Imagine this. The personnel manager calls a meeting with the union committee one day and makes the following announcement:

“Because of increased external and internal competition, we have to make some changes around here. Starting next week, we will begin to implement direct flow technology with elements of kaizan layered in. We’ll all work together on this so the self- directed teams will begin immediately to exercise their empowerment and direct the reorganization.”

The union committee says “What?”

To which the boss replies, “We don’t know the details of what this means, it’s up to the employees, but to help facilitate the process we have hired the consulting firm of Speedum & Up. They will facilitate the entire process.”

What does the union do when the employer approaches the union with a management scheme like this or like any of the others that the UE Steward has outlined in the last two issues?

1. Stop, think, analyze;
2. Assert the union’s rights as collective bargaining agent;
3. Ask questions, and demand answers;
4. Analyze and figure out what the employer really wants;
5. Discuss problem with the union members, stewards, national union representatives;
6. Educate the union members, stewards if necessary;
7. Decide what the union wants, and make a plan;
8. Negotiate with the employer and get an agreement in writing.

If the employer bypasses the union and begins to implement a new program, then the union must immediately go to step two and assert the union’s rights as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent.

The employer should not be meeting directly with employees or with selected groups of employees if they are discussing anything that could impact wages, hours, and conditions of employment. They must first meet with the union committee. Be assertive about this. Demand that the meetings cease until they meet with the union. Do not agree that they will allow the union to sit in on the meetings as they happen. If the employer goes ahead and starts holding the meetings, then file a grievance (file it as a violation of the Recognition Clause/refusal to recognize the union) and attend the meetings so the union knows what is going on.

Now for some details on the steps listed above.

1. Stop, think, analyze

When the employer approaches the union about implementing a new program, the union committee must insist upon having time to sit down and think about what the employer has proposed. Employers will often try to rush the union into making a decision, thus hoping to get the union involved before it knows what is going on. One ploy of employers is to say they really don’t know what they want, they just want to try something different. Employers know exactly what they want, count on that. In contract negotiations the union usually takes a caucus after the employer makes a proposal, to discuss among the committee what the proposal really means. This is no different.

2. Assert the union’s rights as collective bargaining agent

Make sure the employer understands that no changes will be made to existing conditions without the union’s approval. Depending on past practice and specific contract language, the employer might be able to make some changes, but major changes in production methods usually run into contractual language. This gives the union power. If you’re unsure about the rights the union has, contact the UE Field Organizer assigned to your Local.

3. Ask questions, and demand answers

Get as much information as you can in writing. Often times they will have a manual that has been prepared for them by some consulting company. Demand a copy. These manuals are often very frank in stating what the employer should get out of the program. It might describe exactly how they will speed-up production, eliminate employees, or bust the union. Ask as many questions as you can and follow-up in writing. Make the employer reveal their intentions. Ask for names of other employers that have implemented this program.

The employer has answers, don’t let them kid you. If you think the program could cause changes in the production flow, ask to see the plans for redesigning the work flow. If the employer insists that they have no preconceived plans, that they don’t know what they want, tell them to come back to us when they do know what they want. Does the employer want better quality, faster production, cheaper production, better delivery of services? If they tell us what they want perhaps we can do something, BUT we will want guarantees in return. NO layoffs, no job cuts, no sub-contracting, no anti-union campaigns, higher pay, more training, job security, etc.

4. Analyze and figure out what the employer really wants

Once the union has gathered as much information as possible it is time to sit down and analyze what the employer wants. There are many factors to take into account.

If the employer has a history of anti-union behavior, then it is reasonable to be suspicious of any proposal they make. Do they really have a problem with quality that they want to fix, or is this just an excuse to start quality circles to divide the union members?

Make a list of what is good about the program (if anything) and what union members should be concerned about.

For example. The employer proposes a “pay for knowledge” program, where the more jobs a worker learns the more pay he/she receives. To many workers this sounds good. Extra pay is always welcome and finally the employer is willing to provide on-the-job-training.

The union lists the problems. What if a senior employee doesn’t want to learn extra jobs? Who gets laid off, a less senior employee with multiple skills or the senior employee with only one skill? Who gets the extra training? Does it go by seniority? Does everyone get extra training if they want it and get extra pay all the time? Does the employer really just want to offer this to his pets? With many multi-skilled workers who can be transferred to many jobs, will this cause permanent layoffs?

