Just as flexibility quickly becomes the mantra of successful businesses, so too it should describe successful labour relations. Two sides sitting across the table from each other and milking whatever they can out of the other is slowly, very slowly passing into history.
“There’s a general shift to labour relations becoming part of overall HR strategy, rather than isolating industrial relations in a world on its own,” says Peter Warrian, professor of industrial relations at the University of Toronto.
In the hyper-competitive global market, nobody, neither the union nor the employer can afford the damages inflicted by labour discord, says Tom Knight, an associate professor of industrial relations at the University of British Columbia.
The rigidity of the old adversarial model of industrial relations is no longer of use, he says. Instead, IR must borrow problem-solving practices applied to other areas of HR to improve collective bargaining sessions. Industrial relations experts also need to become more active in laying the groundwork for better labour relations before they get to the table.
If companies and unions want to compete and therefore prosper, they have to be able to be more pragmatic and work together with each other to adapt to business needs. But too often compromise is rejected out of hand without thought for the greater good, says Knight. “It’s almost taken as a sign of weakness to assist each other or to admit that they can help each other.”
Just as unions can’t suspect every new business need is a nothing more than the “latest management scam,” employers and IR specialists have to be willing to embrace the more progressive HR practices that are coming into vogue to ensure the workforce is happy and more productive.
But if there is a change afoot, it is slow in-coming. Knight says he is frustrated by the gradual pace of change, and the reluctance to embrace more progressive forms of labour relations.
The no concession policy is still the norm, he says.
It’s particularly bad in British Columbia where labour relations becomes a sport in its own right, so much so that the original intent tends to get lost.
“A lot of people in British Columbia really prefer to fight, but the question is can we afford that,” he says.
In many circles it becomes virtually high heresy to say that we aren’t here to do labour relations, but to produce a product.
“My lawyer friends don’t like to hear it, but I think there has been an overuse of legal procedures,” he says.
Increasingly, collective agreements might require employees to bring complaints to management to see if they will address their problem before they can file an official grievance. But too often those provisions are ignored, he says. “A collective agreement can be very positive, but there has to be a desire to work toward common objectives.”
The pace of change isn’t that much better on the East Coast.
St. Mary’s University in Halifax is preparing to enter into contract negotiations this summer with some of its employees. Ideally, the two sides would use mutual gains bargaining to negotiate the new deal, says Kim Squires, a manager of human resources at the school and a part-time teacher of HR in the school’s faculty of business.
Rather than the sit around and pound the table in the fashion of days past, mutual gains bargaining is a method where both sides come together and often undergo problem-solving training together. They learn how to listen to differing viewpoints, how to respect others’ opinions and understand the motivations behind them. After that, it is literally a case of sitting around and brainstorming the issues and possible solutions, and, through compromise, a palatable agreement is reached for both sides.
People are getting tired of the old confrontational approach because nobody wins in labour unrest, she says. Aside from the obvious setbacks to production and performance, it destroys working relationships and pollutes the working atmosphere.
The new vice-president of administration at St. Mary’s would prefer to take more of a problem-solving approach, but the players simply aren’t ready for that yet, said Squires.
It takes time to change, to build up the trust and respect that it takes for mutual gains bargaining to succeed.
However, over the last four or five years, mutual gains bargaining (sometimes referred to as interest-based bargaining or even win-win bargaining) has started to crop up more and more, adding she has seen more sessions covering the topic at HR conferences, for example.
Many industrial relations professionals would say mutual gains bargaining has been implicit in what they do all along since a certain amount of give and take shapes all labour relations, says Warrian. However, what’s new is taking that process and trying to formalize it in actual negotiations around the table.
It’s great in theory, but implementation is difficult and it takes a grassroots culture change to make it work.
Mutual gains bargaining, just like every other negotiation, involves tradeoffs, linking overall performance to salary increases, for example, and it is often difficult to find a metric that front-line employees feel they can affect, since in most cases, daily work has little direct impact on overall performance.
It is also very difficult to do mutual gains bargaining within the old business models, says Warrian. To be successful requires a culture change with different work arrangements, multi-skilling, divesting more responsibility to the shop floor, that sort of thing.
It’s important to be realistic about the utility of the “warm-spirited” approach of mutual gains or interest-based bargaining, says Knight.
Mutual gains bargaining is not going to save the day in and of itself.
It is one tool, “But it needs the soil of changed relationships between union and management to grow,” he says.
“(With) anything that has to do with money, it’s hard to take a problem-solving approach because each side wants more and to give less.”
Unfortunately, the vast majority of organizations still rely on the old business models and have not even begun to lay the groundwork to change the way unions and management interact.
It’s amazing how much the business environment has changed, and yet how much businesses and unions rely on conventional method, says Warrian.
Should the relatively smooth waters of labour relations in Canada turn rough again, the true preparedness, or lack thereof, of industrial relations experts on both sides would likely be exposed and found wanting as all the old weaponry of labour relations would be hauled out.
