I've spent a lot of my life working for NGOs and other organizations for social change, and have also been a member of voluntary boards of such organizations. I've been on a number of negotiating committees (mostly as a union/workers rep, but once as management). I've been named as an arbitrator in staff firings three times, all of them as the joint appointment. So I'm not an expert, but I'm not a novice either.

Small organizations for social change with voluntary boards have really a hard time with labour relations, in my experience. At least in part, it is because those very same voluntary boards have a hard time dealing with conflict. They are really reluctant to criticize staff, even when there are obvious problems. The end result is often that the situation gets to a head, the staff person is fired, and there has been no progressive discipline. (In fact, that's true even in larger organizations for social change.)

My conclusion is that having a union is really helpful, because it contributes a workable process to labour relations. The worst possible time to develop a policy is in the middle of a crisis. The process of negotiating a comprehensive contract forces everyone to think clearly and even calmly about possible situations, and how they can be resolved. The consequence is that when the problem arises, there is an established process which has been agreed to by everyone.

I've had both boards and staff tell me that unions "just get in the way", are "too bureaucratic", "too conflictive", etc., etc. And, often, that unions are "too right wing". There is a germ of truth in all of this, but in my opinion and experience, it is overweighed by the level of objectivity and professionalism that a union brings to the table.

There is certainly a bit of a culture clash between unions and small social change organizations, but it can -- and should -- be bridged. A union brings with it a lot of experience, expertise and professionalism. It is hard for an isolated staff association to duplicate the value. In addition, it is often useful, particularly in small shops, to have access to union reps who work for other organizations, or even for the union itself. Disputes are painful, and sometimes there are things that need to be said which can better be said by and to an "outsider".

I was lucky enough, at one point, to be a member of a union local almost all of whose members worked for organizations for social change. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of unions with that sort of expertise, although there are some including, I believe, CUPE.

There are aspects of work in organizations for social change which are quite different from a "normal" union environment. These include a mixed paid/volunteer workforce; contract work (like rabble, apparently); and frequently a fierce commitment by staff to the goals of the organization. So it helps to have a union which understands the field.

Many organizations for social change are too small to benefit from labour laws. However, one would hope that such an organization would voluntarily accept union representation even though they cannot be forced to. They should indicate their willingness to do that, in my opinion. (And not attempt on their own to foster a staff association. Union representation must, in the end, belong to the staff, be organized by the staff, and respond to the needs of the staff.)

With consensus and good will, it is possible to create a union local which includes "non-traditional" working arrangements, including contract workers. (The Musicians Union has been doing this for over a century, for example.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by rici:
...those very same voluntary boards have a hard time dealing with conflict. They are really reluctant to criticize staff, even when there are obvious problems. The end result is often that the situation gets to a head, the staff person is fired, and there has been no progressive discipline. ...

Many organizations for social change are too small to benefit from labour laws. However, one would hope that such an organization would voluntarily accept union representation even though they cannot be forced to. They should indicate their willingness to do that, in my opinion. (And not attempt on their own to foster a staff association. Union representation must, in the end, belong to the staff, be organized by the staff, and respond to the needs of the staff.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
The "passive-aggressive" approach to employee relations is by no means unique to organizations for social change, but I can see why it might be heightened for them.

---

(Thanks, by the way.) I don't think that management is technically passive-aggressive. From what I've seen (and I'm talking about cases I've actually been involved in, one way or another, not about rabble), the volunteer boards are not aggressive at all, whether passive or otherwise. They simply do not know how to handle employee relations; they put it off, deny to themselves what is going on, etc., until the problem can no longer be ignored, at which point it is too late.

Google says:

quote:

---

Passive-aggressive personality disorder is a chronic condition in which a person seems to passively comply with the desires and needs of others, but actually passively resists them, becoming increasingly hostile and angry.

---

That usually expresses itself through sabotage. I've seen that, too, in voluntary organizations, but I think it's a different phenomenon.

The reason I think unions help the situation is that they provide an objective context. Without a negotiated disciplinary procedure, a volunteer manager is just sort of floating: on some level, they want to talk to the staff person about performance issues but they don't have a context which can control the impact, so they choke up.

