OPM Logo
United States Office of Personnel Management

LABOR-MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP
A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT
December 2000

Section VI - Conclusions and Recommendations

For most of its history, the Federal Government's labor relations program had few examples of genuine labor-management partnership. There were pockets of innovation here and there but the traditional adversarial model of labor relations predominated. Labor relations in the Government were marred by conflict and litigation. Common sense solutions - and common ground - were hard to find.

OPM believes labor-management relations in the Federal Government have improved substantially since the President signed Executive Order 12871 in 1993, although the changes have not been as deep or widespread as the President envisioned. We believe there has been a sizable shift toward labor-management cooperation and away from the mutually destructive, adversarial relationships common in the past. Whether motivated by the Executive Order, the demand for better government service, the desire to find a smarter way to do business, or simple battle fatigue, a significant change in the Government's labor-management relations climate has been under way for some time.

OPM sees evidence of change in several places. We see it in the overwhelming majority of agencies who identified tangible improvements in their labor-management relations as a result of partnership-building efforts. We see it in the surveys conducted by the National Partnership Council over the past five years showing strong and steady support for partnership from both labor and management. We see it in the dramatic government-wide decline in unfair labor practice charges over the past several years, from over 8,674 in 1993 to 5,686 in 1999. And we see it in the way that labor-management partnerships have cut costs, enhanced productivity, and improved the delivery of services in a variety of agencies all across Government.

But the record is far from perfect. There are places where labor and management have struggled with little success to form partnerships. There are places where partnerships exist on paper but have no real vitality or impact. And there are places where labor-management relations actually worsened when the initial euphoria subsided and the expectations raised by the promise of partnership went unmet.

If there is one lesson to be drawn from the frustrating mix of success and struggle it is this: Partnership is not easy. It is a constant challenge to find the right mix of leadership, commitment, trust, desire to change, and honest communications that make partnership work. And partnership means real change in attitudes, roles, and behaviors. Management must accept a collaborative approach to decision-making and union leaders must move beyond a purely reactive role. Both parties must satisfy constituencies that can quickly grow impatient with the "two steps forward, one step back" character of partnership.

The path to partnership is made even more challenging by the high standards and far-reaching goals the President established in both his Executive Order and Reaffirmation Memorandum. The President did not talk about partnership merely as a tactic to reduce labor-management hostilities and avoid conflict. Rather, he envisioned fundamental changes in the very nature of the Government's labor relations. The President viewed partnership as a key strategy for creating better and more cost-effective government service. He called on labor and management leaders to "champion change" to help transform Government organizations into world-class service providers.

Trying to accomplish such goals in just a single large agency would have been difficult enough. But labor and management were asked to form partnerships across the entire government, in organizations large and small, military and civilian, in places where the workplace cultures and agency missions are as varied as the services the Government provides. We should be neither surprised nor discouraged if the reality of this sweeping effort sometimes falls short of the rhetoric.

Despite all the challenges we have faced in the past and will continue to confront in the future, we believe the Federal Government's labor-management relations are on the right track. We see a strong, consistent desire on both sides of the table to continue to promote and develop partnership and little interest in returning to the adversarial ways of the past. We are convinced labor-management relations in the Government are better today than they were 10 years ago and considerably better than they were 15 years ago. And we believe a great deal of the credit for that progress can be traced to the rise and growth of partnership.

Here are several recommendations that we believe will help partnerships continue to grow.

1. Stronger Commitment to Training and Education

Nearly every report noted the importance of training in building successful labor-management partnerships. Forming cooperative relationships and sustaining those relationships over time requires labor and management to learn new skills and break old habits. We believe training and education are the most important ingredients in making this transformation work.

OPM recommends that agencies commit sufficient resources to train labor and management in subjects like conflict resolution, problem-solving, and interest-based bargaining. These are the skills labor and management need to start and sustain effective partnerships. As labor-management relationships mature, the focus of training should shift toward the skills that labor and management need to help streamline work practices, improve customer service, and enhance job performance.

We also recommend agencies provide training for labor and management in areas that bear directly on the agency's business practices like work process analysis, budgeting, procurement, and strategic planning. Agencies and unions should also try to develop strong in-house training capabilities, recognizing the shortage of training resources, the frequent need to train new participants in partnership, and the demand for re-training as skills become rusty or outdated.

Finally, we recommend OPM develop model training programs focused on the core skills and knowledge that labor and management need to form strong partnerships. As part of this effort, OPM should include a train-the-trainer component to prepare labor and management to deliver partnership training in their own organizations.

2. Maintain Continuity in the Face of Change

There is a real danger that the trust and respect so important to successful partnerships will be undermined or even lost when key management or union leaders leave an organization. Many of the reports, particularly those from the military agencies, noted the threat of turnover in the life of any partnership.

OPM recommends that agencies commit sufficient resources to train managers and union representatives who are not currently involved in partnership in the principles and practices of partnership. We believe that getting more people to feel connected to partnership will drive support for partnership deeper into the organization and help labor and management maintain continuity in the face of personnel change. Broad-based training will help build a cadre of partnership advocates who understand the value of labor-management cooperation and who could step into leadership positions or serve on partnership councils when turnover occurs.

We also recommend agencies and unions negotiate partnership principles and structures into their collective bargaining agreements. As partnerships mature, it is common to see agreed-upon principles and practices move from separate, stand-alone partnership agreements to the basic labor contract. This sends a powerful signal that partnership is not some passing fad, but simply the way labor and management plan to do business. Clear contract language provides a strong foundation for partnership. It is a good hedge against the turmoil that personnel changes can bring.