5. Discuss problem with the union members, stewards, national union representatives

The national union can provide many resources to help the local analyze the problem and come up with a plan of action. There are workshops available on cell manufacturing, Just in Time and other programs. It is important to get input from the union stewards and members as to what they think is going on. The committee must know if the supervisors are out working the floor, making promises to the membership. The strength of the union comes from its unity and organization. If members, officers and stewards are running in different directions, then we lose.

6. Educate the union members, stewards if necessary

Often times the employer’s plan may sound good to the membership. Vague promises of more money or job security get inflated when they are run through the rumor mill. The union may have to conduct an educational campaign as to the real nature of the employer’s proposal. Meetings, leaflets and lots of work by the stewards may be necessary to keep the membership united and on the right track.

7. Decide what the union wants, and make a plan.

If the union decides that the best approach is to just say “no,” then that is the plan. The union will have to be prepared for the employer not taking “no” for an answer. This can work if the membership is unified and understands what the employer is really up to. Part of any plan, the most important part, will be to figure out ways that the membership can express its opinion. Stickers, buttons, rallies are very important.

Often times we need a more complicated plan. The employer might have contractual language that will allow them to implement their plan. If that is the case then the union needs to figure out what to do to safeguard the members. The plan must include how the members will be involved in the company program.

In one UE shop the employer wanted department teams to make plans for improving production. The union’s demands were as follows:

• The union membership elected team members and could recall an elected team member.
• The union officers and department steward could attend every meeting.
• Union members could meet in caucus without management or a consultant present.
• The teams could not implement any changes in the department without a membership vote.
• No changes could lead to any layoffs.
• Any changes that affected the contract had to be negotiated by the union committee and voted upon by the membership.

What the employer really wanted was speed-up and layoffs and thus was stymied by the union’s conditions on participation. The “teams” soon disappeared.

Be bold in making plans. Make a list of every demand that will safeguard the members. Don’t be bashful about adding them to the list.

Make additional demands. If the employer wants the union’s help on setting up a cell then perhaps the employer should also be willing to talk about improving the pension. Employers don’t wait until contract negotiations to make demands, neither should the union. The union can demand that the employer invest in new equipment and machinery or hire more employees.

8. Negotiate with the employer and get an agreement in writing.

Oral promises aren’t worth much. If the employer’s intentions are “honorable,” then they shouldn’t be afraid to put commitments in writing. A no-layoff pledge isn’t worth anything if it was just a vague promise. The agreements should come before the program starts. Once the program has started and members are involved it will be hard to make the employer sit down and negotiate.

• 
• The above article is used with permission and grateful appreciation from the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)
  www.ueunion.org 

Every month it seems like there’s a new management scheme introduced to the workforce. Like hula hoops, these fads come and go, but some have been around for awhile now. Even though many of these terms refer to manufacturing, a good number have been adopted for use in the service sector:

Cell Manufacturing

All the machines used to manufacture similar products are grouped together in a given area, instead of separate departments for each type of machine. Supposed to cut down on material moving and workers, by having workers cross-trained to run more than one type of machine or perform more than one function.

Just in Time (JIT)

A production system that does not use inventory. Products and parts are produced only when they are ordered and needed. Companies save money by having no inventory on hand. Since there is no inventory, workers can have a lot of control over the production process and therefore over the employer. Most JIT systems use heavy brainwashing so workers won’t use their power over the employer.

Direct Flow Technology

A variation of a Just in Time production system. Products are only produced when they are ordered, in the exact number that was ordered.

High Performance Workplace

A system where the union works with the management to cross-train everyone on skilled jobs and agrees that all non-skilled work can be farmed out to low wage shops.

ISO 9000

A standardized system of measuring quality, developed in Europe to ensure everyone was using the same standards. US companies that want to sell in Europe need ISO certification. ISO stands for “International Standards Organization.” In the US companies usually try to add team concept, or Just in Time and claim it is required under ISO regulations.

Kaizan

A Japanese system basically developed at Toyota Co. It means continuously improving production to make it more efficient. This usually means all idle time is filled with running machines.

Kanban

Originally a Japanese term for a sign that indicated a need for more parts to be produced. It is one of the many forms of Just in Time production.

KITA

A management by stress program developed by GE. It constantly moves workers around and lays off workers. It really means “A Kick in the Ass.”

Lean Production

When employers say they want “lean production” it means they want speed-up, job combinations and to do away with all “non-productive” workers, like inspectors, janitors, material movers etc. The remaining workers have to do it all. Lean production is often used to describe all the types of various management schemes.

Management by Stress

This theory reasons that improvements only come about when there is a certain amount of tension in the workplace. Bosses create this tension by constantly demanding more, in less time, with fewer employees. They also create tension by demanding changes in how work is done, even if no change is really needed. A by-product of “management by stress” is also known as “workplace violence.”

