Does This Company Need a Union?

The weekly senior-management meeting had just begun. Jane Wellington, founder and CEO of Wellington Associates, a company devoted to analyzing the high-tech industry, had taken her seat. She was pulling out her copy of the agenda when Elvin Cusack, head of human resources, raised a finger in the air. “Not to get this meeting off track even before it starts, but we have a problem I think you should all hear about sooner rather than later,” he said. Cusack was as genial a person as Wellington had ever known, but the look on his face told her that this was serious. “What is it?” she asked. “I was just informed—about two hours ago, in fact—that the United Office Workers Union has started a campaign to organize some of our staff.” “Oh, that’s not a problem,” said Neil Whetson, head of IS, from across the table. “Cusack, the look on your face had me worried there for a minute. Jane has made very sure that we’ve got some of the best pay and bennies in the industry.” Cusack shook his head. “It’s not the analysts they’re targeting. It’s the support staff.” “What?” The question came from Elaine Bellows, who ran the New Media Research Group, but looking around the table, Wellington could see it on everyone’s face. She imagined that the same look was on her face as well. It had never occurred to her that such a thing might happen. She thought back to the day nearly 20 years ago when she had started the company. Back then—in fact, up to the point when the company had employed more than 30 people—she had done all her own recruiting. Now there was a full-fledged human resources department in place, and Wellington Associates employed more than 200 people to analyze and predict the course of technological change for more than 1,000 clients. Was she really so removed from those days, from her early management style, that she hadn’t noticed the discontent growing throughout her support staff? Wellington Associates will go to almost any length for the analysts. But it’s another story for support staff. Wellington snapped out of her reverie. “They won’t have a chance,” Bellows was continuing. “We’re a professional organization, not some steel mill.” Bellows was the newest unit director and, at 27, one of the youngest ever in the company’s history. She had a brash, impulsive management style that motivated many but rubbed some the wrong way. Right now, Wellington could identify with the people Bellows annoyed, but Cusack wasn’t fazed. “I’m not so sure about that,” he said. “The union was invited in. Apparently, a number of the clerical people are very unhappy.” “Fire ’em,” said Whetson, with a half smile. “I doubt you mean that,” replied Cusack, “but in any case, I’m pretty sure that a move like that would violate the law. Not to mention the PR problems it would create.” “Yes, let’s stay away from that,” Wellington spoke up. “Well, though, I have to say this has come as an unpleasant shock. What are our realistic options?” She looked around the conference table. “Those people are just whiners,” Whetson said, this time with a serious face. “We pay top dollar. We have flextime options. Our medical and dental plans are good, and we even have a day care center. We have a generous vacation package. And we’re a good name, let’s not forget that. When people leave here, they have the Wellington name on their résumés. That counts for a lot in this business.” Wellington frowned. “Neil is right,” she said. “But I’m not sure all that is pertinent. Elvin, what’s going on here? Who told you about this, anyway?” Cusack thought for a moment before speaking. “First, I’d like to apologize. I’ve been here almost two years now, and I should have seen this coming. If anyone has dropped the ball on this, it’s me.” Wellington waved her hand in a get-to-the-point kind of way. Cusack nodded and continued. “Second, let me talk for a moment about what I was told this morning. I basically sat and listened to one of my own staff members—on the condition that I wouldn’t reveal that person’s identity. Neil may have brought up some valid points, but judging from what I heard, the company looks very different from the support staff’s point of view. “First, this is a two-tier company. Wellington Associates is willing to go to just about any length to accommodate the professional staff, whom we see as our vital asset. They all earn it; we ask a lot of them. And as the company’s performance shows, they deliver. “But we don’t do the same for our support staff. We pay well initially, but we have very strict policies about raises. Even our best clerical workers rarely get anything more than a 5 % raise, and the norm here is 2 % or 3 % . When it comes to schedules, we’re pretty rigid. Whetson, that flextime you spoke of doesn’t apply in large part to our administrative staff. “Now, the person who spoke to me acknowledges the fact that we just can’t offer flexible schedules to most of the support staff because someone has to be here to answer the phones, et cetera, from 9 to 5. But that’s not all. The sense is that we also expect our support people to accommodate the flexible schedules kept by our professionals. If Bill DiBuono over in Network Strategies works late for a week to finish a project, then his assistant, Mary Stiles, winds up working late, too. And although many of our analysts can do a good chunk of their work at home, you can’t file or copy when you’re at home, and that’s another constraint. As much as we trumpet our flextime options, they really don’t apply to everyone equally. “It’s the same with benefits. We have a double-pronged system. The company pays a fixed percentage of health care costs. But let’s be honest, no one in this room pays more than 6 % of salary for medical insurance costs. The people immediately below us on the