|
PARADIGM PILGRIMS IN COMMUNICATION * NEGOTIATION * ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS |
The Emerging Paradigm in
Public Sector Labor RelationsBy Stephen Barber, Assistant Executive Director, Public Employment Relations Board, and Kenneth Hill and Tim Nelson, PERB Graduate Student Assistants, California State University, Chico*
You've just pulled to a stop at the four-way light and reach over to fiddle with the radio dial when a total stranger appears. As he thrusts himself halfway through the passenger window you move to protect your newly acquired possession on the front seat. Instead of grabbing your parcel or the keys to your car, he grasps your hand and while pumping it wildly, breathlessly exclaims, "I helped build your car! How do you like it? Any complaints? How were you treated by the salesman? Have you had it long? Have you had it serviced yet? How was the service you got? How do you like the design? Any squeaks? Any rattles?"
The barrage of excited questions from the enthusiastic stranger is punctuated with an explanation as to their source. The stranger is an assembly-line team leader at the New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc., plant in Fremont, California. The incident is a true story. It is a story similar to many that Chevrolet Nova owners have been sharing with their friends as a new method of practicing labor relations flourishes at an auto assembly plant otherwise indistinguishable from its cousins throughout the country.
The NUMMI story is that of a Phoenix rising from the ashes of a dramatic failure of traditional collective bargaining. The NUMMI experience is not unique. Many private sector labor and management practitioners, desperate to assure economic survival in a competitive global economy, have declared confrontational labor relations and adversarial collective bargaining obsolete, outdated, and counterproductive. 1
Reflective of an attitudinal tap root set deep in positional bargaining methodology, the characteristics and consequences of conflict found in the traditional collective bargaining process, familiar to readers of CPER, have become the widespread explanations for failed negotiations, poor product quality, low productivity, inquiries into what's right or wrong with the process, and for some, the primary motive for change. Yet, while the private sector is moving away from the practice, positional or traditional bargaining methods are the dominant paradigm in the public sector today.
Unlike the private sector, where alternatives to the traditional bargaining method have been actively sought out, alternative bargaining methodologies in the public sector are only starting to emerge. Because of the importance and impact of these alternatives on the process of bargaining, the labor relations profession, and the goods and services produced by employers and unions, and because it is apparent that these alternatives are coming to the public sector as surely as the public sector adopted positional bargaining, it is important to stimulate dialogue on the subject.
In this article, we hope to offer a general understanding of what is meant by the term, "alternative bargaining methodologies," point to some of the underlying assumptions, discuss the role of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), and encourage further exploration of the subject by others.
What Business Is It of PERB?
What are the respective assumptions of the traditional collective bargaining model and the new "integrative" models we have been exploring this past year at PERB? In brief, the difference is that the integrationists reject the assumption of the traditional model that there are inherent conflicting interests between labor and management which will result in economic and political power struggles. The alternative methods find alien the assumption that there are fundamentally opposed interests which require mutual accommodation through a power struggle.2
Much has been written about how and why conflict came to be the basis for traditional, or positional, collective bargaining. In general, the literature agrees that the character of industrial expansion in the 19th century and early decades of this century gave rise to attitudes, conflicts, and a method of dispute resolution which are no longer relevant to a transformed economic environment.3
Given the pressures to successfully compete in a global marketplace, reduce conflict, and improve product quality, the positive response to these pressures offered by the integrative approaches may accelerate their embrace at such a pace that the philosophical debate will forever be in a "catch-up" mode.
Part of the deliberations about the philosophical basis and practical application of the integrative approach centers on the issue of whether an institution such as PERB, conceived to administer and adjudicate the codes and case law reflecting the traditional collective bargaining model, has any business encouraging, let alone exploring, conflict-reducing methods of bargaining.
One argument seems to be this: "PERB is a dispute resolution agency, period. Such explorations of methodology, which inevitably call into question the assumptions of the statutes PERB administers, are not an appropriate pursuit." Indeed, our many conversations with public officials in other states (we spoke to public agencies in over 30 other states this summer in our information-gathering efforts) indicate that such explorations are usually not being undertaken by agencies such as PERB. Instead, the location of such work is at the university, the state's department of labor or industrial relations, or arises from the changing nature of work being done by state conciliation or mediation services.
