Tag Archives: unionism

New mindset and tools for middle managers upon the establishment of a union

Posted on by
3

The mindset of middle managers needs to change upon the establishment of a union. As the union flexes its muscles and establishes its power base, middle management must rethink its role domain and retool. This post related to changes which need to occur in the mindset of middle management.

  • Middle management needs to internalize that managing in a unionized shop is a new ball game. Part of the ball game is that senior management may be broadcasting that “nothing has changed”. Senior management is probably sending out the message: “you keep doing your job and we (whoever that is, probably Legal) will take care of the union”. However, this message is problematic as it illustrates the one of the very reasons why the union was established, eg, arrogance.
  • Over time, most unions become a partner in strategic and operational decision making. The more that management tries to make decisions “above their heads” of the union, the more militant the unions will become. Middle managers need to ensure that they engage their own senior management to avoid being used as an ineffective and damaging way to bypass legitimate union interests.
  • Middle management needs to understand the dynamic of union activity, understand the agendas of the union, build trust and proactively work with the union.  There is no “working around” the union via dealing with the so called “more sane” employees.
  • The employees will always defer to the union, because the union will take better care of them than management. So never bad mouth the union.
  • Partner with the union on a personal level and strategically. Senior managers come and go. The union is “built to last”. So it’s better learn about the new partner-for-life than working to neutralize their power.
  • It takes up to two years for a union leadership to exercise their muscles. But they do get strong and cannot be “managed” by an external legal firm. So learn to respect their interests early on in the game.

 

Share Button

Strategy Shift for HR after the establishment of a union

Posted on by
2

The long struggle against unionization is generally led by internal and external lawyers, board representatives, the CEO, HR and in some cases by a PR firm.

In my country, the last two years have shown that although the struggle against unionization fails, every management team tends to fight the war to prevent it from happening.

After the war against unionization is over and the union is established, the role of HR undergoes a major strategic shift. This post will spell out the suggested strategy shift for Human Resources professionals after unionization is a fact of life.

1) First we need to understand how the battle against unionization is waged.

During the battle against the establishment of a Union, management claims that there are “good guys” and “bad guys”, employees who care about the company and those who want to destroy the company, the noisy minority who wants a union and the silent majority who supposedly does not want a union.

When a union is established, the union becomes the sole voice of labour. So, the first shift in strategy is that HR must work thru the union and only the union, after its establishment. The good guys and all the silent majority become irrelevant. If HR maintains a parallel dialogues with the Union and the staff, the way that the Union operates will be much more militant and brutal.

2) Second, we need to look at the division of labour between Legal and HR after a union has been established.

The struggle against unions is very lucrative business for the legal profession. Even “in house legal” gains  lots of power in the struggle against the establishment of a union. During the struggle against the establishment of the Union, lawyers generally call the shots. At times, the firms’ lawyers even talk to the press directly! After a union is established, the legal folks don’t really want to move out of the space they occupied in their struggle against the union.

Yet, lawyers cannot manage industrial relations after the establishment of a union, the second shift of strategy is repositioning “legal” in a more minor position, and re-positioning HR to become the owner of the industrial relations portfolio. This is a difficult shift in strategy, because getting control of industrial relations means a battle with the internal and external legal folks. In many cases, the CEO will also want to manage the industrial relations portfolio. (It takes up to 2 years before a CEO learns how stupid this is).

3) The third strategic shift is the change of narrative and behaviour.  After a union is established, the narrative within management and the narrative with the union needs to change.

During the struggle against unionization, management rhetoric becomes heated and the same empty slogans are repeated again and again. “The company will be ruined by a union”. “We cannot compete if we are unionized” etc. ad nauseam.

After the establishment of a union, many words said during the struggle need to be “taken back” and narratives need to be rewritten.

The monumental task of repositioning HR after the establishment of a Union are probably the most interesting task an HR manager or OD consultant can take on. Stakes are high, yet there is a protocol for success. So my suggestion is follow the protocol and do not improvise.

Follow me @AllonShevat

Share Button

The treachery of HR business partnership (updated)

Posted on by
9

In an effort to remain relevant in an economy that steadily devalues human capital, HR adopted the language—and posture—of the so-called “business partner.” In hindsight, both the idea and its execution proved to be a strategic misstep.

The promise of HR business partnership was elevation: a seat at the table, closer alignment with business goals, greater influence. The price, however, was steep. HR quietly relinquished its core mandate—representing the human resource in decision-making—in exchange for becoming the enforcer of “alignment.”

This shift absolved HR of protecting, challenging, and advocating for employees. In effect, HR was co-opted, defanged, and stripped of the credibility required to perform its true role.

Imagine a CFO who misleads the board because he sees himself as the CEO’s “partner.” While such behavior exists, it is not the creed of the finance profession. In HR, however, business partnership institutionalized the abandonment of people in favor of numbers. Skilled HR professionals were gradually replaced by technocrats whose primary expertise was compliance—and sycophancy.

As this partnership model matured, its emptiness became obvious. HR communication devolved into slogans and “wow-wow-ism”—fun initiatives designed to mask deeper dysfunction. The tone became eerily reminiscent of old Soviet propaganda: praising the system while ignoring the breadlines.

Unsurprisingly, HR became one of the most mistrusted functions in the organization.

What followed, eg in Israel, was inevitable. Massive unionization surged across finance, telecom, high tech, insurance—and even large taxi companies. These unions did not emerge by chance; they filled a vacuum. Where HR was perceived as hollow or complicit, unions offered something the workforce craved: representation.

The result? HR was pushed into its weakest position yet—isolated as the CEO’s supposed business partner, while unions became the authentic voice of employees.

CEOs don’t need HR partners who only speak the language of alignment. They need leaders who can talk numbers, sales, marketing—and people. When HR fails to do this, others will.

I’ve long advised clients that it is far better to work with a strong, people-oriented HR leader than to negotiate with a union steward. Few listened. Some learned the hard way.

I first wrote a version of this article in 2014. Today, HR is even more digitalized, sprinkled with remnants of business partnership rhetoric. The unions may be quieter—but they’ve been replaced by something just as corrosive: alienation, transactional work relationships, escalating demands for remote work, and industrial-scale buck-passing enabled by technology and indifference.

The question is no longer whether HR needs to change.
It’s whether HR still remembers who it exists to serve.

Share Button