Working Together for Public Service:Chapter 2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Working Together for Public Service

CHAPTER TWO
PUBLIC SERVICES AND THE PUBLIC WORKPLACE
FACING PRESSURE FOR CHANGE
A RESPONSIBILITY TO MEET THE CHALLENGE

Many forces are converging upon government today, driving an urgent need for a thorough re-examination of the way jobs are performed and a fundamental reshaping of the way services are delivered.

These forces often appear to be in conflict: On one hand is the demand for more services; on the other, an outcry for a leaner government. Business and government alike are seeking ways to become more customer- and service-oriented in response to people's demands for better, more cost-effective products and services. The workplace itself is undergoing constant change as rapid technological advances continuously affect the way workers do their jobs, communicate with each other and, ultimately, deliver services.

The intent of this chapter is to describe what those forces are, how they are affecting the public workplace and why the traditional workplace arrangements must change to enable local and state governments to respond effectively.

The work of this national Task Force comes at a useful moment in the national debate over public services and the role of government.

In accepting the challenge to investigate how labor-management cooperation can lead to the provision of high quality government services within this constantly changing environment, the Task Force focused upon the intersection of the way jobs are performed, the way public services are delivered and the kind of workplace interactions that can improve both.

The Task Force's findings offer local and state government a proactive and positive approach to making changes needed to remove inefficiencies, to improve service delivery and to create excellence in the public sector. The extent to which the kind of workplace practices described in the Task Force's research and analysis are discussed and widely attempted will affect the degree to which citizens will reap the benefits of applying the best practices available to provide excellent, cost-effective services.

The Context for Change

There are many different historical, political and other forces pressuring local and state governments to re-examine how they can provide high quality service.

Problems Facing Communities and their Governments are More Complex.

Problems and issues are becoming more complex. For example, people are living longer, populations are increasingly diverse, greater accommodations are being sought and offered to citizens with various handicaps, the courts are more crowded, and local and national conflicts over economic development and environmental protections have increased. At the same time, interest groups are becoming stronger, better organized and more vocal. Thus, governments are finding greater, more insistent demands placed upon them at a time that their financial and other resources are dwindling.

Citizens Expect More.

Citizens, as consumers, generally have become much more aware of quality in service and product and have come to expect more as a consequence. This extends beyond demanding a quality automobile or a better service in a supermarket to include services delivered by government, as well.

Emergence of Quality Improvement Movement.

Increased attention to finding ways to "work smarter" has led to a more focused approach to improving quality on a continuous basis in the workplace. As a result, there are now many useful examples and techniques available to engage people in continuously producing higher quality services, constantly re-examining the steps of the work processes to gain greater cost-effectiveness, and improving the quality of work life. These approaches have relied on front-line participation in product and service decisions.

Learning How to Provide Better Products and Services.

Considerable progress has been made in the private sector during the past decade or so in learning how to provide better products and services. The dramatic turnaround in the U.S. automobile industry is a good example of how a business, when faced with intense competition driven by a changing environment, found new ways to produce better products and services. This knowledge is transferable not only among private sector industries, but also to the public arena.

Citizens Increasingly Skeptical of Government.

The public expresses dissatisfaction with government at every level. Many voters and taxpayers believe they do not get a good value for their tax investment in public services. Elected officials are trying to balance taxpayers' demands for fiscal austerity with expectations for improved quality in services and, at the same time, fulfill their roles as public stewards responsible for the long-term, overall health of the community.

Many Public Sector Workers Feel Maligned.

Public sector employees are distinguished by a higher average level of education than the rest of the nation's work force, indicating the level of skills required and that highly skilled individuals are choosing to be public sector employees. (See Chapter Three for demographic data.) However, many are becoming disheartened by the weight of bureaucracy and the difficulty in making changes. Years of budget cuts have too often targeted innovative programs, useful training or created impossible workloads without changes in priorities or work systems.

Generalized anti-government sentiment is wearing away at employees' pride, job satisfaction and productivity. It is important to note, however, that while public attitudes are very negative on a general level, when people are asked for their opinions regarding the performance of nearby workers, like their children's teachers, the postal workers or sanitation workers on their route, these nearby workers receive approval ratings in the 80 to 90 percent range.

