Labor Needs To Act To Stay Relevant
By Peter A. Cockshaw
3/12/2007
The declining state of union construction is a critical issue that must be forcefully addressed. The sobering reality is that this sector is either treading water or close to drowning in many areas of the country.
One of many ominous signs is unions' failure to win back market share even during economically robust periods. Unsettling also is organized construction's desperate struggle to avoid losing current jobs, including traditionally "reliable" public work. This is an alarming assessment to make about an industry that offers project owners such vital strengths as a highly trained, highly skilled and productive work force.
The prime reason for construction unions' failing fortunes is the competitive bind signatories face when competing against increasingly stiff open-shop competition. The question, then, is what specific measures do labor and management need most to get back in the competitive ball game?
There are several issues that top the "wish list" of contractors in all organized sectors. A key one is worker portability. In these times when many contractors have to travel to find work, it becomes even more critical to have the ability to take some valued people with them.
"Contractors spend a lot of time and money training their workers and our bidding price is based on past productivity, which is a function of our craftspeople," says one employer. "When union locals prevent an employer from taking a few key people with [it] to man a job, this often kills the deal."
Another competitive disadvantage is the inability of signatories to use coordinated or composite work forces, especially on smaller projects. Most union employers can do a task in the same manhours as their open shop competitors, but they have a harder time keeping workers performing productive work for a full shift due to jurisdictional issues. It is clear that if union signatories could employ coordinated or composite work forces to eliminate such wasted time, they would become more cost-effective.
No Fluff
For that matter, any contract condition that hinders an employer's ability to compete deserves to be slashed. That includes productivity-inhibiting jobs or positions. In today's fierce competitive environment, contractors must not be forced to put extra people on a job because an agreement mandates them. If a person is not needed to perform a function, an employer cannot afford to add him to its bid price. And every time contractors are forced to absorb unnecessary manpower costs, nonunion employers gain the upper hand.
Ask construction users to name the main obstacles union contractors face in getting their work and most will cite "costs" as the prime factor. Others add "attitude" and "performance" to the list. One user sums up the opinions of many when he states:
"We're not going to give contractors work based on the union philosophy or how skillfully they run their training programs. All our company cares about is fair cost and quality performance—period. Anything less in this cold, cruel economic world is not acceptable. Moreover, unless union craftsmen show up on time, look presentable, have the right attitude and truly put in eight hours work for eight hours pay, we'll settle for nonunion people with lesser skills."
The vast majority of industry insiders I talk to offer similar views, including a growing number of union leaders who now are actively urging their locals to make positive changes. One is Ed Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
"All we have to do is listen to what too many customers or potential customers say about us," Hill says. "They stress that poor attitude by many craftsmen is a root cause of our union's problems. It is the contractor who risks his business and his livelihood on the work we do. He needs us. We need him. And it is that combined productivity that determines a project's financial success. That's why the sooner our members realize that we're all in this together, the better off we will be."
It is crystal clear that cost-effective contract changes and changes in worker attitudes represent a winning strategy—a strategy that is desperately needed for the union sector to regain market share and ensure a promising future. But that strategy must be adopted today. "Tomorrow" will be way too late.
_________________________________________________________________________
Peter A. Cockshaw is a veteran labor analyst living in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at 610-436-7553
- Glenn Sand's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1007 reads
Exploring the problem
One of many ominous signs is unions' failure to win back market share even during economically robust periods.
This is a critical problem. What do you propose is a way to stem the exodus from our unions? How do we get the resources, not just money but more importantly win the hearts and minds of Americas of all ages, not just the young, impressionable ones but mid-career professionals that may have been burned by the corporate world?
Ever since I was a teenager and understood the concept of the union I have wanted to belong to one or even just do some volunteer work for one. Unfortunately, there was no central way to do this if I was not a member.
My mother and father were members of unions, the pulp and paper workers and the laborers' unions, respectively. They personally were hard working people who did not have the privilege of beyond a high school education but the protections and benefits of unionism provided a living for our family. They showed up on time and they did what was asked to the best of their ability.
The sad bit is that the South Africa HQ'd corporation sold the paper mill, effectively gutting our small town. All those jobs are gone. The union is gone. What will replace it? Wal-Marts and K-Marts and Ruby Tuesdays don't pay the same. Our town took a hard hit and hasn't recovered. Most of our graduates leave our state for work elsewhere.
same old fluff
"Communicate of Die" means nothing if unionists simply reprint arguments in favor of employer "wish lists".
Let's also analyze....
Cockshaw wants unlimited portability and expanded employer control of hiring (ie less union control).
His explanations of why these are necessary are vague and even presumtious (eg comments about poor attitute).
Example: "our bidding price is based on past productivity, which is a function of our craftspeople."
Simple - but incomplete to the point of inaccuracy.
He mentioned the IBEW, whose own employer organization (NECA) did research that highlights the fallicy. They found that increasing field productivity by 10% did increase profit margins by 50% (yes important). BUT they also found that management and system failures were largely responsible for observed decreases in field productivity. The union workers were both well paid AND highly productive. Refer MCA Inc. as funded by NECA.
Cockshaw (as he admits) is restating the "wish list" of employers.
He has also stated that the perception of customers and the public has been tainted by those competing with the union:
“Labor and management must take control of their image by developing, communicating, and promoting the image they want their customers and public to have.” The key problem for leaders in the unionized sector, said Cockshaw, “[b]is that in most cases, you can’t agree on a central message or, if you develop one, the industry can’t seem to communicate it[/b].” Citing one example after another of misinformation circulated by the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), Cockshaw said, “The ABC doesn’t have that problem. They are masters of communicating and often the masters of misinformation about open shop positives and your alleged negatives." http://www.bacweb.org/aboutus/mmp_ar...r_concerns.htm
Hill and Cockshaw contradict themselves in the statements about "attitude" and "performance". They also play into the hands of the non-union which has planted many of the seeds of misinformation.
Obviously, there are union members who are counter-productive for their unions and dealing with that issue is difficult (practically and politically).
But, union members expect their leadership to be.....leaders, and take the responsibility.
Apparently, it is easier to effectively tranfer power and responsibility to the employers through language concessions.
As long as the dues are paid.
And, apparently we don't question the leadership we pay for.
Labor and management are key
Labor and management are key terms not just here but everywhere. I am very surprised to see that not many organizations understand what these terms mean. I think this problem requires a professional employer organization touch.