“There’s a general shift to labour relations becoming part of overall HR strategy, rather than isolating industrial relations in a world on its own,” says Peter Warrian, professor of industrial relations at the University of Toronto.
In the hyper-competitive global market, nobody, neither the union nor the employer can afford the damages inflicted by labour discord, says Tom Knight, an associate professor of industrial relations at the University of British Columbia.
The rigidity of the old adversarial model of industrial relations is no longer of use, he says. Instead, IR must borrow problem-solving practices applied to other areas of HR to improve collective bargaining sessions. Industrial relations experts also need to become more active in laying the groundwork for better labour relations before they get to the table.
If companies and unions want to compete and therefore prosper, they have to be able to be more pragmatic and work together with each other to adapt to business needs. But too often compromise is rejected out of hand without thought for the greater good, says Knight. “It’s almost taken as a sign of weakness to assist each other or to admit that they can help each other.”
Just as unions can’t suspect every new business need is a nothing more than the “latest management scam,” employers and IR specialists have to be willing to embrace the more progressive HR practices that are coming into vogue to ensure the workforce is happy and more productive.
But if there is a change afoot, it is slow in-coming. Knight says he is frustrated by the gradual pace of change, and the reluctance to embrace more progressive forms of labour relations.
The no concession policy is still the norm, he says.
It’s particularly bad in British Columbia where labour relations becomes a sport in its own right, so much so that the original intent tends to get lost.
“A lot of people in British Columbia really prefer to fight, but the question is can we afford that,” he says.
In many circles it becomes virtually high heresy to say that we aren’t here to do labour relations, but to produce a product.
“My lawyer friends don’t like to hear it, but I think there has been an overuse of legal procedures,” he says.
Increasingly, collective agreements might require employees to bring complaints to management to see if they will address their problem before they can file an official grievance. But too often those provisions are ignored, he says. “A collective agreement can be very positive, but there has to be a desire to work toward common objectives.”
The pace of change isn’t that much better on the East Coast.
St. Mary’s University in Halifax is preparing to enter into contract negotiations this summer with some of its employees. Ideally, the two sides would use mutual gains bargaining to negotiate the new deal, says Kim Squires, a manager of human resources at the school and a part-time teacher of HR in the school’s faculty of business.
Rather than the sit around and pound the table in the fashion of days past, mutual gains bargaining is a method where both sides come together and often undergo problem-solving training together. They learn how to listen to differing viewpoints, how to respect others’ opinions and understand the motivations behind them. After that, it is literally a case of sitting around and brainstorming the issues and possible solutions, and, through compromise, a palatable agreement is reached for both sides.
People are getting tired of the old confrontational approach because nobody wins in labour unrest, she says. Aside from the obvious setbacks to production and performance, it destroys working relationships and pollutes the working atmosphere.
The new vice-president of administration at St. Mary’s would prefer to take more of a problem-solving approach, but the players simply aren’t ready for that yet, said Squires.
It takes time to change, to build up the trust and respect that it takes for mutual gains bargaining to succeed.
However, over the last four or five years, mutual gains bargaining (sometimes referred to as interest-based bargaining or even win-win bargaining) has started to crop up more and more, adding she has seen more sessions covering the topic at HR conferences, for example.
Many industrial relations professionals would say mutual gains bargaining has been implicit in what they do all along since a certain amount of give and take shapes all labour relations, says Warrian. However, what’s new is taking that process and trying to formalize it in actual negotiations around the table.
It’s great in theory, but implementation is difficult and it takes a grassroots culture change to make it work.
Mutual gains bargaining, just like every other negotiation, involves tradeoffs, linking overall performance to salary increases, for example, and it is often difficult to find a metric that front-line employees feel they can affect, since in most cases, daily work has little direct impact on overall performance.
It is also very difficult to do mutual gains bargaining within the old business models, says Warrian. To be successful requires a culture change with different work arrangements, multi-skilling, divesting more responsibility to the shop floor, that sort of thing.
It’s important to be realistic about the utility of the “warm-spirited” approach of mutual gains or interest-based bargaining, says Knight.
Mutual gains bargaining is not going to save the day in and of itself.
It is one tool, “But it needs the soil of changed relationships between union and management to grow,” he says.
“(With) anything that has to do with money, it’s hard to take a problem-solving approach because each side wants more and to give less.”
Unfortunately, the vast majority of organizations still rely on the old business models and have not even begun to lay the groundwork to change the way unions and management interact.
It’s amazing how much the business environment has changed, and yet how much businesses and unions rely on conventional method, says Warrian.
Should the relatively smooth waters of labour relations in Canada turn rough again, the true preparedness, or lack thereof, of industrial relations experts on both sides would likely be exposed and found wanting as all the old weaponry of labour relations would be hauled out.
