This week we posted a blog item on an interesting study about the Employee Free Choice Act. In it a solid majority of employers (nearly 60%) say they think some form of EFCA will pass this year. This note is to them. The other 40% of company leaders in that survey are smoking crack … a compromise bill is being negotiated as we speak and will become law this summer.
I’ve been doing a series of strategy calls with companies around the country over the last month. These calls are a blast (if you’re interested in doing a Free Choice Act strategy call for your company you can learn more here - until EFCA passes I’m doing them for free). The companies we’ve talked to range from large, multi-facility organizations who are already doing a lot of the right things to companies that are just learning that EFCA is coming. For the bigger companies we are able to really roll up our sleeves and work on advanced communications strategy. We work on a basic game plan for the smaller companies. But one question comes up in every call, no matter how big and sophisticated the employer: When should I start talking to my employees about EFCA?
It’s a great question. Most companies are reluctant to bring up EFCA for a variety of reasons. First, many say they think it might give disgruntled employees an idea they hadn’t thought of yet (note: this is a terrible reason to avoid the subject – in fact, it is a better reason to be talking about it NOW). Some are afraid to bring it up because they don’t want to violate election laws (this is an easy one to avoid – if you remember one simple rule that I talk about during the strategy calls).
But the best reason I’ve heard is the “crying wolf” problem. Since EFCA is a moving target, there is a fear that talking about it now might make an employer look alarmist (especially if you get specific about things like card-check and mandatory arbitration that are unlikely to make it into this year’s version of the legislation). This is especially true if you go back a few months later and talk about a different bill. One sophisticated employer I worked with a couple of weeks ago had this exact fear, and I think it’s legitimate. However, I do not agree that silence about EFCA is the “cure” for this problem. Instead, I recommend a “middle way” approach.
There is a tendency for employers (and consultants) to get caught up in the outrageous provisions of the proposed version of EFCA, like abandoning the secret ballot in virtually all cases and imposing “fast-track” contracts through mandatory arbitration. Focusing on the problems of EFCA diverts attention from what is really important: employees only choose to sign union cards when they believe (or are tricked into believing) that the union card will somehow improve their lives. The direct relationship between management and employees is what is blown up by unionization. This relationship is the key leverage point in any discussion about unions, no matter what version of EFCA eventually gets signed into law.
Since it is the direct relationship that is at risk, that is what should be the focus of communications now. The good news is that this discussion really doesn’t have to mention unions at all if an employer doesn’t feel comfortable bringing up the subject. The key point to communicate is the importance of this direct relationship, the competitive advantages of companies who maintain a direct relationship and, most important, how employees can take advantage of this direct relationship in their daily work life. There are many ways to illustrate and emphasize the benefits of a direct relationship, and right now this should be your main focus.
Some companies are more vulnerable to union organizing and are targets right now. For these companies it probably makes sense to talk about unions today, and perhaps to go into specifics about how EFCA proposes to change the way unions organize companies in the US. But for many companies, union organizing isn’t an imminent threat. I get that these companies might be a little reluctant to “join the battle” by talking to employees today about EFCA. In fact, that is why the first thing I cover in our strategy calls is going through a quick 3-part quiz to establish what a company should be saying right now.
But a lower level of union vulnerability is not a valid excuse to not communicate. Instead you should develop and communicate a message that emphasizes what is good about your current work environment, and the benefits employees receive by working directly with their manager.
Most employees, when approached to sign a union card, don’t see any cost. Union organizers are trained to make the card-signing process seem like a “no-lose” proposition. When you communicate the advantages of a direct relationship and emphasize the positive aspects of your company you are also showing employees there is a tangible cost to signing a union card. This direct relationship is the one thing employees lose for sure whenever they sign a union card – it says so right on the card.
Your job right now is to make sure you are building up the case that giving up a direct relationship is costly. If you do this job well your company will be immune to organizing activity. Not because of some psychological trick (we’ll leave that to the union organizers) but because your employees will clearly understand that they enjoy their work because of their relationship with management. When asked to sign something to give up that relationship the organizer will be told, “no thanks, I like my job the way it is.” No matter what version of EFCA passes, if this is the answer from a majority of your employees you win.
When should you start talking with your employees? Today. At some point we will know the exact provisions of EFCA and that will be when a company can speak intelligently about them. In the meantime talk about what is really the most important: your relationship with your employees.
Phillip
While I agree that employers should, if they haven’t already, start talking to their employees, in my view, the toothpaste is already out of the tube as to EFCA. I advocate , under the present circumstances, that employers, not unions, should be the party initiating contact with employees, and being the “firstest with the mostest.” I like to see employees looking to their employer as the credible source of messages concerning unionism. I would take the approach of being the employees’ educator on this issue, and I would hit it head on. I suspect that if, out of the blue, the employer suddenly begins to get “warm and fuzzy” in its communications with their employer, they will become quite skeptical and sense that their employer has an undisclosed sinister motive-particularly if EFCA is never mentioned. EFCA is what it is and will become morphed into something akin to its present form, which, as you point out is inevitable. This is a huge issue and employees deserve to hear the straight story about its development from their employer.
I don’t think we disagree in the essentials. My only point is that if you are starting from ground zero (i.e. have never communicated about unions or EFCA at all) and are not in immediate jeopardy of organizing activity (many companies aren’t) that it makes sense to start at the beginning rather than the end. Assuming you have a couple of months before anything is finalized I think it is very appropriate to discuss direct relationship first and independent of the EFCA/union stuff. Again, it’s not an either/or situation – you must communicate about both points. But many are using the uncertainty over EFCA as an excuse to say nothing at all – my point is that you can and should be talking to employees about direct relationship whether or not you feel the time is right to talk about EFCA now or choose to wait a month or two.
Finally, I don’t agree that talking about direct relationship is “warm and fuzzy” talk. It should be concrete and tied directly into how it helps you solve your problems at work (the WIIFM component) as well as how it directly impacts the survival of the business (the business case and strategy component). We’ve helped clients make this their internal brand and it works.
Toughest job in any company is the front line supervisor. Bottom line is having front line supervisors that are trusted by their team members and are engaged with them on a regular basis. In addition, upper management must support their supervisors and walk the talk. I don’t think EFCA will pass in its present form but there will be radical changes relative union organizing that will make it easier for Unions to organize companies. I feel companies need to be proactive in ensuring their leaders are well educated and are held accountable.