As someone who cut his HR teeth in the industrial relations arena of the late 1970’s I do not need reminding of how bad industrial relations can get and the damage they inflict on organisations. It is with complete horror, therefore that I see the terrible IR situation not just on the old battlegrounds of the railways (and the tube) and Royal Mail but also at companies like BA that do not seem to have learnt even the most basic principles of sound employee relations over the intervening 25 years.
Whatever criticism can be aimed at the present generation of union leaders though there are two lessons that I learned very early on in my career:
– Senior management teams get the industrial relations they deserve and
– as with any relationship, it takes two to tango.
I would add to this one other piece of advice for all CEO’s who haven’t learned these lessons yet – your organisation will never create as much value as it could while you still have a union presence.
Unionism actually has a very noble history of the common man fighting for some basic rights that we now happily accept. It also played a major part in raising the level and standard of working conditions for millions of workers.
However, whatever justification history might have given to unions they have absolutely no part to play in any organisation that wants to create maximum value through the best use of its people.
It is implicit in the HR Charter that best value can only be created by competent management of a highly motivated, well-engaged workforce that trusts its management to do the right thing. The presence of a union is the clearest indicator you can ever get that the requisite level of trust does not exist.
So, here’s to a union-less future that will require a completely new approach from those HR professionals who will need to be able to reconcile both sides of this particular equation with both the needs of the business and the wishes of employees.
Have your say – simply click on ‘add comments’ below.
New HR Charter series
You can also read all the debates around the New HR Charter and add your own comments by clicking on the links below.
The New HR Charter – Introduction
The New HR Charter Part 1 – Does HR have a reputation problem?
The New HR Charter Part 2 – What does best practice mean in HR?
The New HR Charter: Part 3 – Do competencies and 360 work?
The New HR Charter: Part 4 – The opposite of best practice?
The New HR Charter: Part 5 – HR Causality – which way does the arrow point?
The New HR Charter: Part 6 – Employer of choice?
The New HR Charter: Part 7 – HR professionals: GP’s, consultants, homeopaths or quacks
The New HR Charter: Part 8 – Politically correct yes – but is HR more effective?
3 Responses
Leave off the stray men
The first two comments by Paul Kearns I would endorse, but the rest of article presupposes that since we now live in the idesal world that unionism is not necessary, I would disagree. Unionism at it’s best just as HR at it’s best will increase value to the organisation, rather than detract from it achieving it’s best success. Companies which create an environment that is open and honest with motivated staff, will not be encumbered by a union that ensures independently that those rights are honoured or to provide a collective voice and an advocate for when and if there are disagreements concerning policy and the application of policy.
The other thing that this supposes that good management cannot take being scrutinised or challenged, which is what will lead to abuses spreading
The trouble is seen that you can’t have great management and great unions at one and the same time. I would say yes you can and this is what you should strive to build upon. Some of the comments echo bad practice in unions rather than the best.
UNIONS AND THE IDEAL WORLD
I can understand why Paul says what he does. Perhaps in the ‘ideal’ world where every boss/manager was well meaning, even handed, skilled, unbiased, etc., he might be right.
It is true that the excesses of the extremists did cause a great deal of damage. So much so that many in the Labour and Union movement welcomed the moves by Thatcher to swing the pendulum to a more common sense position.
However, I have worked as an Organisational Psychologist for over 25 years. I have worked at all level and sectors including working with the TUC and several Trade Unions. Like it or not we do not live in the ideal world. One must recognise that there are many managers who fail to fulfil his ideal.
Not all managers:-
• Are unbiased in terms of age, sex, race etc and are free from bullying or scapegoating subordinates to escape blame for their own failures
• Communicate openly and effectively
• Truly endeavour to respect the individuals working for them and give them appropriate praise for their efforts
• Sufficiently skilled to be able to manage people effectively
• Are prepared to honour their promises made at the recruitment stage and devote sufficient time and resource to their people development
In the absence of an ideal world, we need legislation to protect employees. There is also a positive role for Staff Associations who see their primary purpose as responsibly representing and promoting their member’s interests rather than a class war.
The lack of trust that so many describe existing between unions and managers is, at least, one of equal blame.
My experience shows me that when both the managers and union reps are properly trained and skilled there is a much more constructive relationship, albeit one based on different starting points. But let us not kid ourselves about the nature of the psychological and economic contract between employer and employee. Moreover, in the real world the relationship is not even-handed but is always going to be biased towards those with most power, be it psychological or economic. My experience of good managers and employers is that not only are they not threaten by workers’ representatives but often welcome them and want them to be better trained. HR can only make an effective contribution if it lives in the real world. By confronting and working with this reality, we can make business more effective and employees more fulfilled.
Learning issues
I would agree with the points raised in the article and add, that as a Training Mgr: working in a unionised company I have had some barriers put in place by the Union. Including the banning of members completing a Learning Styles Questionnaire as part of their on-going development, as it was seen as a tool used by ‘Mgt’ to make decisions on whether an individual was suited to a role etc.. This of course is absurd, however due to the lack of trust I sometimes feel there is between the Union and areas of the business, it ensures that development and training is sometimes blocked due to a lack of understanding and willingness to change. Learning Style Questionnaires are an aid to effective learning, and communicating this, on occassions becomes difficult.