Your decision is required!

Do you remember that sinking feeling you used to experience at secondary school when your clearly unprepared teacher (and it was usually either the English or the RE teacher) uttered the energy-draining words:

We’re going to have a debate.

You knew exactly what would happen. 30 minutes of uninformed discussion led by the clueless, with contributions from the self-opinionated, ending in a final vote which might as well have been taken at the beginning, so negligible was the movement of minds that the debate had achieved.

I experienced that sinking feeling yesterday when I stumbled across a blog asking the question:

“What place the Unions in 2011?”

I think that the comment of “are Trade Union leaders simply self serving, rewarding themselves handsomely from members subscriptions whilst embarking on a shameless quest of self promotion” gave readers a slight clue as to the opinions of the blog writer.

The few comments on the blog were divided between those that thought that Trade Unions were A Good Thing, and a similar number that regarded them as A Bad Thing.

So, time for a bit of mischief!

Do you remember those times when your school teacher was slightly more prepared, and suggested a balloon debate, where pre-selected individuals were allocated roles of various historical characters and they had to justify why they shouldn’t be thrown over the side of the slowly sinking balloon?

Well, the writer of the blog just happened to be a recruitment consultant (spit!)

So dear readers, in the balloon there’s just the three of you: you, a Trade Union leader (simply self serving, rewarding themselves handsomely whilst embarking on a shameless quest of self promotion) and a recruitment consultant (simply self serving, rewarding themselves handsomely whilst embarking on a shameless quest of self promotion)

The decision is yours. One of them has to go.

Who’s it going to be? Trade Union leader or Recruitment Consultant

Cast your vote at the top of the blog!

Why? Why? Why?

OK, dear readers. Examine the following three statements:

If you pay exceedingly generous bonuses to a select few individuals at the pinnacle of any management hierarchy, it will inevitably lead to those businesses being better managed, and consequently improving shareholder value.

If you remove the ability of employees to request the right to work flexibly, it will inevitably lead to increased productivity within the workforce.

If you remove the practice of collective pay bargaining in the NHS and education sector (presumably requiring each region to undertake such activities independently), this will also boost productivity.

All three of the above statements are ones which form the backdrop to much debate within the UK’s management community at the moment.

OK, the debate is never put in such stark terms, although the recent proposals put forward by the Institute of Directors for the drastic curbing of employee rights come pretty close to it.

'Axe' public sector union rights, say business leaders

Management, especially where it involves people, is never a precise science, and therefore the laws of cause and effect don’t exactly apply.

But for a generous bonus culture to lead to better financial performance or reduced rights for employees to lead to improved productivity there must in theory be an unbroken chain of causality that can be observed and investigated.

If the statements above are true, it doesn’t matter how many links there are in the chain, but there must be a connection between the cause and the effect.

Can someone help me out here: why do we believe that our generous bonus culture has led to increased financial performance? And why do we believe that reducing the rights of employees will similarly lead to increased productivity?

I’m not looking for an explanation of every link in the chain. Just the first one will do.

CBI campaigns for modernisation of strike legislation

Timed to perfection, coinciding with the Conservative Party Conference and the London Tube Strike, the CBI this week called for changes in the law to raise the threshold for industrial action, and to ensure that if strikes occur disruption is minimised.

CBI unveils package of measures to avoid strikes

The CBI argues that their recommendations for modernisation of the UK employment relations legislation are essential if the current recovery is to be kept on track.

The CBI believes the law needs updating to reflect the fact that 85% of private sector employees are not members of a union, and that most employers engage directly with staff or their representatives to bring about changes in the workplace.

Their recommendations include:

• Employers should be able to use agency temps to cover for striking workers.
• The notice period for industrial action should increase from seven to 14 days after the ballot takes place to give the public and businesses more time to prepare for strikes.  
• People should have the right to decide whether they want to be represented by a union. Ballots should always be held on union recognition – it should never be automatic.  
• Strikes should be the result of a clear, positive decision by the workforce concerned. The test for a legitimate strike should be that 40% of balloted members support it as well as a simple majority of those voting.  
• Only paid-up union members should be able to vote – there should be a single legal definition of a union member.  
• Unions should keep records up to date. They should conduct an annual audit of their membership and make all reasonable endeavours to keep records accurate throughout the year.  
• Union members should be required to hear both sides of the argument before voting in a strike ballot. Employers and unions should each be allowed to send concise statements with the ballot papers, setting out the scope, nature and reason for the dispute.  
• Union members should be advised on the implications of striking for them personally. Ballot papers should include a notice warning that pay and non-contractual benefits can be withdrawn if an employee goes on strike.

These recommendations are likely to polarise the population into those that think that Trade Unions are an anachronism, led by a band number of militant Marxists intent on holding a company to ransom, and those who think that the CBI’s recommendations are an attempt to totally remove the last weapon in the Trade Unions’ arsenal – that of the removal of labour.

So, dear readers of HR Case Studies: What do you think? Comments welcome.