The answer to the question of appropriateness for California's PERB lies in the provision of our statute which calls for research into employer-employee relations and employment practices in public and private employment. The statute further authorizes the development of "research or training programs designed to assist public employers and employee organizations in the discharge of their mutual responsibilities under this chapter." 4 This language has given PERB broad latitude to undertake interesting and fruitful research on behalf of the parties. In issue No. 73 of CPER we outlined the many research projects underway at PERB which illustrate this point.
What is important to realize here is that even though there is wide latitude available, PERB research projects, all of which have been willingly funded by the legislature and governor are motivated by a desire to provide the parties with tools and information which will enable them to deal with employment issues and resolve problems before a dispute arises. 5 This approach is consistent with the organizational scheme of the agency which sees more than 80 per cent of filed cases settled before a formal hearing.
Recently, CPER featured articles and letters on the subject of the diligence and speed with which PERB resolves disputes. Without becoming involved in that dialogue, we note that PERB is designed on the judicial model. Streamlining bureaucratic and adjudicatory processes of this model can only go so far to improve the ability to meet the dispute resolution obligations and the parties' expectations regarding these obligations. The PERB advisory committee, PERB staff, and the Board itself have been focusing on procedural changes which address this issue.
At the same time, however, the PERB research approach enables the agency to address the prospect of an ever-rising caseload by placing effective conflict management tools in the hands of the practitioners. By furthering the purpose of the statutes as stated: "...to promote full communication between" public employers and employee organizations and "to promote the improvement of personnel management and employer-employee relations," PERB is recognizing both its role in dispute settlement and the inevitable caseload growth inherent in the projected demographics for California in the next decade. 6
By providing the parties with information and techniques, PERB not only is better able to live within its budget but also enables the parties to do the same in the bargaining process. We estimate, for example, that the health care cost containment research and communication PERB accomplished in 1984, 1985, and 1986 had the immediate result of enabling parties statewide to avoid increased health premiums totaling many millions of dollars.7 Such cost avoidance clearly enhances the prospects of resolution of other points of dispute at bargaining tables.
Ignoring philosophical questions, it is clear from the evidence we have gathered this past. year that alternative dispute resolution methods reduce conflicts, broaden participation by employees and their organizations, and achieve acceptable contracts in a collective bargaining context.8 PERB would therefore be remiss in ignoring or discouraging such a development within its jurisdiction in favor of a dogmatic adherence to its traditional role.
What Are These Alternatives?
Drs. John Glaser and Douglas Mitchell in an as-yet-unpublished paper and in Glaser's doctoral dissertation have identified six models of alternative bargaining methods.9 These models were developed after surveying the 80+ public school districts in California which were self-identified as having adopted or experimented with the concept. The models are labeled:
1. Mature, high-trust industrial union bargaining.
2. Low profile, meet-and-confer decisionmaking.
3. Budget development or financial formula bargaining.
4. Negotiations process innovations.
5. Altering the ongoing labor-manager relationship.
6. Altering the nature of the negotiated agreement.In addition to these six models there is also the Educational Policy Trust Agreement. By all accounts this approach is meant to be parallel or supplemental to the collective bargaining process. However, parties report that the improved relationship which results from collaboration on a trust agreement can affect other areas of decisionmaking, including collective bargaining. 10 State and national trends in the private and public sectors suggest an eventual melding of the policy trust agreement approach and alternative bargaining methods.
With alternative methods, the collective bargaining process is best understood as a loop of communication running throughout the district as well as throughout the school year. It culminates at the bargaining "arena" (tables are often absent or pushed against the walls of the room) where problems are identified and solutions postulated and agreed to by the participants. The bargaining sessions typically last four to six days spread over a maximum of two months time. Subcommittees research difficult problems.