Pay for Knowledge

A system where workers get paid more as they become cross-trained and learn other jobs. This tends to compress job classifications into a few large categories so workers can be transferred to any job in the classification. It often fails because the employer wants to pick and choose who gets trained.

Push-Pull Systems

A “pull” system means that manufacturing is only done when orders come in. The orders “pull” the product through the factory. Direct Flow systems are “pull” systems. A “push” system refers to a company pushing parts and products through the production process whether or not they have orders.

Quality Circles

Workers form circles to discuss with the boss ways to improve quality. Bosses use this to get workers to complain about each other and to by-pass the union structure.

Self-Directed Workforce

A program where employers get rid of foremen and make the workers manage themselves. This can be fun if all the workers agree not to rat each other out.

Six Sigma

A program of statistical process control developed by Motorola and expanded upon by GE which is pitched as a way to cut defects and eliminate rework. Through process mapping and other techniques, the objective is for the company to gain complete knowledge and “control” of the work process. This leads to increased standardization of jobs, less reliance on the skill and knowledge of the workers, and helps pave the way for the transfer, speed-up and elimination of work.

Statistical Process Control (SPC)

A system where workers carefully document how their machine runs and all the steps they take to produce a product. This is supposed to help maintain quality, but usually it is used to eliminate in process quality inspectors.

Team Concept

A variation of quality circles. Workers form teams in each work area and compete with other teams to produce the most for the boss. This usually comes with heavy brainwashing sessions on why workers and the employer should be buddies.

Win-Win Bargaining

A supposedly non-confrontational form of negotiations. Neither side is supposed to prepare an agenda or demands. The problem is, the boss always has an agenda.

WorkOut

A GE program ostensibly designed to encourage “boundaryless” behavior by encouraging open group discussion of work-related issues between workers and management. In reality, it is a means by which the company accesses the workers’ ideas and knowledge of their jobs to cut costs and to ratchet up productivity. Also known by GE workers as the “out of work” program.

Worker Empowerment

A term bosses use when they want workers to help them improve quality and speed-up production. Having the power to speed-up work is supposed to make workers feel “empowered.” Worker empowerment does not apply to deciding on who gets the profits, setting work schedules, deciding what country to produce in, or any other item that really matters.

• 
• The above article is used with permission and grateful appreciation from the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)
  www.ueunion.org 

Sally, the department Steward, went into the manager’s office. “We have to talk about your supervisor Ralph. He’s out there threatening Ella if she doesn’t do work outside of her department.” Benito, the shift manager, said, “I’m the one who told him to get Ella off her butt and to move that delivery. I don’t have time to talk about this now–see me tomorrow.” “No way,” said Sally. “We’re going to talk about this now.” “Oh yeah?” snarled Benito, “Get out of my office or I’ll have you fired for insubordination also.”

Management loves power. The ability to threaten workers with punishment for being insubordinate is a tool that many managers use to enforce their power.

For many union folks, the whole idea of workers being punished for being “insubordinate” to bosses is insulting and discriminatory. This is one topic where the class bias of labor law becomes clear. Management is considered better than workers and workers are considered inferior to management. It is degrading and openly biased against the working class, but we have to deal with it. More on this later.

What is Insubordination?

Here is how one management document describes insubordination:

Insubordination is a deliberate and inexcusable refusal to obey a reasonable order which relates to an employee’s job function.

Employees may not decide for themselves which instructions they will follow and which they will not.

This is how most arbitrators or the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would describe insubordination. BUT there are different levels of insubordination and the behavior of management often has an impact on whether the actions of an employee are considered insubordinate or not.

Guideline to Use When Investigating an Employer Charge of Insubordination

There are two basic tests for insubordination. (1) Was the worker given a clear direct order to do something? (2) Did the worker clearly know the consequences of refusing the direct order?

This usually means the management person giving the direct order must tell the worker what will happen if they refuse the order. This does not mean that the boss can immediately give a worker a direct order with the threat of punishment and not have to listen to the worker’s objections. Employees do have the right to question and argue about an order given by their boss.

It is not insubordination if a manager tells a worker to do something and the worker responds by asking questions or giving their reasons why they shouldn’t have to do what the boss wants.

It is not insubordination if the worker asks to have a Steward present to explain to management how the order given violates the union contract.

It is not insubordination if following the direct order will immediately put the worker or other workers’ lives in danger. The threat of physical harm, however, has to be real and immediate.