Finally, we recommend agencies and unions develop a succession strategy before leadership changes occur. Planning ahead is the key. Labor and management should assess their partnership periodically to ensure it still meets interests on both sides of the table and produces the kind of results any new leader -- labor or management -- would want to maintain.

3. Greater Focus on Strategic Planning

In his memorandum reaffirming partnership, the President directed agencies to work with their unions to develop labor-management strategic plans. The President recognized that strategic planning provides an unparalleled opportunity for labor and management to collaborate on strategies that can help Federal agencies deliver the best possible service to the American people. Labor-management strategic planning can also help build the trust and mutual respect that are vital to genuine partnerships.

As we discussed earlier in this report, very few agencies have yet to develop labor-management strategic plans. OPM recommends each agency, working with its unions, develop a specific timetable for completing a labor-management strategic plan. We would urge the President's Management Council, acting on behalf of the President, to monitor progress toward the completion of these plans. We also recommend that labor-management plans be developed in conjunction with agency strategic plans. We believe the ultimate goal of high-quality service delivery can best be achieved if labor and management prepare their plans with the agency's strategic plan in mind.

We suggest agencies and unions consult OPM's Guidance for Implementing the President's Memorandum Reaffirming Executive Order 12871 (February 15, 2000). The Guidance offered a number of suggestions for getting started on a labor-management strategic plan.

4. Stronger and More Visible Leadership

The transformation from traditional, adversarial labor-management relations to a genuine partnership does not occur all at once. It is an ongoing change and an ongoing commitment to change is required. Strong, visible leadership is essential to making this transformation work. Without top leadership support, it is almost impossible to get partnership off the ground and just as tough to keep it on course through the ups and downs that inevitably occur.

We believe stronger and more visible leadership from both labor and management is essential to keeping partnership on track. Top leaders must continuously voice their support for partnership but, more critically, must back their words with action. This includes a commitment of needed resources-- time, people, and money-- to provide the training, education, and tools that can help partnerships succeed.

Stronger leadership also means accepting new roles and responsibilities. For the union, leadership is more than just criticizing management actions from the outside looking in. Union leaders must be active partners, ready to offer their own ideas for improving quality and performance. They must be willing to explore possibilities that might have been resisted in the past. For management, leadership means a more collaborative approach to workplace decisions. Management must be committed to a full and active role for the union in workplace changes, from design and implementation to improvement and evaluation. They must be willing to involve the union before decisions are made.

While senior leaders are key to the ultimate success of partnership, the broader labor and management leadership must also be brought on board. For partnership to succeed over the long haul, it must not be viewed as the special province of a few select union and agency leaders while the rest of the organization conducts labor-management relations in the same old way. For the union, this means building support for partnership from the executive board down to front-line shop stewards. Education and training for this larger group is essential for building a shared union vision of partnership. For their part, agencies must prepare orientation and training for mid- and lower-level managers to build understanding for partnership and overcome resistance. Agencies must align the whole management team, and top management leaders must model the behaviors they want to replicate throughout the management ranks.

5. Expand Membership on the National Partnership Council

Created by the President as part of Executive Order 12871, the National Partnership Council has played a valuable leadership role in helping to foster partnerships throughout the Federal Government. The Council has provided guidance on the nuts and bolts of partnership; organized training conferences around the country; conducted surveys and collected data about partnership efforts; advised the President on the state of labor-management relations; and showcased successful partnerships through its annual awards program.

The Council has clearly made a major contribution to the changing labor-management culture, but we think it has the potential to do even more. Right now only a handful of management agencies (OMB, OPM, Labor, Defense, and Treasury) serve on the Council. While the Council has made special efforts to strengthen the links with non-member agencies, we believe the time has come to expand the Council's membership to include more Federal agencies. To maintain the careful balance of labor, management, and neutrals that currently exists on the Council, we recommend the President add two more management seats that would be rotated every two years among Federal agencies.

We believe broader agency representation on the Council would have a number of positive benefits. It would send a visible signal about the importance and value of partnership; it would create a more inclusive and vibrant model of partnership; it would enlist the support of a broader circle of senior leaders to help promote partnership; it would reinvigorate the Council and enhance its deliberations; and it would make the work of the Council more relevant to a wider number of agencies and their employees. All of this would help build a stronger and more lasting foundation for partnership.

6. Fortify Links Between Labor Relations Directors and National Unions

If partnership requires change in the attitudes and behaviors of management and union leadership, it also requires change among the institutions and professionals who are called on to guide and support these leaders and help them adjust to their new roles. As key advisors to labor and management, the national unions and the agency labor relations directors have had to reexamine traditional philosophies and adopt new approaches to help their respective leaders succeed in a cooperative labor-management environment. And while there are outstanding examples of national unions and the labor relations community working together to educate parties and provide them with new skills, we think much more can and should be done at this level across labor-management lines.

We recommend the Office of Personnel Management establish a network comprised of national union representatives and agency labor relations directors. We believe this would create a valuable forum for people who don't ordinarily have the opportunity for candid exchange. It would be a place to share views and exchange ideas, to identify and solve problems, to discuss strategies for success, and to give and receive feedback about polices and practices impacting labor and management across Government. While respecting the different interests each group would bring to the discussion, we are convinced that a closer, ongoing, and more formalized working relationship between the unions and the labor relations directors is long overdue. It is a way for labor and management to lead by example and to demonstrate the benefits of working across the table on issues of mutual concern.
Previous PageTable of ContentNext Page

Page updated on January 12, 2000