pay scales contribute about 15 % . The support staff members pay about 20 % , and they’re getting significantly smaller paychecks. As it turns out, only a few are signed up for the day care program, which is fairly expensive.” Cusack paused, looking around the table. Wellington looked troubled, Whetson angry. Bellows and the other senior managers met Cusack’s glance, expecting that he would continue. “Go on,” Wellington said. “Well,” Cusack replied. “There’s also our vacation package. If you’re a senior-level employee, you start with three weeks’ vacation and a practically unlimited amount of personal emergency time. If you’re a member of the support staff, you have to be here five years to get three weeks, and all medical leave that’s not mandated by law has to be authorized by a manager and then approved by my office.” Wellington spoke up sharply at that point. “We decided on our particular benefit offerings quite deliberately, and we know that they are very competitive.” “Agreed,” Cusack said. “And I’ve never had a problem with our package. But it wasn’t until this morning that I really began to be aware of how much resentment our policies have fostered. I have to say, though, that I don’t think it was our pay and benefit packages—even our rather ad-hoc flextime policy—that landed us in this situation. The crux of the matter, as it was presented to me, has to do with respect.” At that, several people around the table rolled their eyes and groaned. “Precisely my point,” Cusack said. “You and I don’t see the problem. But apparently, the impression we give is that we believe when a support person leaves he or she can be readily replaced. And to an extent, I do believe that—especially since the company is doing so well right now. But the way the support staff sees it, the people who’ve worked with us for years don’t seem to matter. “One issue that was waved in my face this morning was the fact that we rarely, if ever, promote from within. There are support people here who’ve been working in the field for a decade. We all know Ed Mixner in Interactive Tech is the person to talk to if you want a thumbnail sketch of what’s going on over there. Anyone ever think of making him an analyst?” “I’d suggest that we not start pointing fingers right now, Elvin,” Bellows broke in. Interactive Tech came under her purview. “Mixner is not qualified to become an analyst.” “Sorry,” Cusack said quickly, holding up a hand. “I didn’t mean to single anyone out. I’m just trying to make a larger point. We provide only limited opportunities for our support people to further their education. Professionals get reimbursed for pretty much any workshop they choose to attend. We’re constantly sending them to conferences, symposiums, seminars, you name it. Clerical workers get reimbursed only if they get a B or better in a course, and there’s no arrangement for them to have time off to go to classes in the daytime. “Now, again, I realize that even though I didn’t set up these policies, I have run them without question since I got here. And I guess that from my point of view they were—and are—fair; I still think we give support people a good deal. It’s only when you stack it up against what we give our professionals—as someone did for me quite bluntly this morning—that it starts looking shabby.” “For God’s sake, we’re only talking about secretaries here,” said Bellows in exasperation. “I started out as a secretary,” Wellington said quietly. “The only reason I got further was that my boss could see that I was interested in his business. He started giving me the trade magazines and introducing me around to his clients and contacts. Finally, he encouraged me to go back to school.” “Which you did on your own time, as I recall,” said Whetson, one of the few people in the room who was there when Wellington founded the company. “Yes. Well. All right.” Wellington said, frowning. “There are a lot of things for us to think about here and to discuss—when we’ve all had a little time to absorb the situation. Elvin, has a vote been scheduled? And if so, could the union win?” Cusack shuffled the papers in front of him, then looked up. “No, I don’t think a vote’s been scheduled, and yes, I think the union could win. As I understand it, the regional union leaders are going to try to make this a showcase campaign. They think their future lies in organizing white-collar workers, and they want to make us an example. ‘The truth about a ’90s company,’ was how I heard it. My sense is that the national union is willing to put a good deal of money into this.” “And we’ll be putting a good deal of money into it if we find ourselves forced into extensive negotiations,” Whetson added. “My first thought is that we should meet with a group of our support people and find out what they think—” Wellington began. “Jane, no,” Bellows interjected. “We need legal counsel before we even whisper to any of our support people that we know anything about the situation.” Wellington started again. “I’m sure that we could gently probe our closest assistants to get a sense of whether the threat is as real as it seems here—” This time it was Cusack who cut her off. “Elaine is right, I’m afraid. Our first step has to be getting an attorney involved. I was leery of even saying anything more than ‘Oh,’ and ‘Go on,’ this morning.” “But getting counsel involved will create even more friction than there apparently already is,” Wellington said, frustrated. “I’m at a loss. And I’m more than a little angry as well. Why didn’t the support people approach us first if they felt they were being treated unfairly? My own assistants could have talked to me—why didn’t they? Do they even know about any of this?” “I’m at a loss. Why didn’t the support people approach us first if they felt they were being treated