The Secretary of Labor's Task Force on Excellence in State and Local Government Through Labor-Management Cooperation
HIGHLIGHTS OF TESTIMONY AT SECOND TASK FORCE MEETING
The second morning was devoted to testimony in the area of dispute resolution and collaborative bargaining by Stephen Goldberg of Northwestern University Law School and Bill Hobgood, both associated with the Mediation Research and Education Project, Inc. Goldberg asserted that two essential ingredients of successful change re that management must be genuinely willing to share power with the union (this is not easy) and unions must commit to responsible use of that power. Further, there is such a close relationship among the three key elements - contract information, work systems, and contract administration - that all three must change for change to be effective.
Grievance mediation (GM) is the primary tool used by these witnesses to assist parties toward the goal of high performance by changing their relationship. It has the following features: the mediator has both mediation and arbitration experience, and gives an advisory opinion on the spot. Mediation is off the record and "no risk". The process is faster and cheaper than arbitration (no attorneys involved) and teaches settlement skills and improves how parties get along generally, spilling over into all aspects of the relationship. The goal of GM is to put all arbitrators and mediators out of business eventually by teaching problem-solving skills to the parties. The few risks of the process are that it may discourage settlement at earlier stages, and adds a step if arbitration follows mediation as a matter of course. And results are demonstrable: Goldberg and Hobgood presented figures showing that 83% of grievances are resolved without arbitration. The process is quicker and much less costly than arbitration, and parties are satisfied with the results.
Hobgood testified that change must be part of the collective bargaining process; there must be an effective conflict resolution system; there's a need to emphasize real outcomes that can be measured, not just "feeling good"; the institutional security of the union and the job security of employees must both be addressed - not job security in the sense of lifetime employment in a particular position but employee development so that there is personal growth and some predictability about the ability to remain employed. There should be jointly managed resources for change management and training.
Union and management witnesses from Boston Edison discussed how their relationship was completely turned around by the application of grievance mediation and other principles developed by Hobgood and Goldberg. (If was noted that although Boston Edison is a private company, there is much similarity between utilities and the public sector.) Their "win-lose" arbitrations, which reflected a poor labor-management relationship overall, were replaced by a commitment to solving the underlying workplace problems. Vast amounts of money and time have been saved by the parties.
They indicated that the process has significantly affected contract talks, prompting easier settlements and an open mind on thorny issues such as preventative maintenance. Other good effects included the ability of the parties to make positive change in difficult market conditions. The company through controlled attrition avoided layoffs because they felt it was crucial to preserve good relations with the union. Basically they used good management and common sense, working with their people. They had cross-functional teams to deal with customers, and used problem-solving techniques to consolidate job classifications.¨
