been burnt on a previous cost savings program. The union felt that the workers could figure out ways to run the center cheaper than the outside contractor the company wanted to retain. Leaders of UAW Local 686 insisted on operating their own participation program in the form of a special task force (STF)- - what they termed a cost study team.

The team members met independently of management and on company time. The UAW STF asked all workers in the distribution center for cost saving suggestions and ideas. Individual team members aggressively approached workers in their own work areas for ideas. Company management instructed staff in engineering, planning, finance to give the STT all the help in needed. After three weeks the union presented three ways the company could save a total of $1.2 million per year thus making the internal operation less expensive than a bid submitted by an outside contractor. The control the union members retained because of their exclusion of supervisors allowed them to keep secret the twenty-two additional cost savings ideas their cost study team generated. They held back this additional knowledge because the first three ideas generated enough to save their jobs.

  1. What issues can the UAW STF deal with that traditional participation teams cannot?

  2. What information did the union have that was not normally available to individual workers and why was this information important?

  3. How long was the life of the STF? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

  4. Who was on the STF? What was management's role?

 

The Union Empowering Model of Participation
Special Task Force

  1. System-wide issues

  2. Areas of enterprise with no union presence

  3. Solves single problem (ad hoc committee)

  4. Appointed by union but problem can be identified by union or management

  5. Must have access to all information

  6. Some interaction with management level specialists and union consultants

  7. Composed of union members only

 

Autonomous Work Groups
A Case Study

In 1987, CWA Local 3121 leaders in Miami, Florida were able to convince a Southern Bell division manager to experiment with autonomous work groups (AWGS) or what they termed self-managed teams. The AWGs are each composed of 10-15 service technicians who are responsible for installation and maintenance of residential and business phone service in North Dade County. Participation in a self-managed team is strictly voluntary.

Under the traditional system each group of workers has one supervisor who is responsible for all work assignments, attendance records, quality inspections, disciplinary actions, and communications to other parts of the company. With the AWGs the supervisor becomes a coach and is assigned to three work groups. He still retains the responsibility for attendance records and discipline and occasionally acts as a liaison with the company.

The AWGs are totally responsible for their work assignments, quality inspections and scheduling their work time and days off. Individual performance and productivity is evaluated by taking a group average. The group negotiates with management to set the team's monthly productivity goals. Team meetings take place once per week without management present. Team leaders and team quality inspectors must rotate every 60 days and all AWG members must take a turn at these jobs. The union believes this will prevent a natural leader from dominating any team. The AWGs consistently have the highest quality ratings because their team quality inspectors make it a practice to fix all quality deficiencies they find rather than reporting them.

Teams are free to tackle problems as they see fit. On one occasion a team had been complaining for a year that a particular crossbox in the area had serious problems which meant that even relatively simple tasks would take days on this box. They decided the directly contact a company engineer who came out to inspect the problem. He then redesigned the equipment to alleviate the problems. Now those same tasks take only a few hours. Team members firmly believe that this would never have happened under a manager because a manager in an office would never have "felt" the problem with the crossbox the way the workers felt it.

  1. What prevents management from implementing the ideas of one AWG to a traditional work crew?

  2. Why were AWGs able to increase their quality without increasing their workload?

  3. What changes had to be made in the contract?

  4. Would the AWG make it harder or easier for management to discipline the workers? Why?

  5. How would an AWG identify and solve a company-wide problem?

 

The Union Empowering Model of Participation
Autonomous Work Groups

  1. No shopfloor supervision

  2. Workers organize and manage their work

  3. All formal work rules still in effect but workers are free to experiment with new ones

  4. Workers perform no disciplinary functions

 

Drawbacks of Autonomous Work Groups

  1. Hard to get management to agree

  2. Some workers want more structure and supervision

  3. Focus will be labor oriented and ignore management cost issues

 

Area-Wide Union Committee
A CASE STUDY

The efficiency credit team (ECT) created by the Machinists at Eastern AirLines is another example of the special task force approach. The ECT was composed of three union coordinators, two union implementers and two part-time union programmatic and financial consultants. This group would create special task forces in a variety of locations throughout the company. Eventually many of these task forces were channeled ideas by members throughout the Eastern network by simply asking the Machinist chief stewards to solicit ideas. Often groups of stewards, area-wide union committees (AUCS) would poll members for ideas and report back to the chief steward. All issues in that chief s jurisdiction were fair game for the members to tackle and pass on to the ECT.

