REPORT RESUMESED 011 702 EA 000 529PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND rOLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS.BY- REHMUS, CHARLES M.

ARKANSAS UNIV., FAYETTEVILLE, COLL. OF EDUCATIONUNIVERSITY COUNCIL FOR EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

PUB CATE 66ECRS PRICE MF-$0.09 HC-$0.60 15P.

DESCRIPTORS- *MANAGEMENT, *COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATION,*ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL, *UNIONS, *TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS,COLUMBUS, FAYETTEVILLE

GROWING UNION ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ISATTRIBUTED TO THREE MAIN FACTORS--(1) UNION NEED OF LARGERMEMBERSHIP FOR INCREASED INCOME AND PRESSURE GROUP STRENGTH,(2) SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT WHITE COLLAR-WORKERS TO PROVIDE UNION LEADERS WITH AN IMPORTANT WEDGE INORGANIZING WHITE COLLAR WORKERS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND(3) UNION ACTIVISTS VIEW THAT UNIONISM WILL RAISE WORKINGCONDITIONS, WAGES, AND FRINGE BENEFITS OF GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES TO LEVELS FOUND IN THE ORGANIZED PRIVATE SECTOR.TEACHER ORGANIZATION NEGOTIATIONS HAVE RESULTED FROM THEDESIRE OF TEACHERS FOR GREATER SECURITY OR CONTROL OVER THEIRWORKING CONDITIONS AND FOR ELIMINATION OF EMPLOYERDISCRIMINATION IN DECISIONS AFFECTING TEACHERS. FOR BOTHSUPERINTENDENTS AND TEACHERS, A SUGGESTED ALTERNATE TO THEPRESENT ALL-INCLUSIVE NEA ORGANIZATION IS A COMMUNITY-LEVELSTRUCTURE WHICH WOULD PROVIDE FOR NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THELOCAL TEACHER ORGANIZATION AND THE SUPERINTENDENT AS DISTINCTUNITS BUT WOULD INCLUDE THEM IN THE SAME STRUCTURE ON THESTATE AND NATIONAL LEVEL. NEGOTIATION IS VIEWED AS A COMPLEXPROCESS REQUIRING THOROUGH PREPARATION, AN UNDERSTANDING OFTHE TOTAL NEGOTIATION PROCESS, AND CAREFUL PLANNING FOR THEADMINISTRATION OF A NEW LABOR AGREEMENT. THE ADEQUATERESOLUTION OF NEGOTIATION IMPASSES DEPENDS UPON APROBLEM-SOLVING ORIENTATION ON THE PART OF MANAGEMENT AND AWILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF MANAGERIALRESPONSIBILITY. THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT "COLLECTIVENEGOTIATIONS AND EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION," OF WHICH THISIS CHAPTER 4, IS AVAILABLE FROM THE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL FOREDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION, 65 SOUTH OVAL DRIVE, COLUMBUS,OHIO 43210, AND FROM CR. ROY B. ALLEN, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION,UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 7270I, FOR32.50. (JK)

:1'

Oti1-4

COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONSo AND

ta EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

Edited by

Roy B. Allen

University of Arkansas

and

John Schmid

Colorado State College

Pubiished by

College of .Education

University of Arkansas

and the

University Council for Educational Administration

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE Of EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM ME

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE Of EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

CHAPTER 4

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND COLLECTIVENEGOTIATIONS

CHARLES M. REHMUSUniversity of Michigan

Within the last three years, over a half-million publicemployees at all levels of governmentFederal, State andMunicipalhave joined unions. Professional organizations,in existence for many years, have recently begun to engagein union-like activity at an unprecedented rate, influencedboth by the desires of their members and the pressure ofstandard unions upon them for membership adherence.In light of these developments, it is little wonder thatBusiness Week magazine recently referred to public em-ployees as the "growth stock" of American unionism. Be-fore moving to a discussion of the manifold new problemsthat employee unions will cause for public managers, Iwould like to make a few remarks about some of the reasonsfor these developments as background to my specific topic.

THE GROWTH OF PUBLIC UNIONISM

Why are the unions active in organizing governmentworkers as never before in our history? In brief summary,the reasons are three. First, unions, like other bureaucra-cies, need growing membership in order to increase theirincome and their pressure group strength. Governmentworkers represent one of the single largest poGls of un-organized workers in our society and are, therefore, tempt-ing organizing bait for the trade union movement.

Second, and probably more important, the union leadersfeel that if they can organize a substantial body of the

61

CA oo 0 5261

1

1

i

government workers who are engaged in white collar occu-pations, this will provide them with an important wedge inorganizing the tremendous numbers of white collar workersin the private sector of our society, a group that has hither-to responded largely with indifference to union organizingefforts.

