Will Employees be a Workplace Priority or Collateral Damage?
HR Professionals May Hold the Key
Recent developments in Washington are compelling U.S. employers to make a critical strategic decision: how high a priority to place on their employees. Though many might decry the timing of this decision, the alignment of key political factors has set the stage for an epic struggle between management and labor. At the epicenter is the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which purports to make it easier for workers to join unions. If this desperate tug-of-war between unions and management continues, one thing seems clear: employees will become collateral damage. Here’s why: the on-going workplace warfare is not about making workers a priority; it’s about the relative power of unions and management in the United States.
Although the proposed EFCA is the proximate cause of the current battle, there is a larger strategic issue at stake for all employers. The fact is that management’s choice about the priority placed on employees establishes the boundaries for organizational success. Workers who are a low priority cannot be fully successful. When employees thrive, so does the organization. Currently, however, as the labor-management fight heats up, no one seems to be looking out for employees. HR professionals are uniquely qualified to fill this void. Will they step up to the challenge?
Background: Labor Relations 101
By giving most employees the right to form and join unions, Congress added a third party to the labor relations process whose role is to help achieve a balance of power between employers and workers. More than 70 years later, that balance remains elusive, and employees have been downgraded from players in the process to spectators. Because survival is the number one priority for unions and management, at times their respective self-interests take precedence over workers’ needs. The lack of an employee focus is exacerbated by a zero-sum perspective that causes the two sides to square off as adversaries, with each party demonizing the other.
Over the last decade, many universities have dropped their labor relations classes and cut back their HR classes. In addition, the Human Resources Certification Institute (HRCI) reduced the percentage of items in the labor relations areas of the PHR and SPHR exams when it revised the HR body of knowledge in 2005. Thus many employers and HR professionals are unaware that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) applies to them, and they fail to understand the significance of union-centric policy decisions being made right now in Washington.
Proposed Legislation and Related Initiatives
Employee Free Choice Act
There are three provisions in the proposed EFCA that will cause a tsunami-like change in the workplace. An amendment to the NLRA, the law affects (with some exceptions) organizations in the private and non-profit sectors with one or more employees. Here are the three specific provisions, contrasted with their NLRA counterparts, followed by a brief commentary:
EFCA Provisions NLRA EFCA
Union certification process Secret ballot election Card check
Bargaining outcome
No agreement required Two-year contract imposed by arbitrator if no agreement in 120 days
Penalties
Imposed for employer and union unfair labor practices Stiffer and new financial penalties for EMPLOYER unfair labor practices
Union certification process: Employee choice currently is protected in a secret ballot election. Under the card check provision, the union knows who signs a card and who doesn’t. The fact that unions win approximately 58% of elections demonstrates that workers who sign authorization cards often do not vote for the union.
Bargaining outcome: The mandatory arbitration provision arguably is the most onerous one of the three. Employers and workers could end up with a contract that does not serve either of them well.
Penalties: By proposing stiffer financial penalties only on employers, the law leaves the door open for union abuses to go unchecked.
Related Initiatives
Here is a sample of initiatives that have been proposed or already implemented, and their respective effects in the workplace.
Executive Orders: President Obama signed a series of union-friendly Executive Orders in March that apply to federal contractors and subcontractors as well as to federal agencies. For example, E.O. 13496 requires employers to post a Department of Labor notice that details employees’ rights under labor laws. Failure to post this notice may result in penalties ranging from suspension of work on current federal contracts to permanent debarment from federal contracts.
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rulings: Once President Obama’s three choices for the NLRB are confirmed, the Board is widely expected to reverse a number of rulings that will make it easier for unions to organize employees. For example, a reversal of 351 NLRB 1110 means employers whose workers use their workplace e-mail for non-business purposes would be required to turn over their employees’ business e-mail addresses to union organizers.
Employer neutrality clauses: These provisions prohibit employers from communicating anything to their workers about unions during an organizing drive. One such provision has been inserted into H.R. 1874, the proposed Patriot Corporations of America Act.
Re-empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradesworkers (RESPECT) Act: This law would re-define the term “employee” in the NLRA to cover supervisors. Instead of being the link between management and employees, supervisors would become bargaining unit members.