unfairly?” Wellington could hear her voice starting to rise, then she cleared her throat and continued. “I feel as though I’ve been given a problem but not the opportunity to solve it. I have to say I don’t think our policies are unfair. I am willing to listen, and I am willing to compromise to a certain extent. We’re just not the kind of company that has a union. Are we that out of touch with the people we work with?” She looked around the room. “What is our next step?” How should Wellington and her colleagues react to the potential formation of a union? Susan Schurman is the executive director of the George Meany Center for Labor Studies, the national educational institution of the AFL-CIO in Silver Spring, Maryland. First, let me say what I hope Jane Wellington and her colleagues don’t do. I hope they don’t take the low road and “do whatever it takes” to prevent their employees from unionizing. Too many management groups go that route, often even resorting to illegal means, thinking, “What’s the worst thing that could happen? We’ll pay fines and a settlement of some kind.” Such groups often succeed in preventing employees from organizing, and sometimes they do so at relatively low cost, in monetary terms. But their actions have a lasting negative effect on relations between employees and employers, as well as on the performance of the business. The “victory” is short-lived; the taint never goes away. Instead, I hope that Wellington and her colleagues will take the high road and respect the fact that U.S. workers have the legal right to organize. I hope they react first by trying to understand what led the support staff to take this action. Whether or not the clerical workers at Wellington Associates ultimately form a union, the company faces some serious issues regarding its human resource practices. The top managers at Wellington Associates need to understand that most union drives are about justice, fairness, and dignity, not about the particulars of compensation and benefits per se. They also need to understand that, by and large, national unions do not make the first move. Instead, what typically happens is that employees become dissatisfied and offended and, after a good deal of thought, they reach out to a union. It has become, in recent years, an incredible and frightening ordeal to go through an organizing campaign in the United States. It is not a move employees undertake lightly. Most likely, the clerical workers at Wellington Associates have tried several ways to rectify the situation internally and feel they have not been heard; the union is probably a last resort. Right now, Jane Wellington feels hurt, angry, and defensive. But she mustn’t let her emotions cloud the fact that her employees do have a vested interest in the company. The attempt to unionize is not a sign that they don’t care; in fact, it’s a sign that they care acutely. They want to improve the quality of their work, and they want to be recognized when they do. If Wellington’s clerical workers did not care about the company, they would seek alternative employment. Obviously, as the executive director of the AFL-CIO’s national education center, I am hardly an unbiased commentator. I believe passionately in workers’ rights to a voice in the workplace, a voice that can only be achieved through unionizing. But I am also the CEO of an organization that is in many ways similar to Wellington Associates. And speaking as a CEO, I frankly don’t understand why so many top managers fear unions. In fact, just about the entire George Meany Center is unionized. I find that dealing with union representatives is absolutely the best way to solve most of the problems related to human resources that I face on a daily basis quickly, efficiently, and to the satisfaction of all parties. Speaking as a CEO, I frankly don’t understand why so many top managers fear unions. I’m convinced that one of the most difficult challenges top managers face is getting honest information from their management teams about the problems that go on within their organizations. Wellington’s managers, like many of their real-life counterparts, are conditioned to tell the top management group what they think it wants to hear. But it is often by dealing with union representatives that I find out what real problems exist. A positive working relationship with a union gives a top manager honest information. And a union contract provides a rational basis for dealing with employees’ interests. Collective bargaining is an extremely logical and systematic way to set the terms and conditions of employment. Wellington and her colleagues seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that the more unilateral control they have, the better their business is going to do. They fear that their employees, if unionized, will be powerful in a way that will harm the business, in a way that will somehow diminish the company’s ability to achieve the kind of performance it wants. That fear need not be justified. When employees’ attempts to organize are met with a hostile campaign, the relationships between managers and employees can be soured for years—whether or not the campaign is successful. If the campaign is bitter and the union wins, it is unlikely that the employer-employee relationship is going to be productive for a good, long time. And yes, in that case, performance is likely to suffer. But if the situation is handled wisely—that is, if Wellington’s managers do not treat this as the worst thing that ever happened to the business, and if they deal with the employees responsibly and fairly—the relationship forged during the process will be stronger than anything they had before. Wellington has every right to communicate her views on unions to her employees—in fact, there is a whole set of rules