UAW and Labor Unions Revisited - Bottoms Up

Yesterday's post  What the UAW Did Not Do to General Motors brought a flurry of comments from anti-union conservatives.

It is interesting how they fault unions for the responsibilities of management.

As the mayor of Madison for fourteen years I had to work with six public employee unions and three professional associations. Public employee unions have more power than private sector unions in that unwise state legislation gets them some powers that at best should be the subject of negotiations.

In that period I endured one strike by the Teamsters Union which closed the bus system and eight binding arbitrations- the city won all of them.

For starters, a strong union is in everyone's best interest. Weak labor organizations have no confidence at the bargaining table and cannot deliver when the membership votes. Weak union leaders make outrageous proposals trying to endear themselves to the membership.

Contracts are negotiated every two or three years. The outcome of those negotiations are determined by what happens between the contracts. Silly grievances, vindictive directives, and gotcha practices poison the process and do nothing to build a good relationship and a better organization.

Unions are always suspicious of any kind of management reform because often it is a "Chainsaw Al" gutting of the company. The words, "reorganization" or "transformation" are used too frequently and erroneously, so it is not surprising that labor unions are suspicious - as are most of top and middle management.

Introducing a real quality transformation, which was done in the city of Madison, takes time and commitment.

The first thing that needs to be done is to build trust. Driving out fear is the companion goal.

When the auto manufacturers received pushback to their 'improvement' programs, they failed to build the trust, and drive out the fear that plagued the companies. That is the responsibility of management. Engaging the workers, union or not, is what the managers are paid to do.

Then again, why bother when you can be a vice-president drawing a mutli-million dollar bonus for simply showing up.

The solution to any management reform, any break in a system starts at the top.

Solutions come from the bottom - the initiative starts at the top. 

 

Comments

[anon]

Thanks for this and your last post. I continue to be mystified and saddened by the frequent anger toward directed toward specific groups of workers -- state workers, unionized workers, teachers, university professors -- in other words, many who make a decent wage. I wonder if it's always been that way or if there's been a change in mood over the years.

[R.J.]

The difference is you were playing with house money. And you weren't trying to stay in the game against competitors.
Public sector never loses, just wins fractionally less...until next time around.

[Belleville]

It must be difficult for you to see a changed world where partisan parties mean nothing. The conservative label is situational, and anti-union is not a conservative concept. It is a reality check of the state of Wisconsin. As an ex-yeamster(still have the card), the responsibilities of management are not what they used be. In your dated view of business and history, one told the other what to do and how to do it. Management is an outdated notion. That is part of the problem with Wisconsin and its state of affairs. While business deleted layer after layer of management the past 2 decades, the state got fatter and more bloated, largely to address the demanding aggreements of the very unions you mention. Imagine a state where jobs are not protected and current technology and processes can be rapidly deployed for the benefit of taxpayers. There are states that operate this way, Wisconsin is not amongst those. Perhaps the clearest perspective can be understood by a simple analogy, in this state, the workforce still needs to be told what to do? That is what unions have done.