Assessment
Clearly the U.S. labor relations process is broken. The fact that the management-union power struggle has eclipsed employees’ needs is evidence that the process is in need of substantive reform. However, the Employee Free Choice Act and piecemeal mechanisms such as reversible Executive Orders, politically driven NLRB rulings, and “employer neutrality” requirements are not the ways to ensure balance. Employees must be allowed to participate fully in the labor relations process. Congress has an opportunity to improve the law rather than merely fix it – i.e., to take it to a new, higher level at which all participants work collaboratively toward a common goal rather than retain existing dysfunctions.
The labor relations process need not be adversarial. There are union-management relationships that have evolved into effective partnerships. Unfortunately this scenario is the exception rather than the rule. More common is the confrontational approach embodied, for example, in the assertion by some labor leaders that unless future “green jobs” are union, they will be low-end, poverty-level jobs. This stance seems to preclude any possibility that the terms and conditions of such jobs will be fair for employees. Claiming certain jobs as “union” jobs also highlights the discrepancy between the role Congress intended unions to play – i.e., to provide a balance between employers and workers - and the reality that some union leaders state their organizations have a “right” to certain job categories.
Instead of creating a level playing field between workers and employers, the envisioned labor relations process has degenerated into a power struggle between management and unions. It’s time to re-focus attention on employees. When workers are a high priority, they provide excellent service, customers are satisfied, the company makes money, and stakeholders are well served. Unions will have plenty of opportunities to represent employees whose management places a low value on them.
Solution
To make workers a high priority, I suggest organizations create employee-centered workplaces, which I define as work environments in which every individual, process, system, and program is focused on helping workers become fully successful. Achieving this goal requires commitment and collaboration from all parties and from politicians. Employers must make a conscious decision about how high a priority they place on their employees, and ensure their actions support their choice. Workers must make an informed choice about third party intervention by answering the question, “How well does my employer treat me on a day-to-day basis?” Unions must provide the necessary balance in workplaces where workers are a low priority. And politicians must take an employee-centered approach to legislation.
I created a research-based Employer Performance Scorecard that identifies four areas that influence employees’ perceptions of how well they are treated. They include satisfaction with the immediate supervisor, organizational culture, organizational processes, and rewards and recognition. Although problems in these areas are not amenable to a quick fix, the good news is that employers have control over all of the areas.
HR Action Plan
To achieve the goal of employee-centered workplaces, all parties must commit to making workers fully successful. Here are seven steps HR professionals may take to work toward this goal:
1. Educate yourself about existing labor laws and monitor activities that change it (e.g., NLRB rulings).
2. Educate your senior management team about the need to make a conscious
strategic decision about the priority placed on employees.
3. Assess the workplace from employees’ perspectives; take immediate action in
areas that need improvement.
4. Educate employees now. You may be prohibited from doing so later.
5. Train and support supervisors. They are the link between employees and
management.
6. Develop a communication plan that includes, at minimum, the
organization’s position on unionization, why a union-free environment is in
employees’ self-interest, and the value of employees’ total rewards packages.
7. Review policies and procedures and revise them as necessary. Provide a fair
dispute resolution process. Ensure that employees have meaningful voice.
Develop solid recognition programs.
In summary, the strategic decision of how high a priority to make employees has implications beyond the current union-management power struggle and the debate about the Employee Free Choice Act. The bigger picture is that the decisions management makes will inform the answers to questions about the organization’s future success. For example: once the economy turns around and people have alternatives, how do employers hold on to current workers? How can organizations retain younger people who enter the workforce with high expectations of how they will be treated? Without a common, employee-centered approach to the workplace, the very people the labor relations process purports to protect will become collateral damage. Will HR professionals be there when employees need them the most?
About Pat Lynch and Business Alignment Strategies, Inc.
Pat Lynch, Ph.D., SPHR is president of Business Alignment Strategies, Inc., a firm that helps clients optimize business results by aligning people, programs, and processes with clear organizational goals. A consultant, executive coach, and speaker, Pat’s specialties include strategy formulation and implementation, measurement, and communication. After receiving her doctorate in Personnel and Employment Relations (i.e., human resources, labor relations, organizational behavior), she taught university-level labor relations and collective bargaining classes. She served on the HRCI Item Writing Panel for six years, and currently serves on the Exam Review Panel. Pat also was involved with HRCI’s 2005 revision of the HR body of knowledge, though she lost the “fight” to retain labor relations content in the PHR and SPHR exams. Additional information is available at www.BusinessAlignmentStrategies.com.