Third, a large number of dedicated union activists inour society genuinely believe that government workers havebecome "second class citizens." They believe that unionismwill have many benefits for government employees; that itwill bring their working conditions, their wages and theirfringe benefits up to the levels that prevail in the organ-ized private sector.

These union efforts to organize government employeeshave been substantially aided in recent years by executiveorders and legislation, in both State and Federal jurisdic-tions, which have encouraged negotiatory procedures andcollective bargaining contracts for government employees.Various jurisdictions of government have promulgatedthese enactments partly for political reasons and in re-sponse to political pressures, but more importantly becausegovernment at all leve!3 is being faced with a challenge.Representatives of the business community, bar associa-tions and others, have been repeatedly questioning govern-ment in t'-,e following manner : "For 30 years now, govern-ment has insisted that private employers bargain collective-ly with representatives of their employees. If public em-ployees want to organize, why isn't sauce for the goosesauce for the gander? Suitably modified to meet the exi-gencies of public service, why should not government treatits own employees in the same fashion that it forces privateemployers to deal with theirs ?" There is no good answerto this question--and I think it is the largest single reasonwhy government at all levels is today setting up negotiatingsystems to establish contractual relationships with organ-izations of its own employees.

Even from this brief summary I believe it is easyenough to see what the motives of the unions are in thefield of public employment and why government agenciesat all levels are being forced, ever increasingly, to establishbargaining relationships. The more fundamental question

62

is why government employees are responding to unions andto the opportunity to negotiate collectively as never before.With particular reference to teachers, why is this largeand important group in our society, a group that is clearlywhite collar in orientation, turning to union and union-typeactivities? The reasons are many and complex, but arecertainly worthy of brief consideration.

Teachers, of course, have had significant economic dis-satisfactions for many years. Interestingly enough, how-ever, the move toward union-like activities and unionismitself among teachers has come during a period when mostschool systems in our nation have been moving rapidly to-ward remedying some of the worst of teachers' economicproblems. In the last decade the economic rewards ofteaching, over the nation as a whole, have moved up morerapidly than have the earnings of unionized workers gen-erally. I cannot conclude, therefore, that the move towardteacher unionism is solely a response to economic dissatis-factions.

We must look more deeply at the nature of the teachingjob for additional answers. Part of the answer may lie ina desire for greater security. Here I do not mean economicinsecurity in the sense that a satisfactory teacher is apt tolose or be unable to find a job. Security is more than co-nomics. It includes elements such as control of where, howand under what conditions one will work. As we changeour educational system and teaching methods, the changesin and of themselves threaten the security we all find in thestatus quoin using our established skills to do a job welike. In the work environment a union is a conservativeinstitution which says to the employer, "Wait. Let's con-sider the impact upon the employees before we makechanges that adversely affect their lives and the way theydo their work." In this sense, the response of unionism, orincreasingly aggressive behavior on the part of profes-sional organizations, is simply a facet of the attempt to in-crease overall job and personal security which is endemicthroughout our society today.

Finally, I think teachers are turning to union -likeactivity because they want an end to discrimination againstthem. By discrimination I do not speak in the sense of

63

invidious distinctions based upon race, color or creed as wecommonly use the word. I here use the word in the sensethat unions commonly use it. They say that the employerhas discriminated against employees whenever he makesany choice between themchoices in regard to promotions,demotions and assignments of workwhere the reasons forthese choices are not objectively apparent to the employeeand the organization which represents him. Put in anotherway, I think that teachers, like white collar workers in oursociety generally, are demanding more knowledge of whythings are done and an increased voice in the decisions thataffect them. We have for years said to teachers, "You area trained and educated person with a job which is of im-mense importance in our society." Yet, in many cases wehave given teachers very little voice in the way in whichthey conduct their work. Moreover, in a regrettable num-ber of situations we have made them subject to the arbi-trary and capricious decisions of principals and supervisors.I believe that the response of union-like activity on the partof teacher organizations is in substantial part a desire onthe part of teachers to increase their knowledge of de-cisions affecting their work and to provide the psychologi-cal satisfaction derived from having a part in the decisionsthat affect their own destiny.

All of this is simply preliminary to my major topichow does the public manager deal with his new responsi-bility of negotiating collectively with representatives of hisemployees? I think this background is pertinent, nonethe-less, for I believe one can always deal most effectively withthe person on the other side of the table if one understandssome of the motives, aspirations and problems of his op-ponent. Knowing these things should allow the publicmanager to do a better job in dealing with representativesof his employees.

