Working Together for Public Service:Chapter 6

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

CHAPTER SIX
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
ISSUES FOR FURTHER
ATTENTION AND OBSERVATION

During more than a year of careful research and examination, the Task Force observed numerous examples of service excellence within the public sector achieved primarily through the efforts of labor and management working together. At times, the results contradicted generally accepted beliefs.

Close analysis of the ingredients contributing to successes indicated the emergence of many new and innovative approaches to public sector services that appear worthy of emulation. The Task Force also observed, however, that there are some issues -- such as the impact of new pay systems, the connection of a quality process to a bargaining process, how to sustain new work systems in the face of leadership turnover -- where the data is less clear or the results not yet sufficiently accessible or compelling.

By necessity, the history, traditions and needs of each community require different approaches and makes different degrees of cooperation possible. Thus, labor-management cooperation for service improvement is an emerging and evolving trend -- one that warrants further attention on a variety of issues and one where closer examination of specific settings could produce a greater understanding that could be applied elsewhere.

The intent of this chapter is to highlight some of these issues or trends that need to be tracked in order to draw accurate and useful observations that can provide guidance to others venturing into these areas.

The Task Force invites unions, management organizations, universities and others to research and study these issues, to share their experiences and knowledge, and to discuss and debate these issues in forums, conferences and other appropriate settings. Following are a selection of issues:

1. How to spread cooperation and participation in service improvement on one issue to other areas

Once a jurisdiction or agency has a successful effort underway in one corner, how does the effort spread beyond the initial project? This question was posed by a number of jurisdictions looking for ways to broaden and sustain the cooperative approach beyond an initial project.

The state of Ohio, for example, has adopted a thorough and comprehensive approach that calls for, and has shown success in, integrating labor-management cooperation and quality efforts throughout all aspects of state government over a multi-year time span.

The Task Force believes that this question deserves more in-depth study, particularly because it seems to bedevil many public jurisdictions. Case studies need to be watched for longer periods than the Task Force life span for careful, continued observation, work and analysis. Possibly, a menu of useful tools can be developed that will greatly assist jurisdictions in spreading initial successes.

Similarly, there is the need to discover how best to sustain the cooperative, service-oriented relationship in the face of leadership turnover.

2. How to gain and gauge leadership commitment

It would be useful to study the process of gaining and utilizing top leadership commitment, as well as the various means by which a top union or management official becomes and remains engaged in the partnership concept. Questions to be further researched include: How and on what basis was the idea made interesting to the top leadership? How was their commitment carried through?

Some inventorying and analysis of these dynamics would seem valuable in identifying ways to bring the cooperative, participative approach into more workplaces. It also would seem useful to know more about the ways such commitment could be manifested. Greater knowledge of the variations on leadership roles might permit more leaders to find a comfortable means to become involved.

Related to leadership involvement, given the popular mythology that negativism wins campaigns in unions or communities, some analysis might be instructive of labor or management election and campaign results when there is a cooperative service-focused relationship.

3. How to reconcile different levels of interest among elected and administrative officials

Splits in interest levels between elected or administrative officials in forging cooperative relations can make it very difficult to pull together the necessary commitment. The Task Force observed examples of this: sometimes the mayor was interested, but the council wasn't. Sometimes, the shop steward of the union local was interested, but the president wasn't -- or vice versa. Or maybe the elected official (be it mayor, governor, etc.) was interested, but his or her top administrators -- the budget director, the personnel director and so forth, were not. Some useful examination might be made also of the ways in which elected leaders have been successful -- or unsuccessful -- in convincing reluctant administrative staff such as department managers, division directors or others, to engage in the effort.

These divisions made it more difficult to initiate new work systems, yet many succeeded as one person or another persevered. It might be helpful to look at such situations more closely and determine how to overcome the differences, and how the idea ultimately came to be embraced by top leadership and by other key officials.