It is not usually insubordination if the management person giving the order is not the worker’s normal boss or part of the “chain of command” that the worker would normally have to follow. Rather than just refusing the order of the management person, the worker should insist upon finding his/her regular supervisor and having them make the decision as to what the worker should be doing.

It may become insubordination if the worker consistently refuses to do what the boss wants after being directly ordered to go perform the task.

It may be insubordination if the worker does not argue with management but never does what he/she has been ordered to do.

What should a worker do if following the order management gives will cause damage to a machine, produce a poor product or result in inferior services provided? The worker should clearly point out to management what the bad results of their order will be and ask for a witness to hear the warning the worker is giving management. If the worker does this then they generally cannot be disciplined for the resulting damage or inferior product/services.

If a worker is charged with insubordination, the Steward should perform an investigation of the situation surrounding the events. Sometimes workers who have been charged with insubordination because they talked back to managers have been cleared when the investigation revealed that a manager harassed them. However, in some of those cases they were still disciplined because they used profanity.

“Shop talk,” such as profanity or the use of salty language, is not automatically grounds for insubordination. Here again there are many factors involved. How much shop talk goes on, on a regular basis? Do managers use shop talk? Do managers and workers use shop talk when talking to each other? Even though there may be shop talk as part of the regular day-to-day life of the workplace, a worker may be charged with insubordination if he/she uses an excessive amount towards a supervisor after having been asked to do something.

In another example of class bias in dealing with insubordination, arbitrators look at whether or not the supposed insubordination takes place in front of other workers. Because they believe that the management person is the “master,” they tend to rule more harshly against workers if the “master” is ridiculed or disobeyed in front of other “servants.” In some cases arbitrators have ruled against workers when they bragged to other workers about what they called the boss in private.

Stewards and Insubordination

In relation to insubordination, Stewards have a special status. The NLRB has ruled that “when stewards are engaged in representational activities they are considered equals with management.” This means that when Stewards are dealing with management as a Steward (not as an individual), they can engage in robust disagreement with a boss. Stewards have a right to vigorously pursue an argument with management.

However, Stewards should take note of the General Motors NLRB ruling issued in July 2020. This new ruling “recognizes employers’ right to maintain order and respect.” It further says, “It is reasonable for employers to expect employees to engage all such [concerted activities] with a modicum of civility.” Until this ruling is overturned, Stewards should be cautious about using salty language in meetings with management.

What about Ella and Sally?

The situation with Ella is a classic case of a boss harassing a worker, but Ella needs to be careful since she was given a direct order and told what will happen to her if she refuses. On the other hand Ella has a right to argue her case and the boss clearly jumped the gun by threatening her right away.

Sally is in her right to stay in the boss’s office and continue arguing the case. She is in a grievance situation and therefore Benito cannot just dismiss her and refuse to discuss the situation. His threatening of her is also a violation of the NLRA, because a Steward cannot be threatened for doing her duty to represent workers. It is probably also a violation of the contract which says there will be no discrimination against the Union.

The Savvy Steward: “Obey Now — Grieve Later”

Here is another blatantly class-biased ruling that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued almost immediately after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1936. There is nothing in the law nor in the debate in Congress that states that management is superior to labor and that management orders take preference over labor agreements. Nevertheless, that is what this rule, that we are all too familiar with, states.

Workers are expected to obey management, even if what management clearly wants to do is illegal under the contract, and then afterwards the workers can file a grievance.

How did this come about? The members of the NLRB looked to past legal precedent, rather than what the new law actually said, when they made this ruling. In their minds the master-servant relationship between bosses and workers was clearly established in this country.

The notion of insubordination calls us to look back at the horrendous specter of slavery and oppression. Here is what the Virginia law “An Act Concerning Servants and Slaves” said in 1705:

…all servants shall faithfully and obediently, all the whole time of their service, do all their masters or owners just and lawful commands. And if any servant shall resist the master, or mistress, or overseer, or offer violence to any of them, the said servant shall, for every such offence, be adjudged to serve his or her said master or owner, one whole year after the time, by indenture, custom, or former order of court, shall be expired.

The law provided this type of punishment, along with whipping, for servants who were poor English or Irish workers. African slaves who disobeyed their masters could be murdered and the masters were, by this law, absolved of all charges.

It was this type of “law” that helped establish how bosses are allowed to treat workers today. However, a strong steward system enforcing a good union contract is the way workers can win some measure of fair treatment in the workplace.

• 
• The above article is used with permission and grateful appreciation from the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)
  www.ueunion.org