Such knowledge will by no means solve all of theirproblems, however. Among these will be significant ques-tions of who is to be in what kinds of bargaining units? Whois going to do the negotiating? How do we get ready tonegotiate, and on what subjects? What should the nego-tiating process be like in a situation where the manager ipa representative of the public and responsible to an electe

64

A

k-

L

1

board? What will be our increased problems of personneladministration if we negotiate a written agreement thatcommits us to administer personnel policy in a fixed fash-ion for the life of the contract? These are the kinds ofquestions to which I will now turn.

BARGAINING UNIT PROBLEMS

One of the more severe sources of difficulties that Isee facing our school systems today is the question of whatin the private sector we refer to as "appropriate bargainingunits." How does the educational administrator negotiatewith an employee organization, often an affiliate of theNational Education Association, when he too is likely tobe a member of that same organization ? In the case ofaffiliates of the American Federation of Teachers this isnot really a problem since the AFT represents teachers andnon-supervisors almost exclusively. But in the case ofthe NEA affiliates this is a serious problem. Are we tohave units that include teachers, principals and supervisors,even conceivably superintendents, when all of these peoplemay be members of the same state and even city educationalassociations?

Here, I', think, a possible answer may be that NEAaffiliates must look toward separate units, perhaps classi-fications of memberships as well, based upon purpose. Forexample, all persons engaged in public education have cer-tain common interests at the state level. I think, there-fore, that teachers and supervisors alike might be membersof a state educational association in which they would joinfor lobbying and general professional relationships. Atlocal community levels, however, I think we may find itnecessary to move toward a situation of a community edu-cational association composed exclusively of non-supervisoryteachers who would negotiate collectively with managerialrepresentatives of the school board. The teachers wouldalso bring contractual grievances against their principalsor other supervisors, and this too might very likely requireseparate kinds of memberships in the parent organizationwhich yet permit strong and independent teacher units. Ithink only by this, or some similar adjustment, will theNEA affiliates in the long-run be able to maintain a viable

65

I

future in the face of increase4 pressure from teachers andfrom the American Federation or Teachers for militantnegotiating activity. The alternative is a system whereingrievances and problems are mediated with the employeeorganizationa feasible idea, but one which involves someabdication of the management role.

PREPARING FOR NEGOTIATIONS

Viewed as an entirety, the negotiating process includesthree different elements: (1) preparing for negotiations,(2) the negotiating process itself, and (3) planning for theadministration of a new labor agreement. Each of theseelements is worthy of extended discussion. I will here at-tempt only to sketch in broad outlines the kinds of planningand staffing for each that has to be undertaken by all whowill participate in the process. Parenthetically, the processis not greatly different whether negotiations take place inthe private or the public sector.

Preparation for negotiations is an astonishingly time-consuming process, seeming particularly so to those whohave never engaged in it. It involves the selection of anegotiating team, the planning of the general position ofmanagement in regard to the forthcoming negotiations, andfrequently, preparing specific contract proposals that man-agement will wish to see incorporated in any agreementwhich eventuates.

Management will often find it necessary or desirableto delegate the responsibility for preparation and negoti-ation to staff members who can be spared from their reg-ular duties for substantial periods of time. The role of theschool board is that of making general policynegotiationis a staff function. In larger public school situations these'time requirements often mean that the chief administratormay not be able to devote sufficient time to the process andwill have to delegate the negotiating function to others onhis staff. Upon occasion school boards have hired outsidecounsel or experienced industrial relations consultants tohelp them in their preparations and the negotiations them-selves. Even if this is done some of those who participatein negotiations should be fully familiar with the day-to-dayoperating requirements of the system in order that the

66

administration will maintain its ultimate managerial re-sponsibility to the public. Without th" kind of preciseoperational knowledge even the most e:, rienced negotia-tor might make a seemingly harmless commitment thatwould unduly hamper operating supervisors.

The members of the management team will find itnecessary to familiarize themselves with wt at kind of con-tractual commitments have been undertaken by othersfaced with similar problems, and how similar contractualcommitments might apply to their specific situation. Theplanning and preparation stage should include discussionon all of the many subjects that the employe rganizationwill feel appropriate for negotiations. In the financial area,these will include such matters as salaries, progression sys-tems, vacations, pensions and retirement systems, sabbati-cals and leaves of absence.

In addition, those who are planning for the negotia-tions will have to consider carefully whether they will alsonegotiate in any other areas which have important economicimplications for the system but are not as directly relatedto employee compensation and benefits. Among the possi-bilities in this area are such subjects as whether negotia-tions will cover class size, reduction in instructional load,specialized services and other aids to teachers, programpreferences, rotation in teaching assignments, and possiblya detailed and specific grievance procedure. I do not neces-sarily imply that all of these subjects are desirable in schoolnegotiations, only that in many cases teacher organizationsmay want to discuss them. Advance planning requires con-sideration of whether the administration will negotiate uponthem and if so, to what degree.