4. The connection between collective bargaining and quality efforts

The Task Force saw and heard of several different approaches regarding the connection between quality improvement efforts and the collective bargaining relationship and process. Some say they must be integrated; others are very careful to keep them separate. Still others suggest the approach should be determined at the operating level.

Formal or not, there clearly is a connection: cooperative service-improvement relationships require discussion of all issues that can affect betterment of the service. Where there is a bargaining relationship, some of these issues are appropriately the subject of collective bargaining and can be resolved through that process or deliberately moved to a separate and distinct second process.

More attention is needed to explore some effective ways to appropriately relate quality improvement issues with the bargaining issues in ways that are respectful of local circumstances. What are the different methods of linkage that are effective under varying circumstances? In non-bargaining settings, how are changes in working conditions, the personnel system or classification system determined in the move toward quality improvement?

5. Bargainable issues

As noted throughout this report, it is very important that the parties be able to discuss and delve into any issues that affect service improvement. In the examples noted, this has included scheduling, equipment configurations, leave policies, classification systems, cost allocations, technologies for delivering the service and more. Where a cooperative relationship is in place, the range of issues explored and the ability of the parties to responsibly handle the information is quite impressive.

Recognizing that the scope of bargaining is often a controversial topic, this report has sought to point out the importance of opening up the possibilities for discussion and not artificially restricting the ability of the parties to address service improvement needs. At the same time, this report has recognized the importance of respecting the duties and responsibilities of elected and appointed officials and mission mandates of an agency.

But much of the typical debate focuses on prerogatives -- on the part of both parties -- with insufficient consideration of how to establish a range and depth of discussion that will best promote service. Also, the possibilities for discussion that neither advantage or disadvantage either party seem different in a cooperative, participatory, collective bargaining relationship than in a traditional relationship.

Beneath the legislative and legal arguments are practical ways that parties are finding to engage in service-focused discussion. By studying those who have been successful, perhaps ideas for a more effective, less controversial balance could be advanced for more general use. With the criteria of service delivery as part of the discussion of bargaining scope, and surrounded by practices in which participation and service improvement are linked, perhaps some careful observation and research can be fruitful. Service focus has allowed other knotty problems, such as in civil service reform, to receive renewed, non-rhetorical attention.

6. Developing better financial measurement instruments and budgeting practices to better support service improvement

In order to gauge service improvements, it is critical that a jurisdiction be able to measure their costs and quality. If a city is trying to improve services, it needs to know how much it costs and be able to measure improvements. Otherwise, it will be impossible to tell if the actual changes really do save money, are better than before or are more expensive to provide than the private sector. Some places are beginning to reform the ways cost and quality data is collected.

More needs to be done in this area. More sophisticated cost and quality measurement methodology that is integrated with budget systems probably needs to be developed. This area requires attention by financial professionals, such as accounting firms, professional associations and others.

Many other issues in budget practices are being examined by the Soglin Committee with the Government Finance Officers Association. This study and other efforts like it should be encouraged and examined for results.

7. Skills that front-line workers need to participate effectively

To ensure successful cooperative relationships that work over the long run, workers will need to acquire training to become better able to make judgments about ways to streamline work practices, improve customer services and enhance job performance. It is clear that the most effective training comes when workers and their unions play a partnership role in identifying the necessary skills and help plan for the development of these skills. Where done in partnership, the results have normally been gratifying and the more practical and effective the partnership.

The better educated and trained workers and their union leaders become, the more confident, willing and able they will be participate in actions to modify or change in work practices. This training extends into numerous areas, such as how to engage in interest-based negotiations, joint-problem-solving, process analysis, general skills improvement, learning a new job or learning about important organizational systems that assist their ability to participate in redesign or daily decisions. Sometimes, training in very basic skills in communication, calculations, analysis or similar issues is a necessity. In other instances, it may be necessary that workers be kept current on the latest technological or knowledge advancements that serve to increase productivity in their area of responsibility.