Effects of Restrictive Government Systems.

In many instances, procurement, budgetary, civil service, regulatory and other systems have become so complex that in the effort to add accountability, service effectiveness and needed flexibility have been severely diminished.

More Services at the State Level.

Current policy discussions underway as this Task Force Report was being completed suggest that some functions traditionally performed at the federal level may come to the individual states for delivery and implementation. Therefore, the need for service excellence, cost effectiveness and a means to continuously seek improvement is even more urgent.

Increased Discussion of "Contracting Out" of Public Services to Private Sector.

Faced with limited resources and the need for high-quality, cost-effective services, governments increasingly are exploring the notion of contracting out some public services to private businesses. The Task Force found that this issue can be very controversial and divisive for labor and management, particularly when based solely or primarily upon the notion that the private sector can do a better job. On the other hand, there are a number of areas where advocates and opponents are not in total disagreement.

Contracting out, like other service delivery approaches, has risks and complexities, as pointed out by Richard Loomis, senior vice president of COMARCO, Inc., testifying on behalf of the Contract Services Association (CSA), a group of some 150 government contractors.

Loomis said that, as a general rule, the process of seeking bids for a project is helpful even if the work ultimately is kept in-house. Further, he noted that privatization or contracting out works only as a long-term strategy, not as a quick fix. It should not be used, he mentioned, for union-busting or to solve short-term cash problems. He spelled out some criteria by which decisions on whether to contract out should be made: Governments should make a conscious effort not to displace employees if cost savings are not significant or measurable. Issues of quality, corruption and cost inflation need to be addressed. He also agreed with other witnesses that governments should maintain some in-house capability.

It is very important, he said, for managers to have good cost and quality data to support their decisions. The ability to measure -- and thus compare -- results is key to cost-effective service improvement, regardless of whether the service is delivered by public or private sector employees. This brings accountability into the process and enables comparison of performance against goals.

Ron Utt, former Associate Director of Privatization for the Federal Office of Management and Budget and currently a Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noted among other considerations, that a major obstacle is that state and local governments do not maintain accounting systems that can determine the cost effectiveness.

Added Diana Orantes Ceresi, associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union, in her testimony: "In this era of heightened budget consciousness, it is also easy to forget that governments have a responsibility to publicly promote values beyond mere cost reduction," she said. "These include access, quality and effectiveness of services, equality of opportunity and increasing improvements in the general standard of living for its citizens. These values are the `givens' that should not be overlooked when government services are contracted out."

"Experience has taught us that contracting out is not a panacea for the budget crisis facing state and local governments. It should never be resorted to without careful consideration of all factors involved and assurance that necessary safeguards are implemented."

Understandably, public employees oppose contracting out when it is forced on them. However, the Task Force observed instances where public employees can accept it when evaluations and decisions on contracting out are handled in an open fashion, and where the facts and comparison methodologies were sensible and fairly derived. In many of those instances, given a level playing field, the public employees were able to produce better cost and quality results than private competitors.

The current debate over contracting out reflects the pressure on government to perform efficiently, and illustrates just one more element pressing on state and local governments to change the way they deliver services. Chapter Three, which follows, includes a brief description of some trends in contracting out observed through the work of the Task Force.

Opportunity for Improvements in Labor-Management Relations.

The principles and structures that today define public sector labor-management relations in most states date from 20 to 30 years ago. At that time, only limited experience with public sector bargaining and labor-management relations was available. Practices were developed state-by-state and rarely has there been an opportunity to review the experience from among the states, particularly with respect to service effectiveness. Thus, systems were established within the context of the times and with significant dependence on interpolations of private sector experience. Among other differences, public sector organizations have structures and controls reflecting separation of powers that are not characteristic of private organizations. Public sector organizations are also affected by elections and electoral politics. Observations of the Task Force (reflected in Appendix H) provide some lessons useful in assisting states which are establishing, or revising, collective bargaining laws to cause these laws to more directly support service improvement.

