Head Tale

This isn’t a Labour Day song per se but those opening lines about struggling to survive on minimum wage and tips captures the struggle of working people as much as any song you’ll hear by Billy Bragg or Pete Seeger.

Thanks also to the colleague who posted the following article on Facebook – “Tough Times For Unions” along with a mention of his conflicted view on unions – recognizing how so many of their gains have helped everyone’s lives whether unionized or not (8-hour work week, minimum wage, etc.) but wondering about what a modern union is/should look like and the uphill battle unions face in the PR department if nothing else after recent transit strikes and garbage strikes in Ontario.

One idea may come from an off-hand remark I heard during a supervisory workshop I recently attended.  The instructor mentioned that there is a union movement in Canada which works based on Christian social justice principles – the Christian Labour Association of Canada whose web site states its mission thusly: “CLAC is an independent Canadian labour union that applies Christian social principles of justice, respect, and dignity to the workplace community. It provides quality representation and a wide range of benefits and training for its members, and active member advocacy that strives to build healthy work communities based on mutual respect and partnership. CLAC is a certified union representing workers in many sectors across Canada since 1952.”.

Again, if you missed yesterday’s post, my views on religion in general are pretty clear.  But I wonder if there might be something to the idea of applying “Christian” (which could equally be read as “common-sense” or “non-adversarial” or “trust-based”) approach to labour relations?

I may be way off with my limited experience in unionized environments but here’s my take – ultimately, management’s responsibility is 100% to ensure the health/growth/success of the organization with its people as just one tool to achieve these goals.  Ultimately, the union’s responsibility is 100% to ensure the health/growth/success of their members – a fact that often puts each side in diametrical opposition with regards to things like wage increases, benefits and so on.

Call me an idealist (you wouldn’t be the first!) but I often wonder, why does it have to be 100% on either side?  Or maybe 90% once each side makes a few concessions?  If negotiations and the relationship could exist somewhere around 60-40 or even 70-30 wouldn’t both sides be better off?  (I’m sure there’s some game theory out there that would prove this better than my lame-ass explanation about how this is more of a win-win for everybody than the current model.)

Of course, this may be an impossible goal – how do you define 70% and 30% in a management-labour relationship?  And how do you inject that level of trust for both sides when historically, the relationship has likely been less than congenial?

One final thought.  Right now, the interaction between management and unions is like a chess game.  But unfortunately, this means that many staff, both in-scope and out, end up playing the role of pawns in the back and forth between the two sides.  (I recognize that, at least on the union side, everyone has the option of getting involved and having more of a say – although this isn’t always feasible for any number of reasons.)

In so many areas, I keep coming back to the way I see things developing in the Web 2.0 world as a model for older processes – and here again, I wonder if things like collaboration, trust, “open-sourcing”, involvement over expertise – can someone help to improve the world of labour relations as well?
Now pass me that guitar – it’s my turn to play “Kumbaya”! 😉