dispatches from the new world of work

The Future of Unions?

John O'Leary, long-time facilitator for Tom Peters Company, has provided the offering below. It looks likely to stir up some discussion. Thank you, John, for this post:

The Future of Unions?

If you haven't heard much about Andy Stern, the upstart president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), that will soon change. The introduction to him this month at the Human Resoures Outsourcing (HRO) World Conference in New York was reminiscent of Jon Landau's I-have-seen-the-future-of-rock-and-roll introduction of Bruce Springsteen in the 1970s: "I have seen the future of unions—and its name is Andy Stern."

Head of the largest and fastest growing union in the U.S. (1.8 million workers) Stern has a knack for headline-grabbing quotes such as "This generation of American workers will be the first ever to have a worse quality of life than their parents." His criticisms of Wal*Mart in particular are withering, and his regular blogging at sites such as unitetowin.org and purpleocean.org keeps up the heat. But what makes Stern distinct as a union leader—aside from his embrace of blogging journals and his savvy understanding of branding—is his apparent endorsement of globalization and outsourcing.

Recent comments that "Unions could be this country's largest HR outsourcers" (HRO Today, April, 2005) has certainly gained him some attention. And his actions back it up. With New York City janitors, the SIEU took over HR functions such as pension admin, health plans, severance and outplacement admin, training, etc. As reported in HRO Today, the employers got a more reliable, better-trained workforce, and the employees got higher wages and respectable benefits. But to accomplish this on a larger scale Stern wants to see "denser" union participation in different industries to gain greater standardization of wages and benefits through a "risk-sharing partnership" with business.

Is this the future of unions? Is it a capitulation to the "enemy"? (Many of the respondents on his own SIEU website feel he is supporting a "false brotherhood of labor and capital.") Stern admits, "I'm no Marxist. I'm a Farrellist—a big fan of McKinsey economist Diana Farrell's globalization theories." Farrell feels that protectionism is a misguided response to the problems/opportunities of offshoring/outsourcing, and points out that for a fraction of the savings from offshoring, companies could offer a generous safety net for employees. Stern endorses this, and says unions could play a partnership role in this.

Let the debate begin!

John O'Leary posted this on 04/28/05.

Comments

"This generation of American workers will be the first ever to have a worse quality of life than their parents."

"Help write the best ad about PurpleOcean.org and Al Franken will read it on Air America."

RADICAL LIBERALISM/negativism is still alive somewhere: on the TP site - congratulations for showing TP true colors.

Posted by Sean at April 28, 2005 2:57 PM

Sean,

Great job ignoring 95% of the post. Your willful ignorance is inspiring! Keep it up!

Posted by Tom at April 28, 2005 4:02 PM

Of course, there will be a lot of emotion in a discussion about unions and their future. For every pro there is a con and all sides are somewhat correct. This debate is really about what the future of labor unions in the US will be. Because no one knows the future (hint: it hasn't happened yet!), the debate is only a mental exercise. Is Andy Stern the "future" of unions? If his model of union leadership leads to greater membership and profitability (remember that unions are first and foremost businesses), then the answer is yes. If not, he will remain an interesting footnote in the history of the union movement in America.

Posted by Mike at April 28, 2005 4:36 PM

Andy is the furthest thing from a radical liberal as any union leader I've met or worked with in the last 20 years. He gets SKEWERED from the Left for his opinions on his own website. (Check out:
http://unitetowinblog.org for comments on his post of March 24 on unionizing hi tech!)

Posted by John O'Leary at April 28, 2005 5:32 PM

Sean: I think it's time for you to move along to another site. (Or...gee...should I say moveon.org to another site?) Your tone is aggresive and your language (see above) is wholly inappropriate in its vindictiveness. And, by the way, I'm about as liberal as Newt. Hey! Maybe you should start your own blog--you seem to have plenty of time on your hands.

Posted by Neil at April 28, 2005 11:31 PM

I remember an old quote from Tom (Peters) to the effect of "Ever seen those photos of Henry Ford with a rifle, lording it over his workers? We have unions for a damn good reason."

I agree. While the upper half of America rakes it in (probably less than half)... the other half works crap jobs for companies like Wal-Mart. Wal Mart gets lauded on this site quite a bit, but a whole lot of peole despise them... and for good reasons.

Most at the top dont seem to give a damn about that (witness many of the comments) but to paint union activity as irrational seems odd.

