Arriving at a contract is only the first step in can spell out all the contingencies that might occur, and the responsibility for settling issues equitable labor relations. Administration of the contract may prove far more difficult. No contract falls upon the union and management representatives. The union may be represented by the shop steward, business agent, president of the local, or an official of the national union, while management may delegate authority to foremen, supervisors, plant managers, or the labor relations division. In essence, contract administration demands continuous negotiation and calls for understanding and cooperation.
If the contract contains a reopening clause, either party may petition to consider a change that will amend the contract. Whether a change in the contract is formal or informal, it will set precedent and build a record useful in the next negotiation.
Grievances present the chief problem in administering a contract. There is a clause in most contracts that describes the procedure to be followed to settle a grievance. Often in actual negotiation the principals agree to settle some issues through the grievance procedure rather than to write the problem into the original contract.
In practice, a grievance occurs when union and management representatives fail to agree on the meaning of a clause. For example, management may interpret layoffs by seniority in shifts while the union may interpret layoffs in order of seniority in the whole work force. After seeking agreement, management will usually proceed on its understanding, and affected employees will file objections. Most contracts require that objections be filed in writing, citing the objection and the right to act. Employers likewise have the right to file grievances with the union but rarely do so. The grievance process is useful for clearing up misunderstandings and protecting the rights of workers, and is used in many companies that do not operate under union contracts.
Grievance settlement can be clinical or legal. The clinical approach brings the parties together for careful listening and analysis. The employee, given the opportunity to speak his mind, may cool the situation off, or the process of complaint may show the real reasons for grievance. Both union and management representatives want fair and fast settlement of any cause for delay in work. Often a grievance is a test of strength, and the clinical approach will reveal that the questions at hand could never be settled at the shop level. Organized grievance procedure provides a line of communication that operates at the lowest level of the organization.
If the clinical approach fails, a legal approach is usually described in the contract. It may take these steps: (1) one or more conferences between grievant, supervisor, and union representative; (2) filing of a written complaint to the supervisor that requires a written explanation; (3) a series of meetings between the union shop. Committee and the plant manager, union officers and the industrial relations director, or the international union officers and the corporate executives; (4) all else failing, arbitration at any step in the procedure.
The grievance procedure is not just a way for an aggrieved worker to receive equitable treatment, but a way in which labor and management may continually meet and negotiate working rules.
Before the unions can hope to help in solving the broader problems of mankind and even of their own membership, they have serious internal and external problems to face. The chief of these are worth noting. Jurisdictional Disputes these are questions concerning which union has the right to do a certain job. They often cause work stoppages, loss of time, added expense, and general friction. For example, a conflict may arise as to whether members of a craft union such as the welders have a right to work on a construction job at a chemical plant which is organized by an industrial union. Often there may be a question of which union should organize a certain plant or industry. While such disputes may seem petty, they can be important to workers whose incomes depend on getting jobs, especially at a time when the market for so-called “skilled” labor is shrinking.
Such clashes between craft and industrial unions are not infrequent. Les avoid able questions arise when changes in technology scramble jobs so that categories and jurisdictions once clear-cut create confusion as to which union should do a particular kind of work. In an attempt to clarify such situations, the U.S. Department of Commerce publishes a directory of occupations including over 10,000 entries, most of them created by business firms. Since new positions are created daily as new industries and new businesses emerge, the number of jurisdictional problems is substantial.
Restiveness of the Rank and File A decline of the old esprit de corps among union members has resulted in problems of control. This has come about partly through change in the nature of the membership Union members of the 1930s and 1940 were those who had fought for a union shop. Today’s members may not even have joined voluntarily, and may have done so only because of the existence of the union shop. Formerly, members sought identification with the union; today many turn to the union only in a crisis. Today’s members are more affluent and less homogeneous as a group than their brothers of a few decades back. As a result there is less class-consciousness and hence less solidarity among them, and more concern with the status quo than with growth and improvement. For all these reasons there has been less willing acceptance of existing leaders, and there have been attempts to unseat union officers at every level. There have even been cases when the general membership has refused to accept and ratify a contract deemed wholly acceptable by the negotiators.
Whatever the future of the unions, the future of manpower in general is complex. Today the average worker can seek a job through a government employment service, and cannot legally be refused a job for which he is qualified on grounds of race, religion, sex, nationality, beliefs, or union affiliation. Once hired, he cannot be discriminated against for any of the above reasons. He must be paid at least the minimum legal wage. He is protected from occupational hazards and accidents by stringent regulations, and if injured will receive workmen’s compensation insurance payments. If he is unemployed through no fault of his own he will receive unemployment insurance. If technology outmodes his skills he will receive paid retraining. When he retires he will receive a pension, and when he dies his widow or minor children will receive a burial benefit and survivor’s payments. While this is not the womb-to-tomb program advocated by some and feared by others, it is a far cry from the individualistic and highly competitive situation of the pre-1920s.
Even with all these benefits the labor force is still beset by problems. A person earning the minimum wage and working a full 2,000-hour year would earn only $3,200, which is $1,200 less than the accepted poverty level of subsistence for at nonfarm family of four. In spite of fair employment practices legislation, there is discrimination, and there are differentials in pay scales for men and women doing the same work. A retired employee depending solely on Social Security benefits would be well below the poverty level. Problems of dignity and income are far from being solved in spite of the fact that unions, government and business are all interested in them.
For business, this interest takes two forms. In part it is a matter of social responsibility. It is also a matter of simple economics and enlightened self-interest: people with substantial incomes are potential consumers. Moreover, satisfied employees produce more, take less time off for illness and absenteeism, are more loyal to their employers and less susceptible to labor organizers, are less likely to change jobs and create expensive replacement and training programs, are good public relations agents for their company and its products, and favorably influence community attitudes toward the company.
The Producer as Consumer As the economy approaches full employment, there is a delicate balance between the supply of labor and the demand for it. If the demand is great enough to force wages up (a cost of production), prices also will be forced upward. Higher prices will reduce buying power, and inflation will spiral upward with each attempt to catch up. The greater the imbalance, the greater the pressure for such government intervention as the 1971 wage-price freeze.
It is probable that various attempts to maintain this balance will have the effect of keeping unemployment as high as 5 to 6 per cent of the total labor force, a figure 2 to 3 percentage points higher than that long considered the minimum with full employment. Among those unemployed will be many with a history of unemployment members of minority groups, youths, and the aged. New and more innovative programs will be required to equip these groups with wage-earning skills. They will also have to be more able to move from job to job, and place to place, and there will have to be more available housing for them.
A Shorter Work Time One of organized labor’s greatest victories was the eight hour day. Today, as automation increases and the nature of work progressively changes, there is much thought about still shorter hours or flexible work weeks and various plans are being suggested and tried out. One of these is the so-called 4-40 plan, a work week consisting of four ten-hour days. Wittman has written that “A shorter workweek made possible by a longer workday-usually four 10-hour days instead of five 8-hour days-is becoming a reality for a greater number of workers and businesses in the United States.” In 1971 the Chrysler Corporation and the United Auto Workers Planned a pilot program on the 4-40 basis. There are other shorter work plans, including two weeks on and two weeks off, six months of work and six months of leisure, a three-day, thirty-six-hour work week, and a four-day, thirty-two-hour work week. By 1972, 400 employers had adopted some form of abbreviated work week on a test basis for the majority of their employees.
