For Better Labor Relations, Try Employee Engagement

Amid the volumes of stories written lately about the GOP takeover of the U.S. House, one item captured the pettiness of the political classes and special interests that claim to be working in our best interests.

The Hill reports that one of the first acts of the newly empowered House Republicans was to remove the word "Labor" from the committee formerly known as the House Education and Labor Committee. For the next two years that committee will be known as the House Education and Workforce Committee.

Labor relations remain one of the most contentious issues in healthcare, affecting the lives of millions of people who work in this nation's hospitals and other provider settings. The search for common ground is a daily battle that is critical to successful healthcare delivery. In the larger economy, there are about 15 million unemployed people in the United States – many of them jobless for several months, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These people are hurting. And the first action by a key House committee that is supposed to address relations between management and labor, and the plight of the unemployed is to remove the word "labor" from the committee name. Wow! That'll fix 'em!

In what could be interpreted as just a wee bit of hyperbole, Chuck Loveless, director of legislation at the American Federation of County, State and Municipal Employees, told The Hill "this name change is symbolic of the new majority's hostility toward the rights of everyday working Americans."

No, Mr. Loveless. It's just politics — returning favors to the people who donated money to get you elected. Both sides do it.

Alexa Marrero, a spokeswoman for the House Education and the Workforce Committee, coyly feigned bewilderment at labor's objections to the name change when she told The Hill that the unions' claim that the name change reflected hostility toward workers was "bizarre" because union members are part of the workforce. She said Republicans changed the panel's name to reflect its "broad jurisdiction over polices that affect American students, workers, and retirees."

Not exactly Kumbaya. And this is just the first week.

We could go back and forth about which side started this hostility. It wouldn't settle anything. For every point or past grievance one side brings up, no doubt, the other side will have a counterpoint. This has been going on for decades and it's not going to change. President Obama used recess appointments to stack the National Labor Relations Board with union cronies, for example, but only after the board was run for years by management-friendly appointees under President Bush. 

Here's the problem: The rest of us have to muddle through with the actions of these highly charged partisans whose first order of business is to destroy the middle ground. These actions fuel rancor, distrust, divisiveness — and paranoia — and set a terrible example for union-management cooperation that people in the real world have to strive for.  

Many management consultants on labor issues — while obviously not enamored of unions— also understand that hard-headed, heel-digging opposition and denial on the part of management are not good strategies for keeping unions at bay. Employee engagement is far more effective. Jay Krupin, a veteran labor relations attorney, told me recently, "Employees only go to unions when they feel the employer is not listening. Unions don't organize employees, managers do."

Unions are a reality, they have a proud tradition of standing up for working people, they've indisputably improved the lives of tens of millions of people, and they are here to stay, particularly in healthcare. Deal with it.

However, unions lose public support when their top priority is perceived to be self-preservation of their members — particularly senior leaders — at the expense of raising standards and the common good. Teachers' unions have been particularly and effectively maligned for this. But healthcare unions will run the risk as well if they're not careful. Is the push for mandatory staffing ratios for nurses fueled by a genuine desire for better care, for example, or a savvy strategy to sign up more dues-paying union members? Are unions truly interested in employee engagement with management, or do they resist engagement because it weakens "them-against-us" organizing efforts?

There's nothing wrong with debating the management-labor relationship, and taking a firm stance on one side or the other.  At some point, however, even capitalist stalwarts such as Henry Ford realized that compromise has to be brokered or nothing gets done.  Most people outside of Congress understand this.

In Congress, however, politicians and special interest lobbyists are so intent on gridlock, turf wars, maintaining the status quo, and appealing to their hyper-partisan bases that they have no interest in compromise. In fact, they're encouraged not to compromise; praised for their resolve when they're inflexible, and scorned by true believers when they cede ground. These are the people who are supposed to lead us.

In the real world responsible people — managers and staff — work in common purpose to meet timelines, budgets and other important responsibilities. They are held accountable if they don't. They shouldn't look to Congress for leadership. They should look to themselves.