Written by Bill Cole
One of the unique characteristics that set unions apart from other organizations is their commitment to democratic principles. Unions are, literally, organizations run for and by their members, often with governance structures that prescribe a range of business practices that require member approval – spending dues money over a certain threshold, deciding on union policies, bargaining and/or strike mandates and ratification of new agreements. A union’s commitment to democratic principles is a core function in organizational renewal: we build strength and effectiveness when union members have meaningful input with their elected representatives. The phrase “distance to power” can be found throughout the renewal literature and captures the essence of these democratic principles. Union members need to feel a sense of engagement with the decision makers in their organization.
There is no better place than the collective bargaining process to involve members. While they may not always be aware of what their union does for them from day-to-day, intuitively members have some understanding of the collective bargaining process and the union’s role in it. From time-to-time bargaining teams and their members can experience a tension between principles (democracy) and process (collective bargaining).
For example, members may define their notion of democracy as requiring their bargaining team to provide detailed descriptions of each bargaining meeting – with some members expecting a full accounting of the precise dialogue between the parties. In today’s social media environment there have been examples where bargaining teams have publicly posted discussions in real-time. While democratic principles in the union movement are unique and should be promoted, the union’s effectiveness in a core responsibility such as collective bargaining requires an understanding of how collective bargaining works, and why it makes sense and promotes the union’s bargaining interests, to respect bargaining’s customary reporting boundaries.
There are many circumstances in which union representatives limit reporting–employee assistance program issues, complex medical accommodations, and benefits management are a few examples. Members accept these reporting limitations because they “make sense.” These examples typically involve confidential member information, but the membership overall has an interest in their effective administration and the boundaries are an essential part of that. For similar reasons, it usually makes sense to limit how the parties’ discussions in collective bargaining are reported. This concept of restraining full member access to every single exchange made in the negotiation process may be at odds with some members’ concept of their negotiating team’s role, but it is a necessary practice in the collective bargaining process.
There are many elements that support an effective bargaining position: influence development, depth of research, relative power and member education to name a few. What is often overlooked is the quality of the dialogue at the bargaining table. Effective negotiators include preparation time on how questions will be structured, and answers delivered, all in strategic support of the negotiator’s interests. Among bargaining’s many metaphors, such as “it’s a battle” or “it’s a struggle,” it cannot be lost on the negotiators that in the end it’s a conversation – albeit a heated one at strategic moments.
Therefore, seasoned negotiators understand the importance of creating and protecting an environment that encourages open and frank discussions. We spend our first few minutes of bargaining sessions establishing the bargaining expectations – discussions are “without prejudice” and “confidential” – two key first principles that encourage discussions. When a negotiation team reports play-by-play bargaining discussions to their constituents, we should expect that the other side will be cautious and hesitant to engage in the sorts of fuller discussions that typically lead to settlements. It also cannot be lost on the negotiators that collective bargaining exists in ongoing relationships – the parties may do battle in bargaining, but they must also live with each other afterwards.
One of the certainties of negotiations is that despite all the hard work that goes into developing and supporting bargaining priorities, neither party can fully predict what the final settlement will look like. This is the essence of negotiations, supporting your own and devaluing the other’s priorities. This is only done through the back-and-forth of effective discussion in an environment where candid discussions can be held. In the end, any practices by either side that impede the quality of discussions limits their own effectiveness in the bargaining process.
So, what can union negotiators do when pressured by member expectations during the bargaining process? Firstly, union negotiators can involve members as much as possible in the research and priority setting stages. Negotiators should be sure to include representatives from across the membership to ensure multiple voices are heard in the union bargaining team. Negotiators can provide basic reports following meetings with the employer – updating on progress, without too many details. Union leaders should also build their ongoing relationships with members so they will have confidence in the work that is being done on their behalf.
The boundaries around reporting change at points where a settlement is being ratified, or where the union is seeking a strike mandate. Here a more fulsome reporting on the meetings is expected because the bargaining environment has reached a conclusion (in ratification) or has broken down (in strike). Even at these points, negotiators should be mindful of the ongoing relationship that will survive the moment of impasse.
Is the notion of confidentiality in the negotiation process unique to labour-management relationships? No, of course not. Negotiations in all settings have expectations of confidentiality. In the union setting our value of democratic principles sets us apart from so many other types of organizations. Despite that, it is in our members’ best interests to respect the need for confidentiality in the negotiation process, in order to achieve the best outcomes for the membership.