Form Labor-Management Partnerships For Success

Form Labor-Management Partnerships for Success

Background

The federal service labor-management relations statute, Title VII of the
Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978, provided the authority for
employees to unionize, bargain collectively, and participate with agency
management in making decisions that affect their working conditions.
Prior to enactment of the statute, the federal labor management
relations program was authorized by a series of Executive Orders. The
statute was a blend of policies and approaches from Executive Order and
the law governing labor-management relations in the private sector, the
National Labor Relations Act.

Title VII of CSRA recognizes that "labor organizations and collective
bargaining in the public service are in the public interest";
establishes the Federal Labor Relations Authority to administer the
program, issue policy decisions, and adjudicate labor-management
disputes; prohibits strikes and lockouts; prohibits agency shop or fair
share representational fees; and prohibits bargaining on issues that are
the focus of most private sector bargaining such as wages, fringe
benefits, and issues related to hiring, firing, promoting and retaining
employees.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) summarizes the differences between
the federal labor-management relations program and the labor- management
relations program in the nonfederal sector as follows:

Bread and butter issues, such as wages, fringe benefits, and any of many
other issues relating to hiring, firing, promoting, and retaining
employees, which are the focus of private sector bargaining, generally
cannot be negotiated in federal contracts.  . .  . [F]ederal sector
bargaining has been generally limited to the way personnel policies,
practices, and procedures are implemented.  Traditional bargaining
incentives, i.e., strikes and lockouts, are prohibited. Agency shop or
fair share representation fees, are prohibited. Under the federal
program, employees are entitled to select a union to represent them, but
they cannot be compelled to join or pay a fee for the representation
that the union is required to provide.(1)

Currently, about 60 percent of the federal workforce--1.3 million
employees--are represented by federal unions; 80 percent of the
employees who are eligible for union participation are represented by an
employee union. They are represented by approximately 125 labor
organizations in approximately 2,200 bargaining units. The three largest
federal employee unions are the American Federation of Government
Employees, which represents more than 600,000 employees; the National
Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represents more than 150,000
employees; and the National Federation of Federal Employees, which
represents approximately 150,000 employees.(2)

Need for Change

The federal workforce is changing. While the number of employees has
remained constant for the past 10 years, the workforce has changed in a
variety of other ways: it is much more diverse, with more minorities and
women; it is better educated; it is more mobile; and more employees work
in professional, scientific, and highly technical jobs than ever before.

Consistent with national trends, federal employees want to participate
in decisions that affect their work. Employee involvement is
accomplished through a variety of means including employee unions,
quality circles, quality of work life initiatives, self-managed work
teams, and perhaps most significantly in recent years, Total Quality
Management (TQM).  The rapid expansion of TQM in the federal government
has dramatically increased the opportunities for employee involvement.
GAO reported that 68 percent of federal installations are working on
various phases of TQM, with involvement of about 13 percent of their
employees.(3) TQM experts point out that union- management cooperation
is a prerequisite for a successful TQM program. GAO reported that 59
percent of the installations surveyed reported that employee unions were
involved in TQM implementation.  The National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) cites as an example of labor-management
cooperation the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-NTEU Joint Quality
Improvement Process, which was started in 1987, and which has spread
throughout IRS, resulting in cost savings as well as improved
labor-management relations. NAPA recommends that this success be
replicated.(4)

In a report issued in 1991, GAO concluded that piecemeal technical
revisions to the federal labor-management relations program would not be
appropriate and comprehensive reform was needed. The report noted that
"the federal labor-management relations program is not working well . .
. (1) the program is too adversarial and often bogged down by litigation
over procedural matters and minutiae; (2) some dispute resolution
mechanisms are too lengthy, slow, and complex; and (3) ineffective FLRA
management has weakened the program."(5) These conclusions have been
widely supported, for example, by NAPA in its 1993 report on federal
human resource management.


The following example of traditional bargaining illustrates the current
state of affairs:

. . . traditional negotiation techniques were used to address all term
and mid-term collective bargaining matters. Union and management
developed positions on issues, submitted inflated proposals to each
other, argued vigorously, and concealed the degree of importance they
attached to each proposal in order to demand a significant concession by
the other party to drop any proposal, however inflated or unimportant.
The eventual outcome or agreement was determined through a series of
power plays using a number of different tactics. For example, sometimes
the union or management walked out of the negotiations. Discussions
focused on personalities and anecdotal data rather than the issues. On
occasion, the union picketed to draw attention to its concerns.
Information was withheld by both parties.  Sometimes management ended
the dialogue by merely declaring issues to be nonnegotiable. The net
result of these tactics was a labor- management relationship built on
acrimony, distrust, confrontation, and litigation. Few efforts were made
to resolve problems informally.  Once negotiations were concluded,
problems arising during the administration of negotiated agreements were
usually addressed through grievance procedures or unfair labor practice
charges.(6)

In developing its report, GAO solicited the views of union officials,
management officials, and neutral experts at the national level, as well
as union officials and managers at the local level. To summarize the
views of these participants in the federal labor-management relations
program:

--- Federal collective bargaining has not accomplished the objectives of
the statute. Bargaining processes are too legalistic and adversarial and
too often lead to litigation over procedural matters and minor disputes.

