Public Employee Unions - More or
Less
About 45 percent of public
employees are represented by unions. While that number has
increased in the current generation of employees, the opposite
trend continues in the union movement in general. In the
private sector less than 10 percent of workers are in unions.
That number has been declining steadily, even while public
employees seem to be spending more time looking for the union
label. What a fascinating phenomenon.
It
is, after all, in government where unions would seem on the
surface to be less powerful, less effective and far less
necessary to "protect" workers. Government workers already are
encased in Kevlar in most cases by arrays of vested rights
such a civil service protection, legislative mandates like
heart/lung presumption bills for firefighters and police. It
is public-sector agencies that often have binding arbitration,
open-meeting laws, public records acts, whistle-blower
protections, and the far higher degree of public and media
scrutiny than is present in the private sector.
It
would seem that, based on the traditions and history of the
labor movement, unions would be focusing their efforts on the
places where the needs are the greatest and the rights are the
fewest - the private sector. Private sector America is
the land of the "at will" employee. It is the land with the
lower wages, far less stability and security, and diminishing
benefits.
The
public sector is still the home of defined benefit pension
plans, which are seriously declining in private industry, as
well as retiree health insurance benefits and much more. Why
is it, then, that the union movement is most popular in the
place where it seems to be needed the least?
There is not one single and
simple answer, and a short article isnt the place to attempt
a doctoral dissertation. However, here are a few thoughts on
what contributes to this seemingly strange
situation.
In
the land of the "entitled," there is a greater urgency on the
part of many employees to erect barriers against change.
Sadly, unions all too often "serve" their members most by
placing bear traps, mine fields and other impediments in the
way of the process of innovation.
One
of the best examples is the general resistance to linking pay
to performance, as opposed to pay linked to automatic
increases for everyone in the bargaining unit, regardless of
their contribution.
An
interesting phenomenon occurs when a management bargaining
team raises the question of abandoning the concept of
"one-size-fits-all" COLA increases in favor of providing
substantially more pay for those making substantially more
contributions. Immediately, the defense shields are raised and
comments are made such as "we dont trust the managers to be
objective in evaluations." The purported lack of trust is a
part of the defense mechanism.
The
result is a labor contract tradition of moving towards the
lowest common denominator of compensation based on survival
and not based on reward and recognition for the very best
performers.
When "same for all" is the mantra
chanted by unions and that chanting goes on for generations of
employees, a "culture of avoidance" becomes entrenched and is
very difficult to break through.
The
culture of avoidance refers to the reluctance of an elected
official or council, let alone an individual manager, to want
to move very far down the road of innovation if it means
controversy, and perhaps the threatened withholding of
campaign support.
Public employees include large
numbers of colleagues in paramilitary model organizations,
such as fire-rescue and police. Union membership is very high
in organizations where the members eat together, sleep
together and occasionally engage together in conduct
unbecoming members of our species.
In
these cases, the power of groups such as the International
Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is brought to bear, not to
necessarily defend the true heroes, but to prevent reasonable
management interventions to reduce liability. This may come in
the form of resistance to the idea of drug testing, or
forensic psychological screening of applicants for promotion
or hire, or adopting codes of conduct which may involve
restrictions on the significant amounts of money being paid
for time not worked instead of pay for time that is
worked.
In
these organizations, of course, there is also a very great
historical reluctance to even consider the appointment of
senior staff from outside the organization. The exception,
interestingly enough, is most likely to be found in the
appointment of the department head - the police or the
fire-rescue chief.
The
HR Daughter Elyse is a county management employee. She
recently received a performance bonus - which in most
agencies would be unlikely to ever happen in the first place.
The direct recognition of performance excellence with links to
a tangible reward and to the very important statements, both
verbally and in writing, of appreciation and commendation mean
a great deal to a dedicated employee. It means that her
contributions are recognized and appreciated. It means that
her department leaders understand the importance of
appreciating the contributions of others.
The
best performing executives do not accept jobs for only
financial reasons. These are the people who are needed by a
particular organization more than they need to work for that
organization. The difference is in the extent to which these
top performers feel that their work is important and that they
are appreciated. They also want to work under the supervision
of a boss whom they respect and whom they know cares about
their success.
Creating an entitlement
environment and an avoidance culture may get a labor contract,
but over time it erodes potential and prevents the
organization from excelling the way it otherwise could. One of
the most telling examples is the folklore concept found in
many government entities of a "merit" increase.
The
theory is that if you are performing in a satisfactory or
higher mode, you get some kind of pay increase such as 5
percent. The reality, when you study performance evaluation
content in the organization, is that the increase is not so
much based on meritorious performance as it is based on an
employees ability to remain conscious or semi-conscious for
12 full months. We might as well call it a survivor incentive
instead of a merit incentive. Perhaps the entitlement models
and the one-size-fits-all theory is what has transformed
organizations such as Ford and General Motors from being auto
manufacturers to being health insurance and retirement
companies.
It
is likely that the reduction in the relevance of private
sector unions in or amid the changes of 21st century economics
will continue to go in the opposite direction in government
agencies for quite a while. At some point, however, public
employers and the public itself may find that it is time to
spend as much time seeking out innovation, public and private
partnerships, outsourcing, regional alliances, etc., as they
now spend gift-wrapping new entitlements or trying to squeeze
a 19th century model into a 21st century reality.
Meanwhile, as the HR Doctors
hero, Pete Seeger would say, or rather sing: "Which side are
you on?"
Phil Rosenberg The HR
Doctor http://www.hrdr.net/
|