It may seem irrational to upper management, and to white folks living high in the suburbs,... but to the minimum-wage-slave unions make a lot of sense. Tom Peters may have changed his opinions since that quote, but Im still with his old sentiment.

Given that stance,... not sure what to make of Andy Stern. I dont think I have enough understanding of him and his ideas to make a judgement. In a more general vein, however, its good to hear of union leaders evolving. Clearly the old model isnt working.

Posted by AJ Hoge at April 29, 2005 5:17 AM

This might be a bit off toppic, but am I missing something? Tom, why arenÂ´t you blogging anymore...Your last post seems to be quite a long time ago :) Greets from Cologne...

Posted by Ingmar at April 29, 2005 8:01 AM

Looking forward to the post: Guest Blogger: Tom Peters.

Gotta chime in with several others in petitioning TP to come out of sabbatical. Steve, Cathy, et al have done a great job of contributing, but there is a sort of invigorating, mind-tapping energy that Tom brings. I miss that.

Regarding unions, we need unions to give group leverage and help protect the wages and conditions for those without individual leverage. Personally, I don't think it should be manditory to belong to a union to work in an industry. That gives the union too much power and too little incentive to work hard and attract members.

Yes, I understand that it then becomes difficult for unions to recruit and non-union employees reduce the group leverage. The issue, in my mind, is that unions have to do a better job of marketing themselves. My understanding is they haven't done so well in right-to-work states.

The "Union Brand" is suffering tarnish from mob ties (and/or the perception of mob ties), no clear message of benefits, and a one-sided (dare I say it at the risk of seemingly agreeing with Sean?) liberal political agenda.

Posted by Dustin at April 29, 2005 10:51 AM

I enjoyed John's post on the future of unions in the US. We have had 25 years of Trade Union re-invention in the UK since Maggie T's pitched battles with the Unions - Miners, Steel workers, Printing chaples, etc - but I see little evidence of the radical rethinking (and personal positioning) that you have attributed to Mr Stern. Maybe some UK trade unionists might disagree? My sense is that the successful and influencial Union of the future may have to consider itself as a Professional Service Firm, serving the needs of a client base wider than its memebership. Their mantra? How about Bob Nardelli's "Full partners in business success!"?

Posted by Richard King at April 29, 2005 11:46 AM

In a nation of contractors and free agents, where do unions fit in, if at all? Perhaps not so much like unions of yesteryear and more like guilds of old. I guess today we would call it an association, but it could serve union-like functions. And it wouldn't have the stigma of the word "union" attached to it.

Any time a group of people band together for a common purpose, you have emergent properties (whole is greater than sum of parts), but you also have the consequences of long-term groupthink (group ossifies in effort to preserve power). As Henry Ford's example showed us, there were good reasons to have unions. But it seems most unions are just as stuck in the past as their managerial adversaries (not partners).

The internet is, to my mind, an Extinction-Level Event for the dinosaurs of business. (As TP has said: over 90% white collar jobs bye-bye or wholly transformed) Species which rely on the dinosaurs for their existence (unions) must also die out. The smaller, networked, agile mammals are rising in the world of business. Unions have to what I call "mammalize" as well, or risk extinction. We'll see whether Andy is a dinosaur or a mammal.

Posted by Michael Martine at April 29, 2005 12:23 PM

So far I have not been able to find any factual, citable source for photos of Henry Ford "lording it over his workers" with a rifle. Ford was not a lover of labor unions, for certain, but to keep putting something out there as fact which has no basis except for something Tom Peters once said is unfair and unprofessional. Please remember that Dr. Peters has played fast and loose with the facts (Fast Company, 2001 interview regarding In Search of Excellence "we faked the data.")before in order to make a point.

Posted by Mike at April 29, 2005 2:27 PM

Maybe I am missing the point here but if we had total integrity and high standards of openness and professionalism among management then unions would not be needed. Twas ever thus.

Don't blame the workers - blame the management in my view.

The sad truth is that unions exist and were created in the first place because of appalling and unprofessional management - it really is as simple as that.

I always find Sean's opinions worth reading by the way. Disagreement is the essence of progress. I love the quote 'if two people in a partnership always agree' one of them is not required - keep blogging Sean!

Trevor

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 29, 2005 8:13 PM

buy viagra with echeck

jason, thanks for the info on HBS Professor.

Posted by Erik at May 1, 2005 10:51 PM