that governs how the employer’s campaign can take place. Wellington should indeed contact legal counsel to learn what she can and cannot do. But if she allows for the possibility that her employees may ultimately decide to organize—that is, if she makes it clear that the decision is up to her employees and that she is ready to work with them to address their concerns, whatever the outcome of the campaign—then she will only improve relations. If the employees decide to unionize—and I certainly hope they do—they will quickly elect representatives to sit down with management and bargain for a contract in good faith. Then Wellington Associates will discover that a strong, effective union not only ensures fairness for its members but also can be a real asset in improving business performance. Marick F. Masters and Robert S. Atkin are both professors at the University of Pittsburgh’s Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. To put it bluntly, the senior managers of Wellington Associates must understand their collective failure to manage before they can take any productive steps toward solving their problem. Then they must think logically and strategically—rather than emotionally or defensively—about how to respond. The senior executives of Wellington Associates must understand their collective shortcomings. In the short term, Jane Wellington and her colleagues face the challenge of blocking a union-organizing campaign. In the long term, they need to create a climate that would make it unlikely for a union to knock on their door again. Each of these challenges requires a different, but not mutually exclusive, level of analysis and response. Catching top management by surprise, the union drive among the support staff demonstrates three clear managerial failures. First, management appears to be philosophically callous to these employees. Second, it fails to listen to them. Mechanisms do not exist to detect workplace problems early, before a union like United Office Workers can muster a credible organizing effort. Third, except perhaps for Elvin Cusack, the senior managers misunderstand why employees join unions. Unions exploit situations in which employees perceive a lack of workplace justice, respect, and dignity as much as they take advantage of inadequate or inequitable compensation. A “We pay well” policy does not indemnify a business from a union threat, particularly if the targeted employees feel they are second-class citizens. Jane Wellington and her colleagues must also recognize that perception is reality in the workplace. The members of the support staff perceive a senior management that is indifferent to a two-tier personnel system, which treats them as replaceable commodities. Inequities with respect to pay raises, scheduling, and benefits create a concrete basis for their concerns. What should Wellington and her senior managers do? In the short term, they must focus on quelling the organizing drive. Their best bet is a three-pronged approach: First, Wellington must provide managers and supervisors at all levels throughout the company with a legal briefing on the do’s and don’ts of dealing with a union campaign. Mistakes at this stage can lead to charges of unfair labor practices that play into the union’s hands. Second, Wellington’s managers, again at all levels, must begin listening to the support staff. While it would clearly be a mistake to change personnel practices in a knee-jerk way, it would be equally imprudent to ignore the issues that the employees are raising. Management should convey a clear message to all employees that it is willing and eager to listen to their legitimate problems with an eye toward developing mutually acceptable solutions. Through focus groups, attitudinal surveys, suggestion systems, and informal networks, management can listen more carefully to the employees’ concerns. Third, top managers must begin developing their own campaign to counter that of the United Office Workers. Their arguments should emphasize why Wellington Associates, although not perfect, is a good place to work and why a union would be counterproductive. Their message can be communicated through a variety of media, internal and external, including mailings and videos directed at employees, and radio spots, newspaper advertisements, and a Web site designed to draw attention in a general way to the company’s strengths. A newspaper advertisement might, for example, show how Wellington Associates is a socially responsible employer by highlighting the company’s community service efforts. Credibility is an important part of this psychological battle for employee support. Over the long term, Wellington Associates should consider developing a more equitable balance in its personnel policies between support and professional groups. A task force whose members are drawn from different departments and levels of staff might spearhead this effort. Management should also take the pulse of the organization regularly—by conducting periodic cultural audits, for example, or by designating an officer to monitor the early warning signs of discontent. Further down the road, management should focus on developing and communicating a new employee-relations philosophy as part of a broader organizational vision, one that respects the dignity of every member of the workforce. Jane Wellington’s predicament depicts a far-too-common workplace condition that unions bank on: indifference to the legitimate concerns of lower-status employees. Callous neglect and ignorance are organized labor’s best allies. Jacqueline M. Blanchard is the vice president of human resources and on the board of directors at BNA, a Washington, D.C., publisher of news, analysis, case law, and reference services for business and government professionals. Wellington