Bosses prefer that bargaining takes place between small groups of well-behaved representatives of both sides, under a "Cone of Silence." Why does this happen, and more importantly, why do unions go along with it?
The sharing of detailed information about the status of negotiations with union members or with the public is frowned upon. The process culminates in a tentative agreement - often little better than the one that came before it and sometimes worse - which is trotted out to a membership that has had no involvement in its negotiation, no clue how the extensive bargaining proposals they saw many months prior have shrunk to next to nothing, and no real idea of why any of this is good for them. Small wonder that working people who have been sidelined are less than enthusiastic when asked to strike or to ratify the lackluster package that has been hammered out under the cone of silence.
The "Cone of Silence" approach to bargaining is very popular with management because they serve management's purpose. A disempowered membership is unlikely to strike or to engage in a prolonged strike. Disconnected members aren't likely to come out in support of brothers and sisters who are on strike. A public that is oblivious to what is going on under the "cone of silence" will never know enough to care.
If unions are to begin to deliver the goods to their members at negotiations, they are going to have to chuck the rulebook and dump the "Cone of Silence." The days of keeping members in the dark and excluding all but a select few from the bargaining process need to end. There will be no breakthroughs in bargaining until this happens.
There is clear evidence from union organizing campaigns, that the most effective strategies have not been those based on professional organizers, but rather those based on a worker-to-worker, grassroots approach. What the evidence suggests is that unions are more likely to win certification campaigns by using a grass roots, rank-and-file intensive strategy, building a union and acting like a union from the very beginning of the campaign. The campaigns where the union focused on person to person contact, house calls, and small group meetings to develop leadership and union consciousness and inoculate workers against the employer's anti-union strategy were associated with significantly higher win rates than traditional campaigns which primarily utilized gate leafleting, mass meetings and glossy mailings to contact unorganized workers.
What this experience has shown is that leaflets and mailings act as a proxy for traditional campaigns, where the union's energy is focused on indirect means of communication, rather than on personal contact and leadership development necessary to build the union and counteract the employer campaign. Unlike leaflets and mailings, person to person contact through house calls and small group meetings is an essential and effective means for organizers to listen to workers' concerns, allay their fears and mobilize them around the justice and dignity issues that matter enough to them to challenge the employer and win, regardless of the brutality and intensity of the employer campaign.
It is also clear that Unions were also more successful when they encouraged rank and file participation in and responsibility for the organizing campaign. More than any other single variable, having a large, active, rank and file committee representative of all the different interest groups in the bargaining unit was found to be critical to union organizing success, increasing the probability of the union winning the election by as much as 20%. With employers aggressively campaigning against the union eight hours a day in the workplace, these committees are the most effective vehicles for generating the worker participation and commitment necessary to counteract the fears and misinformation created by the employer campaign.
Representative rank and file committees are also essential in order for the union to keep in touch with the issues and concerns of the workers they are attempting to organize. However, most important of all, these committees give workers a sense of ownership of the union and the organizing campaign and a sense that they are democratic and inclusive organization.
If these tactics work during organizing why wouldn't the same principles apply during bargaining? After all, the employers' motives are the same in each case - to retain control and to minimize the power of the workers. Employer tactics during organizing are not dissimilar from those used during bargaining.
So what would an aggressive and intensive bargaining strategy free of the "Cone of Silence" look like?
- Actively involving rank and file members throughout the process.
- Encouraging bargaining committee members to speak, ask questions and engage the management committee in discussion.
- Polling members throughout negotiations to determine their priorities and positions on key issues.
- Person to person contact to report on the status of bargaining, preparation for job action and community support.
- Wider representation on bargaining committees of worker members so that a wide range of interests can be represented.
- Open, frequent communication about the status of bargaining with members and with the community.
- Engaging the community and applying pressure by communicating with customers, suppliers and community groups.
- Demanding that the employer open the books and supply proof whenever poverty is being alleged. (The timing for this kind of demand couldn't be better given the growing list of examples of how "figures don't lie but liars figure").
Connections between people are far more powerful than the typical union leadership believes. If an open, inclusive approach during organizing helps build support, solidarity and commitment, why would a similar strategy not generate similar results during collective bargaining?
Would an informed membership not be a more supportive membership in the event that a strike is called? Would wider member participation on bargaining committees not generate greater commitment to the union and reinforce to the employer that the members are a force to be reckoned with? Would publicizing, in advance of and during negotiations, the union's position on the issues not generate interest and, possibly even support from the community? The "Cone of Silence" accomplishes none of these.
During organizing campaigns, employers try to prevent workers from accessing their power (collective action), and during bargaining, employers' seek to prevent workers from using their power. The "Cone of Silence" keeps workers in the dark and disconnects them from their union and each other.
Knowledge is power. Interaction precedes action. It's time our unions woke up to this. (From the Uncharted web site).
