For the casual observer, the very mention of "unions" or "labor relations" elicits vivid imagery: of strikes, lockouts, picket lines, intimidation, corruption, social disruption and violence. This picture of union-management hostility is not without justification. Indeed, the history of labor relations depicts the very sort of ongoing mutual antagonism and distrust that has made the public understandably ambivalent towards the respective parties. However, there are some encouraging indications in the wind that the collective bargaining situation is becoming both more humanized and more stabilized. Some of these new developments include an emphasis of knowledge over power, cooperation over conflict, and sensitivity to socioeconomic realities over strong-willed defiance. Managers would be wise to recognize these shifts and learn to conduct their negotiations with unions accordingly.
The Role of Enlightened Management in the Collective Bargaining Process
For the greater part of their history, labor unions and corporate management in this country have been engaged in a power struggle characterized by open conflict, suspicion, political maneuvering, and raw demonstrations of power which until recently often included physical violence. As noted by Sloane & Witney (2004), this fairly entrenched image of enmity between unions and management is not only suggested by history, but by media elements ever hungry to report the dangerous and the unusual. Therefore, strikes, lawsuits and lockouts find their way into headlines (and by extension, into the popular consciousness) much more readily than do the increasingly mundane and even conciliatory realities of collective bargaining.
This paper addresses the historical groundwork for the adversarial image associated with labor relations, some verifiable trends and factors that may serve to eventually debunk that image, and finally, suggestions for encouraging "enlightened" or cooperative management in the twenty-first century. Collective bargaining units in recent decades have become considerably more sophisticated than their Industrial Age counterparts. Though it has been argued that unions would not exist apart from exploitative management, it remains a fact that management has been responsible for an emerging trend toward cooperation. As the primary executors of labor contracts, managers lead the way in putting a new face on labor relations.
History and the Tradition of Organized Labor
Historical Development of the Union-Management Relationship
As any historian will concur, the past is the key to understanding the present. Some observers of social and economic trends are under the impression that labor relations is becoming an irrelevant subject, one reserved for increasingly isolated pockets of industry. Although it is true that unions are suffering a decline in membership - currently down to 13.5 percent of the labor market from a high of 35 percent during the early fifties - a cursory glance at the history of unions should be enough to demonstrate their considerable staying power (Sloane & Witney, 2004). Thus the first, albeit possibly unwelcome, lesson for the contemporary manager or business owner to draw from history is that unions are not going away any time soon. Sloane and Witney (2004) conclude that unions are a permanent feature of the American socioeconomic landscape: "Organized labor has been surrounded by conditions at least as bleak as those confronting it today many times in its long history. And on each occasion it has proved equal to the challenge" (p. 75). Managers willing to simply come to grips with that hard reality will find themselves in a much better psychological position to effectively address issues of collective bargaining in the contemporary labor environment.
From their inception in the eighteenth century, owing largely to restricted occupational mobility on the part of craftsmen and growing tendencies to cut costs on the part of employers, labor unions have maintained a reactionary, hence adversarial role (Sloane & Witney, 2004). Having discovered through experience that the free enterprise system can be brutally indifferent to the needs of the individual, craft and industrial workers alike have historically found in collective bargaining a retaliatory power otherwise unavailable to them. The initial exercise of that power, in response to perceived exploitation on the part of managers, created an ongoing state of hostility that for many still defines the union-management relationship.
The Impact of Socioeconomic Trends on Unionism
Unions over the years have stood their ground against a host of opposing forces, including not just management but economic conditions, social and technological trends, declining public sentiment and consequently adverse legal developments. The labor union has been traditionally the domain of the blue collar industrial worker and collective bargaining the union's means of asserting workers' organizational power. More recent history, however, suggests that these conditions may be changing. A major economic shift from emphasis on "smokestack industry" to knowledge management and information transmission has meant that the majority of workers are now white collar, educated, independent types. The trend toward globalization and the proliferation of markets and services has likewise splintered the labor market at the same time that it has increased competitiveness among businesses (Wachter, 2003).
Whereas such indications are not especially encouraging for organized labor, they by no means spell doom for unionism. As the more reactionary party, union labor has generally been somewhat slow to adjust to large-scale socioeconomic trends. But unions always do manage to adjust eventually. Some positive recent developments for unions include a leveling off-since 1998-of declining membership, the growing political and economic power of notably white collar organizations such as the National Education Association, and the unprecedented welcome of highly active immigrants into unions (Anthony, et al, 2002). Similarly, large segments of the public-many of them no doubt disillusioned by the behavior of top executives at Enron, World.com, and of course Martha Stewart-have since the late 1990s again taken a sympathetic view of the union worker (Anthony, et al, 2002).