The typical alternative method does not involve management and labor sitting on opposite sides of a table attempting to achieve unconditional or even conditional surrender or capitulation to a preconceived position taken by the other side. Role differentiation is reduced, "brainstorming" practiced, and many participants report that an observer unfamiliar with the participants would have difficulty recognizing management or labor representatives from what they contribute to the process. As in the private sector, the authoritarian basis of "modern" American management theory so familiar to us all is being called into question by the success of these alternative, collaborative methods.11
The participatory basis of these new methods was welcomed by respondents to our inquiries. Ongoing communications and bargaining are characterized by the openness of all the parties to providing and seeking full information. One could describe the difference between the traditional method and the alternatives as similar to a poker game where all the players know all the hands dealt. It becomes a matter of the players versus the cards rather than the players versus the he concept of a winner and a loser is foreign to these methods.
Admittedly, such characterizations are simplistic; yet, unmistakably, we encountered repeated expressions of trust, respect, mutuality of goals and goal seeking, enthusiasm, reduced stress, purposefulness, collegiality, consensus, an absence of conflict, and even role reversal. It would seem that the degree of trust between the parties is the major determinant of the labor relations relationship in either the traditional or alternative setting. And the success or failure of collective bargaining, whether traditional or alternative can be seen as a reflection of the quotient of trust between the parties. This proposition deserves more rigorous examination, and has begun to receive it via a recent Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) survey 12 of school district administrators and a PERB survey of alternative methods.13
Where alternative bargaining methods have been tried, and sustained, a dramatically different way of looking at reality is being used by the participants. Each person has adopted, consciously or unconsciously, a new paradigm with which to measure, evaluate, and shape reality. As noted in the ACSA study, in some cases the adoption of a new paradigm has come about in spite of the pressure of the conventional wisdom of peers in professional organizations and other districts.14 Perhaps we should call this an "epistemological event"!
Whatever we call the adoption of this perspective, the new paradigm is not grounded in the conflict resulting from the history of employer denial and labor confrontation which gave rise to traditional collective bargaining. It is grounded in a cultural context focused on environmental awareness vis-a-vis economic survival, ethnic integration, respect for individual rights and opportunity, individual and group responsibility, an entrepreneurial spirit of risk-taking, and more. 15
What Has Been the Impact?
During the past spring and summer, PERB staff made 18 on-site school district visits and innumerable follow-up telephone calls to participants in alternative methods of bargaining. In addition, we spoke to individuals in public agencies, law firms, universities, and school districts in over 30 other states. Perhaps the most dramatic reference to the effect of alternative bargaining methods came from the executive manager of a conciliation service in a neighboring state. He said that during the two-year growth in the practice of alternative methods in his state, the incidence of impasse declarations had dropped by over 20 per cent.
Practitioners from the districts we talked to generally indicate that since the adoption of an alternative bargaining method, impasses have disappeared and grievances have decreased dramatically. Employee organizations report membership increases resulting from higher visibility and greater ongoing interaction with their members as they become more significantly involved in the decisionmaking process, agenda/policy setting of the district, and individual membership casework.
Of interest is the fact that the experience of these practitioners parallels that of NUMMI in Fremont. At the closing of the plant in 1982, there was a backlog of 1,000 grievances and 60 disputed firings. Two years after reopening, there had been fewer than 20 formal grievances filed, with all but one being resolved informally. Similarly, before collaborative labor relations, new ideas for product or fabrication improvement approached a handful a year. Now, it has become necessary to create an entire unit to screen the new ideas received from employees each month. 16
Are We Ready for This?
From our conversations with the parties, it is clear that a crisis is often the motivator of such a dramatic change in labor relations practices. Clearly, this was the case at NUMMI where the plant had been shut for two years before Toyota, GM, and the UAW initiated the new venture. In other cases, a change of bargaining method will feel very much like the most natural thing to do. It has been postulated that the stakes in terms of global competition are so high that our country cannot wait for an evolutionary-paced or crisis-based change. 17 But most agree that we are at crisis now, whether that crisis exists in the private sector in terms of balance of trade, quality of product, loss of jobs to foreign competition, or in terms of our 40-60 per cent school dropout rate or 40 per cent illiteracy rate among those who stay in school. 18
Whether motivated by a desire to reduce conflict in employer-employee relations or to improve the product, the paradigm change has arrived.19 In those areas where the parties have a conflict-based perspective, it may not be possible to effectuate change directly. In some of the districts we visited, attempts to practice alternative bargaining methods had failed, the usual explanation being the inability of a critical individual to set aside the precepts and assumptions of traditional bargaining and adopt those of the alternative. In some cases, absent a personality change, transfer, promotion, retirement, or electoral change there is probably small hope for the shift in perspective required.
