Some Post-Labor Day Reflections

Why Neutrals Think Unions Are Good

When I first started out as an arbitrator, a Teamsters union rep tried to stump me at a conference we were both attending.

“So are you for unions or are you for management?” He asked.

I stumbled through an answer that I hoped sounded neutral but because it was rambling, I’m not sure my point was well made. Now if he asked, I’d say, “I’m for collective bargaining.”

Some arbitrators come from a union background as I do, while others come from a management background. A smaller number were always neutrals, like people who worked at the NLRB. What we all have in common, and what both unions and management should look for, is a belief that collective bargaining is the best way to achieve mature labor relationships and maximum economic benefits for both workers and employers.

Some people think that makes us pro-union and to that, all I can do is shrug. In my experience, most management folks have also come to believe that, even if the particular union they deal with is a huge pain in the neck, collective bargaining is an overall good model for everyone’s benefit. A rising tide lifts all boats, and so forth. In fact, most HR people know that if the union persuades management to improve wages and benefits, they usually will be beneficiaries as well. Management folks who don’t feel this way often leave for positions where there is no union, or leave human resources altogether.

In fact, the New York Times recently reported on the high turnover rates in the field of human resources, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. So, Human Resources Is Making You Miserable? One antidote to some of the problems in this article is a functioning union who is able to share the responsibility for devising policies that are achieve the employer’s goals while incorporating the view of the workplace. Another antidote is a competent union representative who can communicate workplace expectations to their members so that the burden doesn’t fall entirely on the HR department.

Unfortunately, the share of the workforce that is unionized has continued to fall over the past two decades, and recent organizing efforts are not making up the shortfall. Please check out this report:

The State of the Unions?

I recently came across a piece I wrote back in 2011 before I was an arbitrator, where I laid out the purpose of unions and what they could do to grow. It’s not the work I do anymore, but in the spirit of Labor Day, I thought I would share it here.

The public sector unions’ protest in Wisconsin has, not surprisingly, given me a lot to think about. I've been working with unions since 1997, and most of those years have been depressing. Not because unions weren't making strong economic or political gains for their members, but because their market share was shriveling. Today, only 6.9% of the private sector is unionized. The public sector helps boost the unionized market density to around 13%, but the power of unions is, at this point, nostalgic and political. The Wisconsin battles are unusual in that they are focussed on the rights of unions (collective bargaining, dues collection) as opposed to individual rights or political interests. In fact, the unions in Wisconsin have largely acceded to the Republican budget cuts; they firmly recognize that the governor is trying to deal the fatal blow. If Walker can win in Wisconsin, the Republicans can win anywhere.

But what if the unions win? What then? They aren't about to regain market share at this point. At its height, the American labor movement included more than 30% of the workforce; that height is unimaginable today. We've lost those jobs completely. Good-bye, manufacturing sector. And even if they do win in WI, they are saddled with a whole set of responsibilities which inhibit their ability to deal with industrial issues in the represented workforce.

Let me back up and talk a little about the different components of what a union offers its members. Via their union, members get (1) political power, via campaign contributions, access to politicians and voter turnout machines that are top notch; (2) legal service, via the grievance and arbitration process. Individual workers who are disciplined and groups of workers deprived of contractual rights have representation for their issues. This is called representational services. Then there's (3) industrial service, where unions advocate for industrial services and standards. This springs in some part from a "craft" or "trade" mentality, where the labor market understands that union labor is superior, because of its training and safety standards. The member gets superior training and the union advocates for those individuals to get the work over non-union employees. Unions also offer (4) collective bargaining/negotiations service, wherein the union bargains for higher wages and benefits than are available elsewhere.

Each of these services is emphasized differently within each union, and each is demonized by the enemies of unions. In turn, the union may be viewed as "the machine", the reason that the jerk comes back to work, the reason people are excluded from certain jobs and budget-busters. I'm not really going to deal with those assumptions. I just raised those frameworks to ask, "If the unions in Wisconsin win, what do they offer their members, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC?"

I have two ideas. In Ohio, public sector bargaining rights have been rolled back to a point where the unions can only negotiate about wages and benefits. However, what if the opposite were true, and unions had to negotiate about everything? Literally, what if the unions were required to bargain about all the problems faced by their employers? This is antithetical to most ideas about bargaining, but I think that *not* asking unions to think constructively about the future is one of the reasons that they have no incentive to bargain over anything but their share of the pie.

Second, I do think that the basic structure of unions is flawed in a way that inhibits their ability to effectively incorporate all four of their service orientations. Presently, most unions assign staff based on the employer, and the union representative is expected to be political organizer, legal advocate, journey level trainer and contract negotiator. This is absurd. No one can do all of these. In addition to the problem of having the right skills mix, individual staff get overly involved in a particular workplace, and become myopic. The problems of those employees become all that the union representative, and their creativity and objectivity fall into disuse.

I think that a union should staff in the following way. There should be advocates handling grievances; political organizers doing issues organizing and voter turnout; career counselors and trainers for industrial skill development; and trained negotiators. I think that there should also be healthcare and retirement benefit counselors who understand union health and retirement plans and can help workers navigate those, as well as advise negotiators about issues that need to be tackled. These folks would work as a team, providing high quality services from their area of expertise.

Why? Unions need to make the case that their battle is worth winning.

Okay, back to the present day. Let me know what you think about my ideas and whether you have any questions about grievances and arbitration!