In short, as jobs are redesigned, workers will need a range of training options to allow them to continue to be productive and motivated employees over the long term.

Serious study needs to be given to what kind of training workers need in order to perform most effectively in a range of situations. Is there some training that should be considered basic, regardless of task or location? What are the forms of more advanced training? What is the most effective way to deliver this training and encourage workers to participate?

8. Skills that managers and supervisors need to participate effectively

Many organizations need to alter selection and development policies, training and opportunities for managers and supervisors in order to ensure their ability to face change and support participation in a cooperative setting. Identification of the necessary skills could aid in training, selecting and developing managers who can effectively participate, just as parallel training helps the workers and their union leaders.

9. Overcoming resistance of mid-level managers and supervisors

The Task Force found that mid-level managers and supervisors often are resistant to participative approaches. This mid-rank resistance often is paralleled within the union ranks by mid-level leaders.

When organizational hierarchies become flattened as a result of participative work arrangements, in many cases middle managers and supervisors find threats to their stature and security, confusion over their new roles and a lack of input into the change process.

This is an area needing further understanding and ideas for its resolution. It would be very useful to have more facts regarding the attitudes of those affected so that these issues can be handled more effectively and incorporated into the overall approach.

10. Difficulties arising from serving front-line workers and supervisors in the same bargaining unit and other unit-related issues

This issue is related to the preceding one. In some unionized situations, bargaining units include both front-line workers, supervisors and managers in the same unit. Where supervisory roles are being threatened, this situation may present an apparent dilemma for bargaining unit representatives, especially when front-line workers argue that certain supervisory or mid-level management positions are unnecessary and obstruct their ability to get the job done effectively. This puts the union representatives in the difficult and uncomfortable position of not adequately representing one group or the other.

The Task Force also observed that in unionized settings, many cooperative relationships were between management and a coalition of unions in the jurisdiction rather than through one-to-one dealings. This phenomenon merits examination in terms of its impact on successful service-oriented partnerships. Additionally, some careful observations of patterns in bargaining unit construction or interaction which contribute to cooperation would be useful.

11. Impact of new pay systems and recognition programs

Many jurisdictions have pay systems that adapt very well to labor-management cooperation. However, the Task Force saw evidence of two new ways of compensating and motivating people stemming from several improvement projects. Both approaches are intriguing and deserve further study.

Gainsharing and team-based performance: Gainsharing has the benefit of shifting people's focus from spending to saving and promotes greater common accountability to do things better. It also shifts the focus from individual performance to team performance. Gainsharing and other team-based methods of compensation deserve more research and observation on such aspects as: what practices are working; how are the systems best developed; what is the impact of employee or union involvement in the efficacy and effectiveness of the system; what kinds of formulae are working; what is the impact of gainsharing on individual and team motivation and performance; what is the relationship between gainsharing and service quality; what is the impact on cost-effectiveness; and, what are the impacts on pay or real wages?

Skill-based systems and individual pay-for-performance systems vs. team-based measures and incentives: The Task Force observed a handful of jurisdictions, such as Mercer Island, Washington, that have developed a way to compensate individuals based less upon traditional job classification methods and more upon what the individual contributes to the work of the organization through increased skills.

Those who have implemented this approach are very enthusiastic. However, there is a long history in the public -- and private -- sector of difficulties in trying to manage and administer individual compensation measurements of performance and skills.

This approach implies sophisticated systems of measurement, criteria and an ability to make assessments that are considered fair by workers as well as management. In an era where team work is being increasingly emphasized, this is a system that rewards individual performance and thus presents a potential drawback. These new approaches nonetheless merit examination. The Task Force urges caution when moving forward with implementation of such individual- or skills-based systems to ensure that proposed changes are based on a rigorous examination of results and the implementation issues, and that existing systems working effectively are not sacrificed for pursuit of an interesting trend.