In these cases or in cases of mature and otherwise successful traditional bargaining where participants on both sides of the table so define themselves and their counterparts in the aggressive or suspicious terminology that can be part of the traditional model, the best hope is to change the atmosphere in which negotiations occur. For instance, the application of what is known as the Labor Management Cooperation Committee has been found to lessen the adversarial atmosphere while not disrupting the traditional collective bargaining model. An eclectic approach in the development and use of alternatives is most widely followed by other state and federal agencies seeking to lessen labor relations stress while encouraging improvements in product quality and global competitiveness through mature or alternative collective bargaining methods.
The Impetus to Change
In the winter of 1987-1988, the state Board of Education created an ad hoc committee to consider the question of the impact of collective bargaining on the quality of education. The initial stage of the inquiry involved soliciting written communications from a wide variety of practitioners in the field. The overwhelming sense derived from the response was that while the collective bargaining process in California schools was in place and working without difficulty overall, it appeared to a majority of the respondents that the process was unnecessarily contentious and adversarial. The ACSA survey substantiates these findings.20 Furthermore, correspondents to the ad hoc committee inquiry traced most of the drawbacks and breakdowns of the current process to this attribute.
Reduction of conflict is rarely the reason that companies and unions in the private sector make the shift to the alternative method, conflict and contention having generally been considered a part of the private sector labor relations environment. What has caught private sector unions and companies up in the paradigm change has been concern for product quality, productivity, and competition. These motives are clearly the basis for the heavy emphasis placed on the subject by the U.S. Department of Labor through its Bureau of Labor Management Cooperation.21
The lesson to those who practice labor-management relations in the public sector is: product improvements (education, public services) are a consequence of labor relations improvements, not necessarily higher technology, not just elaborate new programs, not merely "more" of everything. While this is a bit of an overstatement, the thrust of the message is generally supported by the productivity and quality control literature. For example, it is estimated that fully 70 per cent of any productivity increase is attributable to improved employee relations. 22
This realization has become evident in pronouncements of those in the public sector who at one time could be counted on to decry the application of collective bargaining to education. The school reform of S.B. 813 has brought home the importance of full-scale participation by all of the school district. Words and phrases such as "ownership," "collaboration," "collegial," "shared decisionmaking," "shared responsibility," and "participatory" are commonly heard from these parties. 23
Conclusion
Excited about the conflict reduction and dispute prevention aspects of alternative bargaining methods, PERB is committed to generating a data base, raising their visibility to the parties within PERB jurisdictions, improving understanding of the methods, and facilitating their utilization by those parties both in crisis and not in crisis who are asking, "Is there another way to do this?"
In pursuit of research and practical training, PERB has had a practice of involving constituent groups and individuals via the PERB advisory committee. In this case, a subcommittee has been formed to focus on the topic. In addition to helping the agency staff formulate research, communication, and educational goals on the subject, the subcommittee will gather even more information on the degree to which alternatives are being practiced and their result.
A conference, jointly sponsored by PERB and the Institute of Industrial Relations at U.C. Berkeley, is scheduled for this spring. Also planned is a CPER publication which will describe the kinds of alternatives being tried in California, as well as in other states.
The Public Employment Relations Board has committed itself to a course of action that will result in the close examination of this emerging paradigm, stimulate dialogue about it, raise its visibility, and involve PERB constituents in its study and development. By way of operationalizing the results of this effort, PERB can be expected to encourage the development and application (especially in chronically troubled situations) of alternative methods of labor relations, suggest legislative initiatives if necessary, prescribe applications in difficult situations, stimulate education and training in its practice, develop resources, establish clinical applications, stimulate pilot projects for local variations, and involve PERB staff as facilitators and trainers.
