Feb 18, 2003

More on management

In a recent letter, David Martin makes the point: "... the premise of unionization is that the interests of management and employees differ." I believe that he is right about this. However, he then goes on to say that, in a not-for-profit organization like the Lab, "managers are employees in exactly the same relationship to the institution as non-managers." From this dubious assertion he seems to conclude that, at the Lab, the interests of managers and non-managers cannot be in conflict. This, I believe, is patently false.

Consider the following (my own assertions) which I believe to be true for essentially every large goal driven organization, whether a for-profit or a not-for-profit:

1) Generally, managers decide what work will be done; non-managers must do this work.
2) Generally, managers judge the quality of work performed; non-managers must submit to these judgments and to their consequences.
3) Generally, managers decide the salaries of non-managers; non-managers do not decide the salaries of managers. (So, can you guess then why managers salaries are higher than non-managers?)

Who would disagree, therefore, that as a consequence of these very asymmetrical relationships, the interests of managers and non-managers can and do come into conflict, quite independent of the presence or absence of any profit motive? (Granted, a profit motive can be an aggravating circumstance.)

Further, during the resolution of these conflicts the views of managers tend to be backed by the institution, while the views of the non-manager are usually promoted by only the individual non-manager. This is an uphill battle for the individual non-manager, to put it mildly.

But, if the individual non-manager could be represented by a large union, then the balance of forces might shift. The union as an institution may then have resources at its command to rival those of the manager, backed by his or her institution.

To repeat, I believe that a conflict between managers and non-managers can easily develop in a not-for-profit institution like the Lab. Indeed, the Lab goes to great lengths to mitigate the effects of such conflicts; e.g., the Ombuds Office and Complaint Resolution Services. However, these means can probably not substitute for the presence of a union, since these means exist entirely at the discretion and under the entire control of the Lab.

To put a personal point on all of this: Even large national unions will have their own in-house staff unions, whose job it is to represent the interests of the union staff (all non-managers) in conflicts with union management. In many such conflicts, union managers may actively resist the influence of their own staff unions. Interestingly, a union employee of my acquaintance, working for a large national union, was a strong supporter of her staff union. That is, she was a strong supporter while she was a non-manager. When she became a team leader, however, she began to change her views. Now she is resistant to the line taken to the staff union. Why? Because as a manager, it is now in her interest to resist the staff union. Now, is this picture clear enough?

--Ken LaGattuta