Workers may shy away from strikes (part III)
Correspondent | Thursday May 15, 2014 11:11
Workers may shy
away from strikes (part III)
SANDY MILANDA*
Notwithstanding perceived merits, the impact on employer-employee relations is devastating.
In any country a ruling party and the opposition are permanently opposed. When striking workers parade with top opposition politicians, they become opponents of the government. In reality, employees, their unions and government are two sides of the same coin.
They co-exist preferably with mutual respect and trust. This condition is blown away when there is a political intrusion of this magnitude. Civil service-government relationships can never be perfect. Countries such as Switzerland, Singapore, Finland and the USA are good examples to emulate.
Conventional wisdom dictates that the starting point in any mediation or negotiation is the building of mutual respect and trust between the parties.
If this fails then negotiations will also fail in most cases. This suggests that union leaders should avoid insulting language and insist on positive communication. I see nothing wrong in a union leader dining with a cabinet minister chatting about football and climate change for example.
Working relationships are indispensable in the business environment. President Obama is often seen around a table with Republicans. It is not only because government processes permit that.
It happens because all Republicans respect him as their head of state. They differ with him politically and economically but always in polite, civilised and respectful ways. Here cabinet ministers and even the president risk being ridiculed if they grant audience to hostile opponents.
However, salary increases in the civil service do have a positive effect beyond the personal gains of employees. Government would make gains in tax revenue through PAYE and VAT. When employees earn more they increase domestic spending.
The resultant rise in the demand for goods stimulates the supply side. Growth which follows boosts the GDP.
All this can be interpreted as meaning that a huge increase in the civil service salary bill would have a smaller negative impact than the real figures suggest.
Labour union negotiators should do their homework and research vigorously when tackling wage negotiations.
Behind the scenes they need to consult lawyers, economists and work with the calculator to see the potential impact of a salary increase so that they negotiate from an informed platform.
Repeating the song of percentage increase over and over and slamming the employer in the press is hardly a negotiating strategy.
Government negotiators also stand accused of profound complacency bordering on shamefully unbalanced human resource control mechanism.
Improving work place conditions and salaries at the behest of labour unions is a practice of the bygone era. Human resource management of today should be strategic.
This means that it must be influenced by the vision, mission, values and strategic objectives of the government. Negotiators ought to think ahead of political masters and exercise reasonable functional influence in favour of employee relations.
Human resource managers need to realise that government is obliged to show the private sector how well workers should be treated. Just as the civil service is expected to continuously search for better customer service processes, the work force is entitled to aspire for better working conditions.
The role of unions' revolves around exerting an influence on employers to serve the interests of workers. Therefore civil service managers responsible for the human resource function cannot hide behind ineffective labour unions in the quest for more palatable working conditions.
Unions cannot achieve the working class objectives without building harmonious working relations with the employer. It is not about liking or not liking the government representatives.
Remember that none of them acts for personal gain. They are holders of government positions to which we make demands.
Very often we don't get what we want but no matter how frustrating this can be, destroying working relationships is never an option.
I know this article is harsh but this is precisely what labour union leaders need to hear.
The voice of reason in labour issues is in my view, underpinned by three rules of problem-solving. These are: rule 1: Engage, rule 2:Engage and rule 3:Engage.
Sandy Milanda (Independent Consultant)
They co-exist preferably with mutual respect and trust. This condition is blown away when there is a political intrusion of this magnitude. Civil service-government relationships can never be perfect. Countries such as Switzerland, Singapore, Finland and the USA are good examples to emulate.
Conventional wisdom dictates that the starting point in any mediation or negotiation is the building of mutual respect and trust between the parties.
If this fails then negotiations will also fail in most cases. This suggests that union leaders should avoid insulting language and insist on positive communication. I see nothing wrong in a union leader dining with a cabinet minister chatting about football and climate change for example.
Working relationships are indispensable in the business environment. President Obama is often seen around a table with Republicans. It is not only because government processes permit that.
It happens because all Republicans respect him as their head of state. They differ with him politically and economically but always in polite, civilised and respectful ways. Here cabinet ministers and even the president risk being ridiculed if they grant audience to hostile opponents.
However, salary increases in the civil service do have a positive effect beyond the personal gains of employees. Government would make gains in tax revenue through PAYE and VAT. When employees earn more they increase domestic spending.
The resultant rise in the demand for goods stimulates the supply side. Growth which follows boosts the GDP.
All this can be interpreted as meaning that a huge increase in the civil service salary bill would have a smaller negative impact than the real figures suggest.
Labour union negotiators should do their homework and research vigorously when tackling wage negotiations.
Behind the scenes they need to consult lawyers, economists and work with the calculator to see the potential impact of a salary increase so that they negotiate from an informed platform.
Repeating the song of percentage increase over and over and slamming the employer in the press is hardly a negotiating strategy.Government negotiators also stand accused of profound complacency bordering on shamefully unbalanced human resource control mechanism.
Improving work place conditions and salaries at the behest of labour unions is a practice of the bygone era. Human resource management of today should be strategic.
This means that it must be influenced by the vision, mission, values and strategic objectives of the government. Negotiators ought to think ahead of political masters and exercise reasonable functional influence in favour of employee relations.
Human resource managers need to realise that government is obliged to show the private sector how well workers should be treated. Just as the civil service is expected to continuously search for better customer service processes, the work force is entitled to aspire for better working conditions.
The role of unions' revolves around exerting an influence on employers to serve the interests of workers. Therefore civil service managers responsible for the human resource function cannot hide behind ineffective labour unions in the quest for more palatable working conditions.
Unions cannot achieve the working class objectives without building harmonious working relations with the employer. It is not about liking or not liking the government representatives.
Remember that none of them acts for personal gain. They are holders of government positions to which we make demands.
Very often we don't get what we want but no matter how frustrating this can be, destroying working relationships is never an option.
I know this article is harsh but this is precisely what labour union leaders need to hear.
The voice of reason in labour issues is in my view, underpinned by three rules of problem-solving. These are: rule 1: Engage, rule 2:Engage and rule 3:Engage.Sandy Milanda (Independent Consultant)