Truly, there is a major shift underway in thinking and practice. The private sector has been leading the way, motivated by an urgent desire to improve product quality and remain competitive. The exciting prospect for all of us in public sector labor relations is that we may very well be the vehicle of improved product quality in our respective fields of education and public service.
Bibliography Bimbaum, Robert; Begin, James P.; and Brown, Bert R. Cooperation in Academic Negotiations: A Guide to Mutual Gains Bargaining. New Brunswick, NJ.: Institute of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University, 1985.
California's "PERB Labor-Management Cooperation Project." Contains an exhaustive collection of reading materials focusing on the paradigm shift in today's labor relations practices.
Collison, William. Conflict Reduction -- Turning Conflict to Cooperation. Iowa Kendall/Hunt 1988. "Cooperation Is Key to Recovery of Puget Sound Shipbuilding, Meeting Told," BNA Labor Relations Week, Vol. 2, 54-88, p. 441.
Fisher, Roger and Ury, William. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1981.
Harvard Law School Program on Negotiations
Working Paper Series
Patton, Bruce M. On Teaching Negation. 101 pp. W.P. 85-3.
-----------------------Reassessing Getting to YES Principled Negotiation 22 pp. W.P. 85-1.
Books
Goldberg. Stephen B.; Green, Eric D.; Sander, Frank E.A. Dispute Resolution. Boston: Little, Brown. 1985.
Lax, David A. and Sebenius,James K. The Manager as Negotiator:Bargaining for Cooperative and Competitive Gain. New York Free Press, 1986.
Video Tapes
Fisher, Roger. Improving Negotiating Power. 95 min.
Sander, Frank E.A. A Legal Perspective on Alternative Dispute Resolution. 80 min.
Straus, David. Facilitation and Collaborative Problem Solving. 85 min.Herman, Jerry J. "With Collaborative Bargaining, You Win With the Union -- Not Against It," American School Board Journal, Vol. 172, No. 10, Oct. 1985, pp. 41-42, 47.
Hoerr, John. "Management Discovers the Human Side of Automation," Business Week, 29, Sept. 1986, pp. 70-74
"Joint Labor-Management Projects Lead to Fewer Grievances, Higher Productivity," Government Employee Relations Report, Vol. 26, 2-15-88, p. 250.
*This article was developed as a result of research involving on-site interviews at 18 school districts and a review of available literature. More specific results of the interviews and additional research will appear in a subsequent article.1. "New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., and the United Automobile Workers; Partners in Training," Labor Management Cooperation Brief, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor-Management Relations and Cooperative Programs, No. 10 (March 1987).
2. See, for example, Archibald Cox Derek Curtis Bok and Robert A. Gorman, Cases and Materials on labor Law (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 10th ea., 1986), pp. 211-214.
3. Please examine the bibliography which accompanies this article.
4. Gov. Code sees. 3512, 3543 3541.3(f), 3540 and 3560
5. In a 1987 survey of PERB constituents inquiring about training needs and topics of interest on which the agency could focus its communications conferences, etc., a very clear desire was expressed to learn more about and receive training in "preventative bargaining."
6. The state Department of Finance projects that school populations will increase by a minimum of 1.4 million by the year 2000. Department of Finance, Population Research Unit Report (February 1988). See Projected Total Population for California by Race/Ethnicity--July 1, 1970, to July 1, 2020-With Age/Sex Detail 1980-2020.
7. PERB's efforts and activities m the field Of health care cost containment are unique to the nation and California. Research and education by the agency have been widely disseminated and put into practice by public sector parties. It should be noted that in this area as well the public sector had lagged behind the private sector in its awareness and response to a pernicious and growing issue.
8. See the reading list, especially the PERB collection of current articles. we are spotting and distributing news and in-depth articles about developments in this field. Interested readers should ask to be added to the PERB mailing list.
9. John P. Glaser and Douglas E. Mitchell "The Strategies for Cooperative Exploration of Labor Relations Alternatives," an unpublished paper. John P. Glaser, doctoral dissertation, U.C. Berkeley School of Education (Spring 1988). Both papers available from John Glaser, 707-253-35M.