With a negotiated disciplinary procedure, the limits are quite clear and furthermore there is a union rep present, taking notes etc. The board member can say (out loud or to themselves): "Look, I'd rather just talk about this over coffee but the rules say we've got to do it this way." So they've externalized and de-emotionalized the interview right from the start. And everyone knows that the worst that can happen on a first interview is a letter in the file. So not only is the staff-person feeling safer, so is the board member.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rici:
Small organizations for social change with voluntary boards have really a hard time with labour relations, in my experience. At least in part, it is because those very same voluntary boards have a hard time dealing with conflict. They are really reluctant to criticize staff, even when there are obvious problems.

---

Besides, I suddenly find that I can!

[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

While the foregoing postings sound very reasonable, I must ask in what environments they reflect any reality?

A key problem as I see it is that trade unions like to represent themselves as organizations for social change, when in fact they are the opposite. They quickly and inevitably evolve into self-serving bureaucracies and I suggest that the inability to manage bureaucracy is one of the most consequential problems faced by modern society.

Perhaps the issue that has been generating so much controversy at this site for some time is an example of how bureaucracies fail.

If bureaucracy is the problem, how can conventional trade unions, which are themselves classic bureaucracies, offer a viable solution?

Canada in particular has become addicted to the process of bureaucratization. When I ran into problems with my employer, I turned to my union (CUPE) to no avail. Then the Labour Board. Then the courts. I also approached my elected representative (MLA) and the provincial Ombudsman’s office (numerous times), as well as other agencies with nominally appropriate mandates.

If our elected representatives were doing their jobs properly we would have no need for an Ombudsman. As it is, the result is yet another totally ineffective bureaucracy. Our nation is steadily being buried in ineffective, unaccountable bureaucracies. Throughout my efforts to elicit from numerous persons and agencies at least some dialogue I have not once witnessed any objectivity or professionalism.

A productive direction for debate would be how do we create mechanisms for real accountability without continuing down this self-defeating path. I believe such mechanisms are readily achievable, but only if we first stop deceiving ourselves about the current state of affairs.

[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: gbuddy ]

In fact, most issues can be resolved within the local; in particular, locals can (and probably should) do their own contract negotiations. However, the union itself will have a lot of useful material, and many unions offer training programs as well. So it is a source of valuable information on employee relations, generally from a worker's perspective.

Having been a member of a union local which represented employees of a union (and that's a slightly surrealistic experience), I do have first-hand knowledge of how difficult it can be to negotiate a contract with a union-as-an-employer. But we managed it. (I was not employed by that union; I was borrowed from a different worksite in the same local.) Having had very little prior experience in labour negotiations, I benefited considerably from the resources available from my union.

Small worksite locals in organizations for social change are not like factory unions, or postal unions. The relationships are personal -- sometimes too personal -- and the bureaucracy is pretty well non-existent. I'm not saying that it is a radical or radicalizing experience to unionize (although I have seen people radicalized by it). What I'm saying is that it provides a formal context in which it is possible -- and necessary -- to do structured thinking about labour relations in a somewhat depersonalized fashion.

I believe that what we should be aiming in the long run to achieve is a legal and regulatory framework that promotes the kind of process you have described – which is inherently cooperative rather than adversarial – in all workplaces no matter how they are characterized.

In parallel with my efforts at seeking personal restitution, I have been trying to impress on the political establishment in this province that major reform of our labour / employment regime is long overdue. The response has been total denial. None of the persons or agencies I have approached will even consider discussing the topic. So I am now considering initiatives that go beyond merely letters and emails, including the Open Letter that I mentioned in a recent post under The Labour Relations Conundrum.

Rather than using the Internet merely for discussion, I have used it to present a very serious indictment. Thus far no politician or bureaucrat has responded, but the indictment will stand until it is answered, and I have in mind ways to augment and leverage it further.

Not so long ago one of my colleagues was threatened by a labour law firm with a defamation lawsuit for speaking out about his own issues. I have publicly named members of the political and legal establishment and accused them of conduct that I think is of a criminal nature, and I will be adding to those names and providing more details. This is another example of the conundrum now faced by the establishment. I don’t expect to be threatened with a lawsuit. The only response to the truth other than acknowledging it is stonewalling.

Ultimately I hope this approach will lead to accountability. Recently, I was able to secure a brief meeting with my MLA, who conceded that if I was right it was a serious matter. He also said the government’s first priority (which he explained as its obligation to the citizens) was to avoid liability. He subsequently said, of course, that I am wrong about the case I am now pursuing.