The two issues of most concern to the ECT were cost-savings and bringing new work into the company, what the Machinists termed contracting-in. The Machinists contract provided that all cost savings generated by the program went directly into the wage base of Machinist members and bringing new work in through contracting-in meant greater job security. On one occasion an AUC discovered that they could purchase for three cents a simple foam rubber air-conditioning filter which the company had bought for $24 each. On another occasion an AUC in Atlanta looked into complaints that the non-union bus company which shuttled Eastern employees from parking lots to the airport was always late and kept poor maintenance of the bus fleet. The operation was brought in-house at a lower cost to the company which meant better service, a doubling of salary for the drivers, more work for Eastern mechanics, and more members for the union.

Eventually, the ECT program brought the Machinists at Eastern salary levels at the top of the industry and the wastes and mismanagement it uncovered brought Eastern middle-management plenty of embarrassment. At on point middle-management formed its own cost-savings team to compete with the union’s ECT. When they couldn’t even generate enough cost savings to justify their own salaries, the management team would sneak down to the shop floor to steal ideas from the rank and file. After the union spread the word through the chief steward structure that this would mean giving the company ideas for free, the management team was cut off by the rank and file and eventually were forced to disband their team.

  1. How was the structure of the AUC similar to an autonomous work group? How was it dissimilar?

  2. Who were the AUC members? How did the rank and file participate in the program?

  3. What role did the traditional union structure play in the success of the program?

  4. Could an AUC generate change in areas other than their own work area? How?

The Union Empowering Model of Participation
Area-Wide Union Committees

  1. Single work area and work group

  2. Union selects all committee members as part of the union structure

  3. Steward or equivalent heads committee and appoints facilitators who act as assistant stewards on at least a 1:20 ratio with rank and file

  4. Committee use internal organizing techniques to involve rank and file

  5. Meets with area management at regular intervals

  6. Generates solutions for area work problems and ideas for special task force

 

Union Empowering Guidelines Exercise
(Center for Labor Education and Research, Florida International University)

Below are topics of discussion to help your group develop specific union proposals for guidelines for joint labor-management participation programs. As a group, please discuss each topic. After the discussion please draft, as a group, a specific guideline proposal for the union to negotiate with management. The handouts covering the discussion on the Union Empowering Model may be useful references for your discussions, When you are finished go on to the next topic.

Topic #1 - Joint and Equal Representation

    1. What is the difference between "joint" and "equal" representation? Why are both important?

    2. List all the major parts and areas of decision-making of a union-management participation program. Which aspects of the program should be joint? Which should not? Why?

Guideline #1:

Topic #2 - Job Protection

    1. If workers develop better and more efficient ways to operate the enterprise could these innovations pose any threat to their job security or working conditions? How?

    2. List all the possible ways jobs could be affected.

Guideline #2:

Topic #3 - Gainsharing

    1. When workers are truly able to participate in decision making, cost savings and productivity gains can be huge. Many studies show that a significant part of these gains must be shared with employees for the program to survive. What percentage of the gains do you feel should be reverted to the employees?

    2. Can the way gains are distributed be used to divide the work force? How? Can they be distributed in a manner that would unite the work force? How? Should only those workers who participate in the program receive gains? Why?

Guideline #3:

Topic #4 - Contract Protection and Expanding Collective Bargaining

  1. List the types of decisions the company makes that the union has no influence over. If the union had influence in these areas how would it benefit the members?

  2. Are there rights and benefits that would be easier for the union to get through the joint union-management process than through collective bargaining? Explain. Are there ways the company can use the joint process to take away contractual rights? Explain.

  3. How can the union use the joint process to gain rights and benefits in areas not covered by the contract without risking the loss of any contract rights?

Guideline #4:

Topic #5 - Company Commitment

  1. Can a joint process survive if it only has the active support of middle management?

  2. What should top management’s role be? Why?

Guideline #5:

Topic #6 - Goals and purposes of Union Participation

  1. Why does the company want this program? What do you think their goals are? Which of these goals does the union share with the company? Even though the union may share these goals, is it for a different reason? Explain.

