JohnLarue said:
/
1. I did not explicitly state the companies woes were all down to the union.
That point is not relevant and in the case I am thinking of I can not state with 100% certainty it was.
2. What is relevant was that the management was open and honest with the union about the consequences of the unions demands,their negotiating position and management tried to save the jobs
3. Opening the books to the unions???
Some companies (publicly traded) may not have an issue, however
a) It implies right off the bat the unions lack of trust, not a good starting point for negotiating & certainly not the foundation for a partnership
b) its insulting
c) it also opens the door for unions to start dictating how the company is run
ie. suggesting cutting back on promotional expenses or management salaries in order to meet certain union demands
Then who is really running the company?
No that is a non-starter for many smaller privately owned companies.
4. The real issue here was the management was honest & open telling the union what was going to happen if they stuck to their demands & it played out exactly as described.
I do not blame the unions for what happened to this company, I do blame them for losing their own jobs.
Its was time to wake up to reality
This scenario has been repeated many times
You've done a tidy job of how the scenario ran from the company's point of view. But when you're trying to get an agreement, you have to be prepared to give up your point of view, listen to the other guy's (who likewise will have to give up his) and find something together that you both can go forward with. Anything else is force of one kind or another, not agreement. So here's my little version of what the union's PoV might have been.
!.Company's not doing so great, hasn't been for awhile, history's not good. haven't seen any improvements in awhile
2.Company says it's being open and honest, and trying to negociate, but the bottom line is they want us to do the same work—maybe even more work—for less take-home, or at best the same as three years ago. That's all they want to talk about and all they're willing to hear is "OK". When they say, "Take it or we tank and no one has a job" that's not honesty, that's a threat, just another bargaining ploy, and not the first time we've heard it.
3.How you show that's not a ploy but the real deal is you open the books. It's how you convince the taxman, why not your workers, the one's you're asking to make a sacrifice as if they were partners in success and failure? Why not?
a) because you don't trust the union. So why help a company that doesn't trust us?
b) refusing is insulting; a partner who doesn't get the whole story's as good as a dummy
c) it could be when we see how much this or that procedure or facility actually costs the company we could finally get them to see how it could be done cheaper/faster/better. Or where they might save enough to keep wages up. Not dictating to the company, the way they're dictating the 'only solution' to survival, but partnering, like they say they want us to. It's a way of getting better work and better management by getting everyone on board. But the insecure who aren't really sure they deserve to be managers, like the owner's son in a small firm, for them that's a non-starter.
Anyway, "trust us" didn't work, how else are you gonna convince the union you're being open and honest about how ruinous their demands will be?
4. Like a jilted lover threatening suicide, it's easy for management to set out an ultimatum to its union then blame the demise on their refusal to give in, but that don't make it so. When I hear the other side saying, "we tried and tried, everyone knew it was life or death, but in the end no one had a solution that would work" then I'll believe in your virtuous management.
But anyone who says, "Trust me, we'll hafta close the plant unless you drop those demands" is threatening, not negociating, and threats are what they'll get back. Takes two to partner and two to fight. And when did anyone ever advise you to just knuckle under and take it rather than fight?
Which would be why you don't get to priase the union in your example for 'knuckling under' and keeping their jobs. They saw a management ready to fight, and they stood up.
