Most people in business react less than enthusiastically to the word "union". It is not that there is visceral hostility to unions at every level of business. It's just that people rarely see a union as a means towards prosperity and a trouble-free business life. In short, unions are usually taken to represent part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Against this background, a case study in the current edition of the Harvard Business Review entitled, "Does this company need a union?" is particularly thought-provoking. Not only because of how the question is posed do we easily imagine business managers responding, "Of course it does" but because the case is American, and America is taken to be a land free of the European disease of pervasive unionisation.
The fictional case was about a professional service company, Wellington Associates, which offers analysis of the high-tech industry. There is a small management team and the core employees among a workforce of more than 200 are industry analysts. Pay and benefits are good for the analysts. "The company goes to about any length to accommodate the professional staff. . . our vital asset," says the human resources manager. But the support staff don't get the same conditions and one morning the human resources manager learns that they are about to invite in a union.
The reactions are predictable the human resources manager explains the support staff's perceptions, the founder of the business, Jane Wellington, is serious and concerned, the tough-as-nails young manager says they are "whiners, for God's sake, we are only talking about secretaries here" and so on. The scene is set for advice to be given to Jane. So the Harvard Business Review sought the views of five real people, one union official, two business school professors, a human resources director in a publishing firm and a public sector arbitrator.
Their comments are instructive, coming, as must be pointed out again, from Americans, not heavily unionised Europeans. Some seek to help defuse the staff's leaning towards a union, others say the union should be accommodated if the employees vote in favour. They all agree that people turn to unions not because of pay in itself. "Unions exploit situations in which employees perceive a lack of workplace justice, respect and dignity as much as they take advantage of inadequate or inequitable compensation," say the professors.
The human resources manager reflects the legal position in the US when union organisation is under consideration and offers an acronym for management in the circumstances. "TIPS" no threats, no interrogations, no promises (of benefits to employees if they vote no) and no surveillance. Obviously someone had to be reminded. She cites a pro-management attorney saying that "a company that loses a union organising campaign probably needs and deserves to have a union representing its employees".
The dispute resolution specialist says the union move is a wake-up call to management. "Better to involve the union representatives up front and establish the union-management relationship as a partnership from the beginning." Now that sounds familiar.
The woman running an education centre for the AFL-CIO claims that "a strong, effective union not only ensures fairness for its members, but also can be a real asset in improving business performance". On reading these comments, it might seem that the Harvard Business Review has gone soft. Or maybe it's just New England Democrats having their day.
It is only surprising if the assumption is that union-management relations are always conflictual. There are, of course, plenty of people on both sides who believe this. They are well represented by, for example, Caroline Duggan of SIPTU and Frank Mulcahy in ISME. At least these two deserve the respect of being players. They are plenty of others who cheer on either side from the ditches, cat-calling to those in ICTU and IBEC who hold some patch of centre ground.
The idea that the social responsibility of business extends beyond making profits for shareholders is well-entrenched. Only a small minority still bravely argue otherwise. It would help if the corrollary of that idea became entrenched among all unions, and not just the leadership of ICTU. If the responsibilities of business extend beyond making profits for shareholders, then the social responsibility of unions must also extend beyond their members' interests. Jackboot capitalism and destructive syndicalism are really one and the same irresponsible selfishness.
Yes, it could be time for partnership between management and unions, time for accepting unionisation of more companies. But only with the right attitudes, on both sides. We aren't there yet, in many cases.
Oliver O'Connor is an investment funds specialist.