In thinking about many of these subjects, and I amsure many school administrators feel no great enthusiasmin doing so, I would tell you of a comment that BernardDonovan, Superintendent of Schools in New York City, oncemade to me. He told me that many people has commentedon the vast range of subjects covered by the New York Citycontract and loudly bewail many of the things that are init. He said, "90% of the things that are in our contract arethings we would have liked to have had when we wereteachers. Many other things that are in the contract are

67

1 things that we, as administrators, at one time or anotherthought would be nice to do for our teachers, but for reasonsof time or money didn't get around to doing. Now, the unionhas come in and hit us over the head to obtain these thingsand it, of course, has taken all of the credit." I think thereis a definite lesson for all of you in this remark, both forthose educators who have not yet been faced with teacherorganizations and for those who may be planning the posi-tions that they will take in future negotiations. Confusionbetween rights that are essential for management to re-tain and things that are merely pleasant or desirable, alongwith reliance upon tired concepts of sovereignty as a reasonfor inaction, will inevitably lead to negotiating difficulties.

THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS

So far as the negotiation process itself is concerned, Isimply am unable here to go into it in detail. As a matterof fact, the subject of "how to negotiate a labor agreement"is not something that we have ever taught satisfactorily inthe universities. Most negotiators learned their job by thesimple expedient of watching others do it, learning fromtheir failures and successes, their strengths and weak-nesses. Somebody once remarked, "No one is a completefailurehe can always serve as a bad example." I supposethat this is the way most of us have learned how to negoti-ate labor agreements.

Sufficient to say that, if at all possible, it is a job forprofessionals. If not, and in the smaller systems profes-sionals or people with experience are ordinarily not avail-able, then I think negotiation should be undertaken by some-one who has a reputation for fairness and firmness, and yeta person who genuinely believes in the legitimate right ofemployees to discuss the elements of the personnel and workrelationship. I consider that factual knowledge of the workrequirements and the desire to negotiate fairly and in goodfaith are the absolute minimum requirements for successin negotiations. The negotiating table is not a place wheretrickiness is necessary or even desirable. Difficult issuesmust be faced and discussed thoroughly. Once this hasbeen done a management refusal to accede to the employees'request, when based in the logic of management's ultimate

68

I;

rt

I4

I

yiresponsibility to manage, becomes at least palatable to theemployee group.

A brief comment on the economics of public negotia-tions is certainly in order here. I am often asked, "Howcan we negotiate wages when our income must come fromthe state and from local taxes, sources beyond our power ofcontrol?" Several solutions are possible, none totally satis-factory. You can wait until the dollars available are known,and then negotiate on the distribution of these availablefunds. You can negotiate salary schedules in advance ofknowing how much will be available, and then join withthe employee organizations in public relations and lobby-ing activities to try to procure the necessary funds. Final-ly, you can negotiate alternative schedules and allocations,dependent upcn what might become available. In anyevent, valid and rational wage negotiations have takenplace covering public employees in many parts of our na-tion, so it is at least a possible if not a perfect system.

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATIONFinally, public managers who are faced with the re-

sponsibility for collective negotiations must, even beforenegotiations are concluded, give some thought to the waythat the working relationship will change once the contractis negotiated. One of the principal requirements here isthat all those who will have any responsibility for carryingout the provisions of the contract be fully informed, im-mediately upon the completion of negotiations, how themanagement negotiators construe the language that theyhave agreed upon and how they intend that it shall be car-ried out. This requires meetings of all concerned and a newand additional kind of training program. The chief buga-boo of all industrial relations men is contract administra-tion by supervisors which varies from the intent of thosewho negotiated the agreement. This results in differentialadministration, inevitably viewed by employees as unfair.Moreover, any administrative practices that employees viewfavorably become viewed as established "past practices"that can actually emasculate the specific intent or languageof the contract itself.

This is particularly true if 3 grievance procedure andan arbitration system is negotiated as part of the agree-

69

1

i

,

I

ment. I recommend that established grievance proceduresbe negotiated in agreements, for it seems to me that this isone of the most significant things that employees achievein public sector collective negotiations. It is the means bywhich elements of "due process" are added to the workingrelationship. At the same time, management must beaware that at the end of the grievance procedure frequentlylies recourse to binding or advisory arbitration by an out-sider. Under these circumstances, management no longeris the sole judge of the correctness and reasonableness ofits own acts toward employees. Now, management mustlook at its own acts, not in the light of whether it thinks itis being reasonable ?nd fair, but in light of the question, "Isthe reasonableness and fairness of our act defensible to anoutsider?" The working relationship in private industry ismuch different than it was a generation ago simply becauseof this change in standards by which management's actsare judged. I suggest to you the strong possibility that asimilar change is coming in public employment relation-ships.