10. It remains to be seen whether the narrow definition of the scope of collective bargaining attributed to the developers of the policy trust agreement will hold for long. In the PACE report summarizing work to date, the following definition of the traditional focus of bargaining is found: N.. standardized work rules and adversarial relationships...." To experienced labor relations practitioners, this definition is too narrow. Its validity was questioned at the September PACE conference and it will surely undergo considerable review if it remains pert of the policy trust vernacular. Julia E. Koppich and Charles T. Kerchner, The Trust Agreement Project: Broadening the Vision of School Labor-Management Relations: A First Year Progress Report, Policy Analysis For California Education Policy Paper No. PP88-9-7 (September 1988), p. 24.
11. D. L. Landen, "Transforming Principles Into Practices," Task Force Report on Labor-Management Relations Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (January 1988), pp. 77, 78, 79.
12. Association of California School Administrators, Labor Relations in California, Policy and Training Options, analysis by Far West Laboratory and Douglas E. Mitchell (1988).
13. PERB is collaborating with its advisory committee in gathering attitudinal and experiential data from practitioners.
14 .Glaser and Mitchell, op. cit., p. 3.
15. Increasingly, the idea that "we are all in this together, despite our differences" is becoming a familiar one. In his book Buckminster Fuller observes that because an "instruction manual" was missing from the beginning, "we are learning how we safely can anticipate the consequences of an increasing number of alternative ways of extending our satisfactory survival and growth--both physical and metaphysical." See Fuller, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (Southern Illinois University Press, 1969), p. 53.
16. These examples and others are cited in a Department of Labor video tape featuring the NUMMI experience and others. This tape is available through PERB. Other references to the NUMMI experience ate found in "New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., and the United Automobile Workers: Partners in Training...," op. cit.
17. Thomas A. Kochan, "Strategies for Sustaining Innovations in U.S. Industrial Relations, "Journal of State Government, Council of State Governments (Jan./Feb. 1987).
18. Recent articles in the press have highlighted the slipping position of American students, despite increases in SAT scores for those who are college bound. Andrew Hahn, "Reaching Out to America's Dropouts: What to Do?" Phi Delta Kappan (Dec. 1987), p . 257
19. (1) A multi-location consortium of professionals called Policy Analysis in California Education (PACE), based at U.C. Berkeley Stanford, USC, and in the state capitol has been working with the California Federation of Teachers, the California School Boards Association and six school districts to develop educational policy trust agreements. The California Teachers Association and six more districts will join the project this year. (2) No fewer than 25 school districts in the state have tried WIN-WIN negotiations as developed and facilitated by the late Irving Goldaber. (3) Variants of WIN-WIN have occurred at a variety of school districts where the parties have combined their training in quality circles, group facilitation, and communication to shift away from traditional bargaining at times of severe breakdown, usually never to return to it. (4) The School Employers Association, a 100+ member group of Southern California school districts, has been focusing on alternative bargaining methods at the past three annual conventions. This year the SEA is contracting with the Harvard Negotiations Project and the private firm of Conflict Management Inc. to provide training to its members. (5) The Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) featured WIN-WIN's Irving Goldaber at an annual convention over five years ago. (6)Labor-management committees are starting to become visible in California.
20. The ACSA study, referenced above, consisted of a survey of members. The survey found that collective bargaining was an accepted tool in the management of schools. It also found that over half the respondents believed that collective bargaining contracts undermine cooperation in the schools. At the same time, approximately 70 per cent of the respondents believed that the employee organization is strong, well-organized, and responsible in labor relations matters. Given the ACSA and state board surveys and PERB statistics which show that a majority of disputes come to the agency from a minority of the state's districts, it should be noted that "mature" labor relations are an achieved or sought-after goal of the majority of the districts in the state. For these districts, the motive for change will be quite different, i.e., not from a crisis mode. In any event it may be that PERB's focus on the subject is narrow simply because the agency primarily deals with those parties to the process who have problems.
21. John R. Stepp and John L. Bonner, "States Tie Economic Development to Improved Labor Relations Climates," Journal of State Government, Council of State Governments (Jan./Fete. 1987).
Return to Article Index
Return to Barber & Gonzales Web Site Index