This was the last session of the CUE conference (other than the Oktoberfest, complete with a Bavarian band). Did I mention what a great value these conferences are? 3 open bar receptions, a lunch and a dinner. Anyway, this session was presented by 3 consultants, two who are former labor organizers and company “persuaders” (i.e. they interact directly with employees during organizing campaigns). They did a great job illustrating what it is like to organize on behalf of a union. I’d summarize it like this – I’m glad they switched sides. As a “systems” thinker about organizations, my bias is to use persuaders only as a last resort – while they can be very effective, they also enter a new and unknown quantity into the system – a quantity that becomes a crutch during a campaign and then leaves the system basically unchanged afterward, even when the company wins an election. My bias is to instead rely on local supervision to manage a campaign (I even hesitate to have too many corporate-types involved for the same reason – they swoop in, say the right things and then leave local management to live up to any perceived “commitments,” most of which are dreamed up by union supporters after the fact). It is very easy to put words into the mouth of people who are not there to defend themselves. Keeping it “local” avoids this as much as possible and puts responsibility for the campaign squarely where it belongs – on the shoulders of the people who can actually deliver a positive work environment on a daily basis. That being said, persuaders can play a valuable role, especially when there are language barriers, capability gaps or credibility gaps that cannot be resolved during the course of a 4-5 week period.