and her senior management team need to think about this situation from the perspective of the staff people who have become frustrated enough to contact the United Office Workers Union. Whether those staff members are correct in their perceptions is not the issue at this point. For that matter, whether Wellington and her colleagues agree or disagree with the unhappy workers’ point of view is also not the issue. What matters in the short term is whether the members of the administrative staff will choose to be represented by a third party through the collective bargaining process or if, instead, they can gain or regain trust in their employer. Whether Wellington and her colleagues agree or disagree with the unhappy workers’ views is not the issue. It won’t be easy for Wellington, Cusack, or any of the other managers in that meeting to put themselves in their employees’ shoes. The viewpoints around the conference table are diverse and charged with no small degree of emotion. That’s understandable—what we, the readers, are seeing is their first, and private, reaction to the news. Nonetheless, if their initial thoughts and words are a reliable indicator of their true views and personalities, they face an extremely challenging couple of weeks. If the senior managers’ initial thoughts and words indicate their true views and personalities, they’re in for an extremely challenging couple of weeks. By the end of the case, Wellington, at least, has started to come to grips with the fact that even though their pay and benefits are good, the clerical people have been something of an afterthought since she started her business. Her focus has always been—and will continue to be—on the analysts; they are the folks on whom the survival of the business depends. Still, she is worried about being out of touch, and it appears that she is willing to listen to the concerns of her staff rather than jump to any conclusions and take immediate defensive action. Elaine Bellows is not nearly as prepared to move forward in a constructive way. As the newest, youngest, and the least experienced manager, she has demonstrated, at best, short-sightedness and, at worst, hubris in her unilateral declaration that the union “won’t have a chance” because the company “is a professional organization, not some steel mill.” Obviously, Bellows is out of touch; unions in this day and age are successfully organizing white-collar groups from clerical support staffs to doctors, nurses, lawyers, and other professionals in both the public and private sectors. What’s more, her lack of maturity, which is visible in all the defensive remarks she makes throughout the meeting, and her lack of respect for the administrative staff—“we’re only talking about secretaries here”—are priming her to become a source of tension and conflict as the organizing effort unfolds. If Bellows plans to help the company weather this storm, she’ll have to learn to keep her views to herself and listen with an open mind. Neil Whetson, the IS specialist, seems somewhat emotionally and practically detached from the situation—but his attitude could get the company in trouble. He has worked with Wellington for a long time, and because of that, he could have a big influence on how management reacts to the union drive. That would be unfortunate, since he clearly knows little about employees’ rights to organize in general and even less about the protections afforded under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to employees who are considering such a move. He seems to think of the issue in black-and-white terms—if the “whiners” are unhappy, they can leave. It’s not that cut and dried. Whetson needs an education, and fast. Cusack seems to have the most balanced perspective at the table. He has his own views—and it’s clear he is willing to consider the views of his fellow senior managers—but he also is quite open to the support staff’s thoughts and concerns. In fact, Wellington and the others would do well to think about the situation in pretty much the way Cusack has presented it. How did the support staff members reach this pitch of unhappiness? In what ways did they try to communicate that unhappiness before reaching out to the union? How does the company’s flextime arrangement really play out in practice? Cusack is willing to admit error—albeit unintentional—on his part and on the part of the company. The other managers should do the same. Then, and only then, will they be in a frame of mind that will let them move forward in a way that won’t tear the company in two, regardless of the outcome of the union drive. What specifically should the top managers do? Cusack should contact outside counsel experienced in employee relations and labor-management law. He should arrange for that counsel to meet with Wellington and her senior managers to brief them on the do’s and don’ts of managerial and supervisory behavior prior to an election. Essentially, Wellington and her managers must take care not to interfere with the rights of the clerical staff to engage in concerted unionizing activity. They should maintain normal day-to-day relations with all employees—but they have to be careful of what they say and how they behave. They might consider using this acronym to help them remember what’s legal and what isn’t: Tips. No threats against anyone suspected of supporting the union effort. No interrogations—no asking how employees feel about the union at hand or unions in general and no asking how they intend to vote. No promises of any benefit to employees if they vote no. And no surveillance—no trying to overhear conversations between employees in situations where the union issue might come up. Once the managers understand their legal limits, they should schedule a meeting with employees to hear