Clearly, managers need to be aware of all these trends: "Worldwide markets, changing demographics, and attitude changes make it necessary for managers, particularly human resource managers, to understand the strategic role of unions" (Anthony, Kacmar, & Perrewe, 2002, p. 575). Since collective bargaining is inseparable from the very essence of management-labor relations, it is all the more vital for today's manager to understand how these changes are reflected in the bargaining process itself.
The Changing Face of Collective Bargaining
A New Set of Players
In keeping with changes social, economic, legal and technological, the very process of contract negotiation and administration is likewise undergoing visible transformation. That change in turn is based in part on demographics, that is, the changing complexion of the people involved on both sides. For their part, the unions are coming-however slowly-to realize that the old united blue collar front has lost its effectiveness. Union leaders and members alike are becoming more sophisticated in their approach, even as labor has successfully organized in such white collar areas as education and retail trade. As the economy becomes more knowledge-based and the working population becomes yet more "white collared," the old disparity between management and labor-at least on the basis of social segmentation-will likely disappear. This amounts to a golden opportunity that unions have only begun to recognize.
For its part, management has also undergone a facelift. The days of autocratic managerial discipline and a heartless obsession with productivity appear to be more or less over. Indeed, the central role of human resource management in the contemporary organization's strategic operations signals a distinctly humanistic shift in attitude as well as strategy (Anthony, et al, 2002). Concepts virtually unheard of in the past-transformational leadership, participative management, and employee empowerment-are geared to increasing production by motivating and supporting the workers, rather than abusing or threatening them (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001). The net result of these leadership demographic changes is a transformed bargaining process: "At present.... collective bargaining is most commonly an orderly process in which employee, employer, and union problems are discussed relatively rationally and discussed more or less on the basis of facts" (Sloane & Witney, 2004, p. 179).
Knowledge and Cooperation over Power and Conflict
According to Sloane and Witney (2004), one of the major requisites of effective negotiations is preparation, especially the acquisition of facts relevant to the contract in question. This knowledge-centered approach mirrors a shift toward information acquisition in the new economy. Whereas the old approach typically involved demands, threats and shouting, recently the parties have learned the value of objective knowledge. A bargaining position based on facts means decreased reliance on emotional appeals or intimidation, and thereby aids both parties to realize their objectives and meet strike deadlines. Effective bargaining now requires an extensive understanding of relevant statutory labor law, job classifications, pay rates and pay grades, differentials, and any number of specific contractual stipulations-not to mention a decent working knowledge of economics and human psychology (Sloane & Witney, 2004).
It is of course understood that going into negotiations, both parties must have in mind the culmination of a workable labor contract before the strike deadline. Aspects legally mandatory and professionally prudent must appear somewhere in the contract if it is to be viable for both parties. Boulanger and Kleiner (2003) have therefore suggested the use of a fourteen-point checklist with which to ensure that all bases are sufficiently covered. This list includes everything from contract duration, to specifics on wages, hours, holidays and pensions, to management rights and union security provisions (Boulanger & Kleiner, 2003).
From a reliance on knowledge over power, it seems to follow that the respective parties should also learn how to work together to find a mutually satisfactory solution. Ospina and Yaroni (2003) have discovered that even when cooperation is imposed by institutional mandate, the result is an enhanced negotiation process for both parties. That is, the respective sides actually learn-like children in a playground-the inherent value of cooperation in achieving objectives. Because such cooperation nevertheless is sought in the overriding context of bargaining on the part of opposing self-interested parties, it rarely comes easily or naturally: "The fluidity and tentativeness of this relationship at the institutional level suggests there is a very fine line between adversarial and cooperative behavior" (Ospina & Yaroni, 2003, par. 13).
In their study, Ospina and Yaroni (2003) moreover found that increased cooperation led to measurable improvements in service, i.e., the primary function of the business and therefore of the employee. History suggests that when businesses thrive, so do economies and unions by extension. Customer service-along with product quality, responsiveness, etc.-thus becomes a common goal toward which union and management can work together to achieve. Conversely, the traditional adversarial posture impedes service or organizational performance (Ospina & Yaroni, 2003). Astute management representatives consequently must come armed to the negotiating table not only with an attitude of determination, and an array of facts and figures with which to bargain effectively, but with a view toward legitimate common goals.