NEGOTIATING IMPASSESI have been describing some of the elements of public

negotiations in terms of a process in which a full and fairdiscussion of the issues will result in some kind of an agree-ment between the parties. In fact, this is the result thatordinarily occurs. At times, however, people are unreason-able, and even reasonable men may differ strongly. In suchan event, a bargaining impasse may occur. In a few situa-tions, as you are all well aware, teacher strikes have takenplace. The possibility of such strikes is, I know, a matterof deep concern to all educational administrators. In myopinion, however, they have resulted in concern and con-troversy disproportionate to the real seriJusness of theproblem. I do not mean that a teacher's strike, or in facta strike on the part of any b3dy of essential public em-ployees, is not a serious problem. I simply mean that theoccurrence of such impasses is quite exceptional even inthe private sector. Certainly they should not occur withfrequency in public sector negotiations.

There are many means of solving most of the difficul-ties that will arise in the course of collective negotiations.

70

II

1;

I4

14

i

Among them, and without going into detail, are such pro-cedures as off-the-record conferences, studies by specialsubcommittees, mediation and conciliation, and occasional-ly reference to outside or higher level fact-finding.

Probably as important as any of these is simply thetechnique of staying problem-oriented rather than proposal-oriented. By this I mean that a management negotiatorshould always remember that a union proposal is simply theunion's proposed solution to a problem. If managementdigs deeper to ascertain the real nature of the problem be-hind the proposal, it may well find that the problem is realand, moreover, that it is susceptible to a number of alterna-tive solutions. Hopefully, one or more of these alternativeswill be more acceptable to the management than the union'soriginal proposal, and yet will be equally acceptable to theunion as well.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, let me outline for you one of the greatestdifficulties that many of us whose experience is in theprivate sector have had in speaking on collective negotia-tions to public managers. Essentially, I think, we haveleft our listeners in a state of some mental indigestion.

On the one hand, we say that collective negotiationswith public employees, if they desire to organize, is rightand proper and that it should be app: ached on a goodfaith basis by public managers. We say that concessionsare in order where real employee problems have been iden-tified. We feel that public manager's decisions can ap-propriately be questioned by outsiders, at least in manycircumstances, and therefore that a negotiated grievanceprocedure is appropriate. On the other hand, we say thatcollective bargaining is no job for the amateur, that he whoparticipates in negotiations should be extremely cautiousand careful before he makes major concessions to em-ployees for fear that essential management rights will begiven up. I do not wonder that some have asked what Iand others like me are really saying.

In my own mind, I attempt to resolve this apparentconflict by distinguishing between the "rigid" and the

71

"hard" negotiator. The rigid negotiator is one who doubtsthe legitimacy of employee organizations in the public sec-tor. He feels that unions have no place in the public serv-ice, and that union representatives frequently do not repre-sent the real desires and the best interests of those whomthey purport to represent. He feels that the public em-ployment relationship was a fine one in which employeeswere never discontented, at least not seriously so, until theunion organizers and malcontents came along. Such anadministrator will not negotiate in good faith and he willnot identify or engage in negotiations in any genuine spiritof problem solving. He is headed directly for trouble withemployee organizations and he deserves it.

Alternatively, if the public manager approaches hisnew responsibilities toward collective negotiations in theopposite frame of mind, recognizing both the legitimateinterests of the employees in many of these areas and theirprivilege to organize and bargain, and if he makes his besteffort to solve existing problems he is then negotiating ingood faith. Having done so, he may yet find that those onthe opposite side of the table are unreasonable and demandcompromises beyond the point where management canlegitimately and rightfully go. At this point, it is not onlythe public manager's privilege, it is even his obligation tobe hard, to say, "We have discussed these matters manytimes, we have agreed on many things, and managementhas made many compromises. This is as far as we canrightfully go in terms of our obligation as managers. Thisis our last offer." At this point, if the management repre-sentative has negotiated openly and in good faith, the rep-resentatives of employees are ordinarily reasonable.

In the private sector we negotiate over 100,000 laboragreements every year. In only a small percent of thesedo work stoppages ever occur. In a majority of negotiationsthe possibility is never even mentioned. If they can do it,I am confident that you can too. As a matter of fact, youmay even teach us many things about successful and goodfaith negotiations that we have yet to learn.

72