them out with an open mind. I would recommend that Wellington and Cusack run that meeting. Together, Wellington, her colleagues in management, and the members of the clerical staff may be able to resolve the situation to everyone’s satisfaction. A mentor of mine who is a prominent promanagement labor-relations attorney once told me that a company that loses a union-organizing campaign probably needs and deserves to have a union representing its employees. That doesn’t have to be the case with Wellington Associates. Fern Feil is the director of the Collaborative and Alternative Dispute Resolution Program at the Federal Labor Relations Authority in Washington, D.C. The news of a union movement has sent Jane Wellington and her colleagues into a sort of paralyzing panic. They feel threatened, and so they are taking a very defensive stance. That response—while not surprising—does not bode well for future relations between managers and administrative support staff at Wellington Associates. In fact, the union move is not a threat; it is a wake-up call about a problem that, if left unnoticed and untreated, would have festered, causing a decline in corporate performance. The problem? Lack of understanding between senior managers and clerical support staff. No communication channels have been established between Wellington’s management and employees, and management has not recognized signs of employee dissatisfaction. When employees are unhappy, they leave. When turnover rates are high, it can become difficult to attract new employees. And when a large part of the support staff is perennially new, extra time must be spent getting newcomers up to speed—teaching them the company’s policies and procedures, and familiarizing them with the way work gets done. Jane Wellington should be receptive to the clerical workers who have voiced their concerns. The campaign will give her a chance to hear her employees’ point of view and, if she chooses to listen, to develop solutions to her problem. Neutral third parties (mediators and facilitators) are often called on to help managers and support staff communicate more effectively, but Wellington should take note: she may have problems if she takes that path because during a union drive, the role of such neutral parties is constrained by the National Labor Relations Act. The union campaign will give Wellington a chance to hear her employees’ point of view, if she chooses to listen. How, then, should she proceed? Well, there are rules pertaining to how employers can and can’t react to a union movement, so I would recommend that Wellington and her colleagues contact an attorney to establish what those rules are in this case. In the federal sector, management must remain neutral during a union campaign. There’s more flexibility in the private sector, but management still must proceed as it would without the presence of a union. Management cannot interfere to stifle a campaign. Since Wellington’s managers know about the move to unionize, they must be extremely careful not to make promises that might be viewed as attempts to convince employees that they do not need a union. Wellington and her colleagues thus have two options: they can choose not to talk to their employees at all or they can choose to talk to their employees while being careful not to interfere with the union campaign. If they choose the first approach, they should use the interim period to think about the issues Cusack has raised, to examine their own concerns, and to brainstorm together to come up with some options. And once the union issue is resolved, Wellington might again consider using a neutral third party to help both sides communicate their interests more constructively. If they decide to talk to their employees while the union drive is still going on, it might be a good idea for Cusack to call a meeting of the clerical workers, so that they can air their complaints and he can listen. If he does so, he should make it clear that he has the CEO’s backing. Wellington need not attend, but her presence, concern, and good intent must be felt. I recommend Cusack for this job in part because he is the head of human resources but also because he seems to have the good judgment necessary to get through such a meeting without adding more tension to the situation. Wellington could tap another senior executive, but it strikes me that Whetson and Bellows are not the best candidates to represent the management team. If the union is elected, Wellington and her colleagues must try to ensure that their relationship with its representatives is a good one. Too many companies try to shut unions out of their business processes. They make decisions about policy and then present them as “done deals” to union representatives. If the union then takes issue with those decisions, tension builds because the union members feel ignored and the managers feel put-upon. Better to involve the union representatives up front and establish the union-management relationship as a partnership from the beginning. Through an executive order, President Clinton has sought to promote just such collaborative problem solving between union and management in the federal sector. We have found that those agencies that have taken the order to heart have had far fewer problems than those that haven’t. Wellington may be pleasantly surprised to learn what a union can do for her company. She is clearly a good manager in the sense that she knows how to build a successful company. But she is not a well-rounded manager; she has failed to create an environment in which people at all levels feel respected and valued. A union would establish a structure for communication between workers and managers and ensure that all voices are heard.

Does This Company Need a Union?

Partner Center