  2. What program goals can the union have that would directly benefit the workers?

  3. Are these possible goals that would recognize the importance of the union and benefit the union as an institution?

Guideline #6:

Topic #7 – Work Organization and Authority of Joint Program

  1. If workers and their union had the ability to say how their work should be organized do you feel any of the company’s goals would be achieved? Which union goals would be achieved? Which personal goals of the work force would be assisted?

  2. How much power should the joint union-management program have to implement decisions? Is there a problem with the program only being advisory to management?

Guideline #7:

Topic #8 – Company and Union Interests

  1. Many consultants pass their programs as neutral. Do you feel that a union-management program should be neutral towards the union? Explain.

  2. Is it legitimate for the union to want to become stronger because of its participation in the joint program? Explain. Do you think management wants the company to be strengthened because of the program?

Guideline #8:

Topic #9 – Joint Programs and the Grievance Procedure

  1. Do you feel it is a good idea for individual workers to tell their grievances to the joint programs? Why?

  2. Do you think there are some issues that the union may win easier in the joint program than through the grievance procedure? Explain.

  3. What is the difference between A and B above? Explain.

Guideline #9:

Topic #10 – Program Expenses

  1. Who monetarily benefits the most from the joint union-management process? Explain. Who has access to more resources: labor or management?

  2. What is labor’s contribution to the program?

  3. What expenses of the program should management be expected to pay? What expenses should the union pay?

Guideline #10:

Topic #11 – Program Assessment

  1. How can the union make sure that management is living up to its part of the negotiated agreement over the joint union-management program? Will management make a periodic assessment of the program? Why?

  2. Is it important for the union to evaluate the program separate from management? If the union does not conduct its own assessment of the program what are the risks?

  3. Would it be a good idea to have no program assessments at all? Explain.

Guideline #11:

Topic #12 – Communications to Workers

  1. Many trade unionists fear that employee involvement programs can be used as a way for management to brainwash employees and to form shop floor and office floor groups of workers that compete with unions. How would a union employing program prevent this from happening?

  2. In a joint union-management program who should have the final say over what gets communicated to the workers? -- To management? Who should have final say over joint communications? Why?

Guidelines #12:

Topic #13 – Control and Access to Shop Floor/Office Floor Knowledge

  1. Let’s assume that management’s primary purpose for wanting an employee involvement program is to make the work process more efficient by gaining the insight and knowledge of line employees. What are the risks to the employees of having management know these insights?

  2. How can the union make sure that the ideas and insights of the work place only be accessed by management by first going through the union? Will this help remedy the problem in A above? Explain.

Guideline #13:

Topic #14 – Program Emphasis

  1. What types of issues do you feel management will want the program to emphasize? What types of issues do you feel the union and its members want to emphasize?

  2. How can you assure a balance between these different objectives?

Guideline #14:

Topic #15 – Duration of Program

  1. Once the union agrees to participate should it be allowed to decide to withdraw? Under what circumstances?

  2. If the union withdraws from the program should management be allowed to implement the program without the union’s participation?

  3. Even if the union chooses to participate fully, should individual workers ever be forced to participate?

Guideline #15:

Topic #16 – Scope of Participation

  1. List the areas of the company where the union does not have the influence over decision making? Do the decisions that are made in these areas have an effect on the workers’ daily lives?

  2. Which area and levels of the company should be subject to the joint union-management program? Which should be excluded?

Guideline #16:

Topic #17 – Training

  1. Who should decide what training takes place in the joint program? Who should conduct the training?

  2. Is it important that workers be taught the union’s legitimate role in society and in the company? Is it important that management be taught the legitimate role of the union in society and in the company? Has management ever had this training before? Who should conduct this training?

Guideline #17:

Topic #18 – Information

  1. What kinds of information does management posses that the union will need to participate fully in the joint program?

  2. Does the union now have timely access to all management information? How could such information be of value to the union? How is it important to the success of the joint program?

  3. How effectively can the union participate in the program without this information?

Guideline #18:

Topic #19 – Staffing and Consultants

  1. Is it possible for staff to be neutral in a joint union-management program? Is it desirable for staff to be neutral? Explain.

  2. Is it possible for the union and management to each have their own program staff? How would this work?

  3. Should the union and management also have access to their own outside expertise? Is this more important for the union or management? Why?

Guideline #19:

 

Top
Next Section - Building trades
Table of Contents