--- Some dispute resolution processes are too slow, lengthy, and
complex.

--- Over two-thirds of the national level officials and experts
supported an agency shop approach whereby employees would be required to
pay fees to the unions that represent them even if they do not belong to
the union. Local-level union officials strongly supported agency shop,
while two-thirds of local-level managers surveyed did not.

--- The greatest divergence of opinion was over the scope of
bargaining--the extent to which working conditions could be negotiated
by union and management. Over half of the agency officials opposed any
change, while all union officials and 80 percent of neutrals supported
increased bargaining rights. At the local level, 96 percent of union
officials wanted a broader scope of bargaining, as did 21 percent of
managers.

--- Most union officials, national and local, and neutral experts agreed
that labor-management relations is a low priority for federal agencies;
management officials disagreed.

--- Agency officials and neutral experts believe that unions file too
many unfair labor practice charges over minor issues, while union
officials claim that the problem is FLRA's failure to take actions to
deter violations by agency officials.

--- Everyone agreed that more attention must be given to cooperative
labor-management relations.

FLRA, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), and a few
individual agencies have been encouraging and facilitating labor-
management cooperation and partnerships in federal labor relations.
However, their efforts have been hampered by a statutory framework that
focuses on the traditional adversarial model.

Given bargaining processes that are too legalistic and adversarial, and
dispute resolution processes that are slow, lengthy, and complex,
virtually all participants consider the federal labor relations programs
to be very costly and ineffective. A comment by one of the experts
interviewed by GAO succinctly illustrates the prevailing view: "We have
never had so many people and agencies spend so much time, blood, sweat,
and tears on so little. In other words, I am saying I think it is an
awful waste of time and money on very little results."(7)

While there is agreement that the program is not cost-effective, it is
difficult to determine the exact cost. Several agencies that were asked
for information about the cost of their labor-management relations
program responded that cost data were not available and that lengthy,
costly studies would be required to determine them. In 1982, GAO
conducted its only study of federal-labor management relations costs,
estimating the cost to the government of processing the 6,448 unfair
labor practices (ULPs) filed in that year to be $25.9 million.(8) The
cost of processing the 8,851 ULPs filed in 1992 must be significantly
greater than $25.9 million.

GAO cited the need for a new labor-management relations framework that
"motivates labor and management to form productive relationships to
improve the public service; makes collective bargaining meaningful;
improves the dispute resolution processes; and is compatible with
innovative human resource management practices that emphasize employee
involvement, team building, and labor-management cooperation."(9)

NAPA supported the GAO recommendation for comprehensive reform,
concluding, "The labor-management relationship is critical for the
employee involvement so vital to organizational change.  Without the
improved participation and communication that comes with greater
employee involvement, efforts at empowerment and commitment will
flounder. Adversarial bargaining on win-lose issues will coexist with
cooperative win-win bargaining. But cooperation will create more forums
for joint problem solving and planning that improve results for both
labor and management, and ultimately the employee and the
organization."(10)

The changes envisioned by the National Performance Review (NPR) will
result in a government composed of high-performing organizations that
are mission-driven and results-oriented with a clear focus on meeting
the needs of customers. Hierarchy will give way to participation and
teamwork. Employees will be highly skilled and motivated, empowered to
make changes and continuously improve the quality of services provided.
The transformation from the current to the desired state of government
can only be achieved by transforming the labor-management relationship
from an adversarial relationship to a partnership for reinvention and
change.

One of the first steps in reform of any system is development of a
vision of the future that key stakeholders are committed to achieve.  A
vision for federal labor-management relations describes the desired
federal government workplace of the future and, within that workplace,
the labor-management relations program that is one of its essential
elements. A group of union officials, managers, and neutral
labor-management experts met with NPR staff to develop the following
vision of labor-management relations in the year 2000.(11)

Vision of Cooperative Labor Management Relations in the Federal
Government

In the future, the federal workforce should be valued as a full partner
in decisionmaking. There should be equal access to information among
management, employees, and unions. As a result, employees will be
involved in decisions that affect them. Where employees are represented
by an employee union, labor and management should be partners in
carrying out the mission of the organization.  Both labor and management
should value diversity.  There should be a shared sense of mission and
values throughout the organization that is understood by everyone.

