Honest Herman - GM Salesman and Union Steward...
By David S. Orr
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Unless you're one of those folks who, perhaps wisely, refuses to listen to any economic news for the next two years, you know that General Motors, the symbol of American capitalism, is now being run by a combination of the same managers who ran it into bankruptcy and the United Auto Workers union. Who woulda thunk it? And even if you had thunk it, would you buy a car from a company in the throes of organizational schizophrenia?
I realize that It's All About Change, and that we're in a New Paradigm, whatever that is, and that when we say The King is Dead, we're referring to Michael Jackson, not Elvis. But the new GM is a radical change from the corporate-labor paradigm that we've been used to since the 1930's. Is that necessarily bad? Well, no, and it's way to early to be passing judgments. But it certainly bears close scrutiny.
WALTER REUTHER- WHERE ARE YOU?
If you want to read a microcosmic history of labor relations in America, take a look at the United Auto Workers (UAW). The early days of organized labor were not pretty – from the mine workers to steel workers to auto workers, let's just say "partnership" was not in vogue.
GM, Ford and Chrysler had no use for unions way back then, and went so far as to hire professional private detective agencies for "security" purposes during labor organizing drives and similar events; the line between providing security and acting as company goons was a thin one indeed. Ford established an internal unit that became notorious for its brutal tactics – Henry Ford saying that the UAW would organize his company "Over my dead body."
It almost came to that with a series of picketing and sit-down strikes. Scores of union representatives who emerged with their heads bashed in would assert that the line was routinely crossed. One such rep was Walter Reuther, a victim of some head-bashing, who ascended to the UAW presidency through its heyday. Reuther was an iconic figure, famous for referring to a labor contract as a "living document."
In other words, we want what we just got, but we want what we didn't get even more. In that sense, he might be called the unwitting inventor of I&I bargaining. I wonder what Reuther would think of the new GM. He was all in favor of such then-radical concepts as promoting social action causes and putting a UAW rep on the company's board of directors, but that is worlds apart from giving major stock ownership to the union. Hence my comment about organizational schizophrenia.
OWNERSHIP, NOT PARTNERSHIP
I remember the glorious days of "Labor-Management Partnership" in the federal sector. In some venues, it was almost like co-management, although without the stock ownership part.
And that's the thing, folks – should the union be a co-manager, or co-owner? (I always marveled at the fact that the federal unions glommed onto Bill Clinton and Al Gore like hogs on slop (no offense intended to any party, including hogs everywhere), notwithstanding that these two guys came from southern "Right-to-Work" states and had little, if any affinity or experience with labor unions. To this day, and including the period when Clinton was governor, Arkansas has no state employee labor law; I'm not sure about Tennessee, but everybody there works for Dolly Parton anyway. Some historical perspectives suggest that the Clinton-Gore administration just used the unions to their advantage, but that's another article.)
In some places where Partnership ran amok, the union became involved in actual decision-making processes, sometimes through consultation, but sometimes through decision-making groups and committees. And I remember the more savvy union reps (at least I thought they were more savvy) saying, wait a minute, let's think about this. Do we WANT to be involved in setting performance standards? If we agreed to them, it will make it a bit difficult to argue to an arbitrator that they're unreasonable when they're used to fire someone. Do we WANT to get involved in personnel selections? Do we WANT to be involved in the basic management decisions directing the work of the agency?
If you're a union rep, you might say, "Hell Yes!" But sometimes you can want something that you really don't want to have. I suggest that Reuther, and the Walter Reuthers of today, if there are any, would say, "You manage the company and we'll grieve when you mismanage the workers."
"BUT IT WASN'T MY IDEA"
One of the basic tenets of traditional labor relations is that you have management and you have the union – you gotta be one or the other. (Oh, we have the neutrals too, but we'll forget about them for now.) One is responsible for the success of the company (or agency). The other is responsible for protecting the rights and well-being of the workforce. The basic tool for doing that is enforcing the collective bargaining agreement through the grievance-arbitration process. But if you're the union AND management at the same time, how does that work? I can only imagine how the first round of collective bargaining discussions will go for the new GM. In fact, I CAN'T imagine it. Does the GM Board appoint a company LR executive as Chief Negotiator, or maybe appoint someone from the UAW, in which case he or she can negotiate with themselves – "I propose a 12% pay raise over three years – No, I counter-propose a 15% increase – OK, I'll agree to that!"
Just a bit more seriously, if the union is a co-manager/owner, who is responsible for design or production defects? Remember the old Ford Pinto? They were a veritable crematory on wheels – who would be sued if the UAW was a co-owner? Or the notorious Chevy Vega? Built at the Lordstown, Ohio GM plant, the Vega is on everyone's list of the worst cars ever built. It was bad enough UAW members put them together (badly); would the union want to take the blame for design as well?
The union representing Washington, D.C. Metro subway operators has started down this slippery slope - following the recent fatal accident, the union recommended that the Series 1000 cars, which apparently split open like a ripe banana, be placed on the interior of train configurations, with stronger, more crash-resistant Series 3000 cars at either end. Metro management has announced that they are going to implement this procedure.
But what if it turns out to be a bad idea – perhaps based on the so-called law of unintended consequences, what if the new configuration causes its own set of problems? Who's responsible? This scenario is not quite so dire, inasmuch as the union's suggestion is one of safety and is based on NTSB findings from an earlier incident. But it concerns me when the line between management and labor in not only being crossed, but in the case of the new GM, eliminated.
I am by no means suggesting that the union board members are not capable of managing a car company – unless abject failure can be exceeded, they can't do any worse than their MBA'd predecessors. In fact, maybe they'll be better. John Sturdivant, the late National President of AFGE, and a labor leader for whom I had great respect, once said to me, "If you think managing an agency is tough, try managing an union!"
"THIS CAR IS YOU!"
So when you buy a car from Honest Herman of the new GM, be sure to ask him – "Will you file a grievance for me if something breaks?"
Opinions expressed (obviously) are solely my own.
© 2009 David S. Orr. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from David S. Orr.
|
Readers' Comments
Posted: July 21, 2009 6:49 PM
Posted: July 20, 2009 9:45 AM
Posted: July 15, 2009 9:02 AM
View All Comments »