Enlightened Management in a New Era of Labor Relations
Through the entire process of seeking to improve labor relations, it only seems fair that management would be willing to take the initiative incumbent on leadership. After all, managers are leaders. As mentioned previously, management is largely the executor of the labor contract. This fact explains, for example, why a vast majority of grievances are filed by union members rather than management personnel: Management rather than labor actually administers the terms of the contract (Sloane & Witney, 2004). Or as both sides have historically perceived their roles: "Managers act; unions react" (Sloane & Witney, 2004, p. 346). Informed and cooperative (or "enlightened") management therefore must literally take the lead in demonstrating good faith in order to improve bargaining relationships and outcomes.
The "duty of good faith," as Bagchi (2003) describes it, is further weighted toward management in light of the fact that "employers are in a better position to gather relevant information than are employees" (par. 12). Employers keep updated files on employees, and they have legal rights to maintain such information that the employees cannot reasonably be expected to obtain in return. So if the premise holds that knowledge is a key to bettering labor relations, managers have the greater responsibility in improving the process. Much like the ideas of knowledge acquisition or cooperation, good faith ultimately cannot be precisely defined or legally enforced. "Third-party enforcement of the duty of good faith requires a coherent articulation of that duty. Unfortunately, consensus has not materialized around any single coherent articulation" (Bagchi, 2003, par. 21). Fruitful collective bargaining, it turns out, is essentially the outcome of well-intentioned parties - on this view, especially management.
Any number of practical steps may be taken to demonstrate good faith. One appropriate if controversial example is that of codetermination, or the appointment of a labor representative to the company's board of directors (Sloane & Witney, 2004). For all but the most hardened of cynics, such an action makes management's good intentions difficult to dispute. Though codetermination has yet to gain popularity as it has in Germany and elsewhere, and despite fears of conflicts of interest and institutional sabotage, the well publicized example of UAW president Douglas Fraser's appointment to Chrysler's board has at the very least shown the possibility of success in implementing such a strategy. Chrysler representatives indeed seem to have appreciated his uniquely informed union perspective on how to make decisions relevant to labor interests (Sloane & Witney, 2004).
Other productive good faith initiatives have included reduced monitoring in favor of expressions of trust (Bagchi, 2003) and exchanges of information formerly withheld (Ospina & Yaroni, 2003). Both of these are essentially reflections of good communication, which by almost anyone's account-especially that of management-makes for heightened efficiency. As Bagchi (2003) has argued, unions serve to counter the tendencies of bad faith in management. The flip side of this arrangement is that through demonstrations of good faith, management may elicit the cooperation of the union. Ultimately, the value of the institutional union-management relationship boils down to that of so many individual relationships and expressions of trust and good will. In describing their studies of labor-management cooperation (LMC), Ospina and Yaroni capture the interpersonal essence of labor relations: "LMC seems to produce a significant shift at the individual level, and this transformation seems beneficial for organizational effectiveness" (par. 96). Success in collaborative collective bargaining therefore leads directly to success in securing the best interests of management and union alike.
Conclusion
Despite a distinctively adversarial historical relationship perpetuated by media outlets understandably disinclined to report good news, there are empirical grounds for maintaining that labor relations have slowly begun to catch up with large-scale domestic social and economic changes. Much like the economy itself, the collective bargaining process now relies on information rather than open displays of power, for one example. Experiments in cooperation, and even codetermination, have been promising if not unquestionably successful. Although it is likely to remain generally axiomatic that employers accept union influence over their decisions "approximately as well as nature tolerates a vacuum" (Sloane & Witney, 2004, p.1), contemporary managers have every reason to believe that it is in their best interest-as well as the interests of the employees who rely on them for wages and security - to maintain an informed and cooperative relationship with unions.
References
Anthony, A. P., Kacmar, M. K., & Perrewe, P. L. (2002). Human resource management: A
strategic approach (4th ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western.
Bagchi, A. (2003). Unions and the duty of good faith in employment contracts. The Yale Law
Journal, 112, 1881.
Boulanger, M., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). Preparing and interpreting collective bargaining
agreements effectively. Management Research News, 26, 193-200. Retrieved April 25, 2004 from Proquest database.
Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2001). Organizational behavior: Managing people and
organizations (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Ospina, S, & Yaroni, A. (2003). Understanding cooperative behavior in labor management
cooperation: A theory-building exercise. Public Administration Review, 63, 455.
Sloane, A. A., & Witney, F. (2004). Labor relations (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Wachter, M. L. (2003). Judging unions' future using a historical perspective: The public policy
choice between competition and unionization. Journal of Labor Research, 24, 339-57. Retrieved May 2, 2004 from Firstsearch database.