Federal organizations should be model employers providing the private
sector with exemplary models of high-performing organizations. They
should place authority and decisionmaking at the lowest appropriate
level of the organization--the work unit.  Issues should be resolved
through a single, collaborative process that is not destructive to the
partnership. Given the effectiveness of federal organizations, public
service should be viewed as a desirable career by both current and
potential employees.

There should be a partnership between union and management that enables
government organizations to become high-performing organizations. This,
in turn, should result in high-value, high- quality, effective
government. The purpose of the partnership should be to provide an open
forum for the discussion and resolution of problems, both procedural and
substantive, dealing with conditions of employment that significantly
affect the operation of the organization. Problem resolution should be
accomplished through a deliberate, consensual team approach that is
shaped by the input of all concerned partners rather than through
traditional negotiating postures. The goal is to create an effective
labor-management relationship based upon partnership and trust that
utilizes the strengths of both parties to meet and mutually resolve
issues in a way that enhances the effectiveness of both labor and
management.

Employees, management officials, and union leaders should be
continuously trained in support of the labor-management relationship,
which in turn should lead to creation of high-value, high-performing
government organizations. Training should be provided in the areas of
facilitation, problem-solving, negotiation, leadership, and quality.

Performance should be continuously improved on an organizational and
individual level throughout the entire government; unnecessary conflict
should be avoided; unavoidable conflict should be recognized and
channeled to closure quickly, without animus; and individual and
institutional (i.e., labor-management) cooperation should be encouraged
and rewarded.  The appeals process should be fair, simple,
determinative, fast, and inexpensive. There should be incentives for
labor-management cooperation and strong disincentives for labor or
management to violate the partnership or to fail to settle or resolve
issues within the partnership.

Union effectiveness is one of the cornerstones of the productive
workplace partnership. Union effectiveness requires a strong,
professional, financially secure union that represents the interests of
all employees.

Unions and management should work together as partners to transform the
way organizations are structured, work is performed, and services are
delivered. Management and unions should design systems and solutions to
issues involving efficiency, productivity, quality, and how the job gets
done.  Placement of authority and decisionmaking in the work unit should
be aided by the absence of artificial barriers to bargaining at any
level.

Cross References to Other NPR Accompanying Reports

Department of Labor, DOL03: Expand Negotiated Rulemaking and Improve
Up-front Teamwork on Regulations.

Reinventing Federal Procurement, PROC05: Reform Labor Laws and Transform
the Labor Department into an Efficient Partner for Meeting Public Policy
Goals.

Endnotes

1. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Federal Labor Relations: A
Program in Need of Reform, GAO/GGD-91-101 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
General Accounting Office [GAO], July 1991), p. 14.

2. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Union Recognition and
Agreements in the Federal Government (Washington, D.C., January 1991),
pp. 6-7.

3. U.S. General Accounting Office, Quality Management: Survey of
Federal Organizations, GAO/GGD-93-9BR (Washington, D.C.: GAO, October
1992), p. 2.

4. National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), Leading People in
Change: Empowerment, Commitment, Accountability (Washington, D.C., April
1993), p. 40.

5. GAO, Federal Labor Relations, p. 2.

6. Goodwin, Larry K. "Win-Win Negotiations: A Model for Cooperative
Labor Relations," The Public Manager (Potomac, MD, Summer 1993), p.  19.

7. GAO, Federal Labor Relations, p. 76.

8. U.S. General Accounting Office, Steps Can Be Taken to Improve
Federal Labor-Management Relations and Reduce the Number and Costs of
Unfair Labor Practice Charges, GAO/FPCD-83-5 (Washington, D.C.: GAO,
November 5, 1982), p. 7.

9. GAO, Federal Labor Relations, p. 76.

10. NAPA, pp. 40-41.

11. A problem-solving team was formed under NPR auspices to develop a
vision for the future of the federal workforce and federal-labor
management relations, and make recommendations to achieve the desired
future--more cooperative labor-management relations. Members of the
problem solving team included: Joe Coffee, National Performance Review
(NPR); Brian DeWyngaert, Executive Assistant to the President, American
Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); Frank Ferris, Director of
Negotiations, National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU); Brian Flores,
Deputy Director, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service; Phil Kete,
Staff Attorney, National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE); Frank
Mason, Associate Director, Commodities Directorate, McClellan Air Force
Base; Jean McKee, Chair, Federal Labor Relations Authority; Jerry Ross,
arbitrator; Mark Roth, General Counsel, AFGE; John Sturdivant,
President, AFGE; Jeff Sumberg, Deputy General Counsel, NFFE; Robert
Tobias, President, NTEU; Roy Tucker, NPR; Robert Wenzel, Assistant
Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service; and Ann Wilson, Office of
Personnel Management. Bonnie Kasten, Independent Consultant, served as
facilitator.