For a variety of historical and legal reasons, collective bargaining practices in many jurisdictions have developed in an overly conflictual manner, often enveloped by a legalistic or formal tone.

Collective bargaining relationships that are characterized by confrontation not only make it more difficult to work on effective long-term responses to service improvement and to work effectively on a daily basis, but they also attract unfortunate attention to the conflict. While it may make good newsprint or political fodder for elections, the attention drawn by such conflict undermines public confidence in both workers and elected officials. Further, such conflict draws important energy and resources of management and labor leaders into the conflict rather than into the resolution of service issues affecting the public and the work environment of public employees. Confrontational rhetoric rarely contributes to finding solutions to real problems like resource limitations and service needs of a community.

In other places, however, relationships or traditions have developed in the public workplace that provide for more effective problem-solving, usually resorting less frequently to formal methods and relying less on outside adjudication of conflicts. A number of states and localities are well known for leadership in these developments -- some over many years, some more recently. The Task Force saw or heard from many of them. Even here, the inherent adversarial nature of the relationship doesn't disappear, but the parties can cooperate substantially and effectively in the way they deal with issues.

These public sector examples -- many highlighted in this report -- demonstrate that there is a substantial opportunity for labor-management cooperation to contribute to service improvement and alter, where it exists, some of the negative imagery associated with public services and employment.

Reflecting on the many successful joint labor-management efforts made by his union, John J. Sweeney, testifying before the Task Force as International President of the Service Employees International Union, said: "The public sector, unlike private industry, has a relatively high rate of unionization, and less adversarial labor-management relations are more the norm. These factors have combined to produce an environment that is conducive to joint efforts for promoting excellence." Also evoking these possibilities, Governor George Voinovitch of Ohio, where a substantial labor-management equality partnership effort is underway, said, "My feeling is that labor is key to this whole thing.[3]" (For more information on Ohio, see "Snapshot: State of Ohio" following Chapter Four.)

As part of its findings, this report, in subsequent chapters, describes how collective bargaining relationships can better realize their potential to join worker talent with management authority and resources. Where practiced in a less conflictual and formalistic manner, and more in a way that focuses on workplace participation, collective bargaining relationships demonstrate particular value in supporting better service results. The results of this review of service excellence makes it clear that labor-management cooperation can play a major role in developing a strategy for service excellence.

The juxtaposition of the possibilities of cooperation with the missed opportunities of confrontation creates an imperative for state and local government to take advantage of the opportunities that stem from more participative and cooperative labor-management relationships in the public sector.

A Confluence of Forces of Change

All of these pressures affecting state and local government create a clear need to make the most of the capacities of state and local government workers, managers and elected officials to provide effective service. Also clear is the degree of change that has -- and will-- occur and, therefore the urgent need to seek ways for public workers and leaders to respond and continue to respond effectively.

Although the challenges and barriers are substantial, public officials and workers have not, in all instances, done their collective best job for the public. Today's changing conditions provide an opportune moment to identify where they have done their best and to see how the overall system and practices can be improved by following the examples of those who have succeeded.

The enormity of this challenge should not be underestimated. Meeting it will require doing many things differently, not just getting along better. Labor and management must work together to ensure everyone has the skills not only to perform new jobs but to adapt to new skills and workplace behavior. There must be changes in philosophies, attitudes, roles, work practices and more.

As the report illustrates, the Task Force saw many examples of how this transformation can be made. It does require a willingness to break with past habits and traditions, to take risks and learn new ways.

All of this will take time. But if public managers and workers fail to seize the initiative to "fix the system," sweeping changes may be foisted upon them by an increasingly hostile citizenry frustrated by government's perceived lack of responsiveness and effectiveness. The result could very well be a series of changes in government driven more by negative politics than by a desire to achieve service excellence.

As Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, testified, "I honestly believe it is not too dramatic to say that the viability of our institutions of governance depends at least in part on the success of our journey as we begin to move from confrontation to cooperation.

I challenge the Task Force -- to challenge us --to make our public workplaces laboratories of experimentation to drive and manage these kinds of changes."