Deja Vu All Over Again?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
As the most recent version of the draft executive order on labor relations makes the rounds, it's tough to miss the almost palpable air of dread mixed with resignation emanating from the ranks of agency managers and labor relations (LR) professionals. It is precisely the reaction to be expected from a population that has already experienced what they see coming, and didn't much enjoy it the first time around.
Whether the proposed New Day in Federal LR, Take 2 is to be dreaded or greeted with rejoicing, of course, depends on where one stands. To many—probably most—of those who reside on the management side of the street, the draft E.O. signals the return of a naïve-at-best idea that produced results ranging from merely time-wasting and annoying, to borderline disastrous in terms of operational impact.
To union advocates it seems to represent—depending on the individual's attitude and level of candor—the resumption of progress on the road to workplace harmony and industrial justice, or simply their side's turn at bat.
The corresponding conclusion, depending on one's viewpoint, is that a good description of how the new E.O. will go could be titled either Meet the New Dumb Idea, Same As the Old Dumb Idea, or It's Our Turn Now, So Quit Whining and Take Your Medicine.
Before slapping on either label, however, it might be worthwhile to ponder whether we are, in fact, doomed to a Groundhog Day experience. One would hope not, given what we know—or ought to know—by now.
So what do we know now that we apparently didn't know then?
Well, for starters we now know that:
- Declaring that cats and dogs shall henceforth love each other—regardless of who struck John previously and how hard—won't make it so. Certainly not overnight.
- Although there is a substantial amount of shared interest between an agency's management and the union representing its employees, each also has legitimate, but profoundly differing core interests. Consider, for example, the issue of controlling operating costs vs. that of maximizing overtime earnings.
- Bad management ideas—no matter how convivial the circumstances of their gestation—inevitably produce bad results. The sad fact is that lipstick, regardless of whether it's applied to a pig or a lousy work assignment system, will not produce a lovely outcome.
- Everyone's happy to share authority, but considerably less eager to share responsibility. Particularly when someone on Capitol Hill wants to know why the cost of doing business went up and/or results went down.
- It's never a good idea to ignore one's statutory rights while under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or consultant-generated babble. Labor agreements drafted by "facilitators" unencumbered by knowledge of either federal labor law or operational realities, are better suited for recycling than workplace use.
- Which brings us to the concluding knowledge nugget, which is that:
- Going overboard in one direction will inevitably produce enormous impetus to go overboard in the other direction—preferably at the very first opportunity. A quick review of the last sixteen years in federal LR will confirm this observation.
So what does all this tell us about the future?
Well, as someone once pointed out, it is the essence of lunacy to repeat the same actions and expect different results.
Consequently, what recent history says to me is that if the parties involved—i.e., management, unions, and the FLRA—turn a blind eye to the absurdities and excesses of their first trip around this barn, they're buying a ticket back to where we've already been.
On the other hand, if they are capable of learning from history, the new E.O.—no matter how similar it may be to its predecessor in form—could actually lead to positive, and maybe even sustainable results.
Several key requirements must be met, however, to avoid a re-run of the maiden cruise on the LR Titanic.
In my never-all-that-humble opinion, the parties will have to:
- Keep their respective roles and responsibilities firmly in mind. Face it, Job No. 1 for unions is not helping an agency accomplish its mission. That is not what they were elected to do. Consequently, it's downright silly to expect unions to rank agency effectiveness and efficiency ahead of their dues payers' happiness.
- Don't expect the other party to happily throw themselves on your sword. Some things are just never going to play well on the other side of the street. For example, improving efficiency through more technology—and hence fewer employees—is not something any union in its right mind can warmly embrace.
- Forget the idea of a conflict-free future—it doesn't happen, even in Star Trek episodes. Treating each other with respect is a good first step on the right road. But it won't mean you're going to see every situation or interpret every rule the same. Some amount of conflict is inevitable, even in LR Nirvana.
- Focus on forging workable business arrangements rather than composing blue-sky prose. Dressing up verbose baloney with a grandiose label like "partnership agreement" doesn't accomplish much—particularly if the resulting verbiage doesn't spell out who actually gets to do what when.
- Remember that you are seeking a functional business relationship, not a gaggle of new pals. You don't need to be pals to work together effectively. You do, however, need to treat each other with integrity and respect, and to resist throwing a snit every time something fails to go your way.
- Eschew the touchy-feely, canned relationship-building nonsense. All it seems to be good for is a) fattening the bank accounts of self-proclaimed relationship gurus, b) glazing eyeballs, c) wasting unconscionable amounts of time, and d) diverting attention from the grunt work required to pursue recommendations 4 and 5 above.
Bottom Line: The proof will be in the pudding on this second swing at the pinata—how's that for a mixed metaphor?
But if all parties involved do their best to handle things more intelligently than they did last time around, the potential benefits could turn out to be substantial.
So what, specifically, is involved in acting "more intelligently?"
For my opinion—as well as yours and others, if you take the time to comment here and/or email it to me---stay tuned for the next article in this series.
© 2009 D.K. Reischl. Article may be reproduced and/or distributed in its current form if the copyright and contact information is retained intact.
|
Readers' Comments
Posted: October 21, 2009 4:20 PM
Posted: October 21, 2009 10:29 AM
Posted: October 14, 2009 2:45 PM
View All Comments »