The Task Force also observed that non-monetary recognition as well as financial rewards, most often on a team basis, is being used to demonstrate appreciation and improve the quality of worklife. An evaluation of the various forms being used, and how individual and team recognition figure respectively into the mix and what measurements are being used, would help spread the most effective practices.

12. Shifting role of human resource and labor relations professionals

Traditionally, personnel experts or labor negotiators have primary responsibility for handling labor relations. Most successful workplace partnerships examined by the Task Force emphasized greater involvement of line managers in employee relations and less focus on formal systems. For cooperation to work, line or program managers who influence resources and make day-to-day decisions must be more involved in personnel and labor relations in order to help share that authority from the practical perspective of the workplace. This has many implications for the role of labor relations and human resource managers in terms of their new relationship with line managers.

Research and observation would be beneficial on the most important aspects of these new roles as well as how the transition to a new relationship can be made successfully. A similar analysis would be valuable in examining changes in the role of union stewards and other officers and how those roles can best be carried out and implemented in the context of cooperative, service-oriented partnerships.

13. Impacts of contracting out

The Task Force saw cooperative structures producing cost and quality results equivalent to and better than results produced by competitive proposals from private business. The Task Force also observed contracting out being used effectively as part of an overall strategy of service improvement, usually in the context of a collective bargaining relationship. Along the way, many questions and concerns were raised by observers. As experience develops with contracting out and with using alternatives, such as the labor-management partnership, the longer term results could be compared and the ancillary affects examined.

It might be particularly interesting to examine two types of experiences. First, in instances where labor and management have developed a level playing field and approach contracting out within the context of a constructive relationship, what are the results and what means were employed? How does the experience and results compare to other settings? Second, what can we learn about the differences between contracting situations outside of a working arrangement with employees about how it would be done, and those that are the product of an understanding about the practice?

In either case, what are the cost and quality implications? What are the effects on the workforce, its size, productivity, income and attitude? To what extent does cost shifting take place? What is the impact of integrating contracted services with in-house services? What is the impact of different kinds of contracting out decisions on labor-management cooperation?

The research agenda in this arena is rich, and the volume of the debate cries out for careful research, facts, and evaluation.

14. Alternative Dispute Resolution

ADR has been a subject of research in recent years, perhaps more so than many of the other topics in this section. Nevertheless, its use in resolving grievances and other disputes merits further observation as parties develop interesting means to address their local circumstances. Also useful to examine is the effect of improved dispute resolution practices on other parts of the service improvement process and other dimensions of the workplace relationship.

Finally, to the extent that mediation and arbitration systems are developed, as described in Appendix H in connection with rights under public law, these efforts should be carefully tracked and compared.

15. Resources

The public record of Task Force activities includes completed questionnaires from some 54 jurisdictions as well as summarized testimony and full-hearing tapes and volumes of materials submitted by participants regarding their particular partnerships. Contact names of those who appeared before the Task Force and sites visited are listed in Appendix D. The Task Force invites interested parties to utilize these resources.

It also is anticipated that the State and Local Government Labor-Management Committee, which brings together major national-level public employer and union organizations concerned with labor relations in state and local government, will develop additional information and resources that will assist with further learning and inquiry. (For more information regarding the work of this Committee, see Appendix F.)

16. Laboratories

George Taylor, a pioneer in public labor-management relations, suggested many years ago that the states, developing unique systems to match local circumstances, could be "laboratories for experimentation." As different cooperative workplace relationships are developed in state or local government, results should be analyzed for lessons that can be replicated. The agenda is much broader than suggested here. It is important for states not only to examine their own activities, but also that states, associations, unions, universities and other research institutions work to make comparisons and examine the range of activities going on.

The practice and improvement of state-by-state bargaining practices and workplace activities supporting participation has suffered from insufficient sharing and comparisons, as well as from insufficient activity and interest in recent years. The Task Force hopes that the examples it has uncovered will remind potential observers of the importance and promise of excellence in the public sector.