The two-hatted trades unionist

Trades unions were formed to look after the interests of their members, particularly in regard to wages and conditions of work. For many managers, they are seen as an unwelcome scourge. Certainly, when their powers become excessive, as happened in the UK during the 1970s, they can – like any single-issue pressure group – pose a real threat to democracy.

They can also be embarrassing to a company. In this case, the leader of a trades union was particularly vociferous when decrying the levels of boardroom pay, particularly that of the chairman, who in turn took all of this very personally. He deployed substantial resources in order to try to stop the trades unionist. In fact, he did every-thing except meet her.

But the chairman’s company was under threat from changes in impending government legislation, which could really damage the company’s trading position and profitability. Naturally, the company employed professional lobbyists to put its case. Prime among their arguments were job losses, which they thought would appeal to the socialist government of the day.

However, time moved on and the lobbying firm was finding increasing resistance in its requests for meetings with key figures. The company was not getting its arguments across. Facing a desperate situation, a fairly junior public relations executive pointed out that the trades union – which had been such a thorn in the company’s side – also sponsored a junior minister in the government department responsible for the new legislation.

‘It’s a waste of time,’ said the lobbying firm, ‘we have tried everything to get a meeting and it is impossible. It is probably because of the ongoing row about pay – he is too embarrassed to be seen to meet us because of the campaign run by his own union.’

‘Why not,’ suggested the PR executive, ‘ask the trades unionist to go and meet him and explain the situation about job losses: particularly among her members.’ This suggestion was greeted with horror.

There were two arguments against the suggestion: one overt and one covert.

The overt argument. The company would have no control over what she might say at this meeting. The simple answer to this is that it has no control over what she says in any event. So there is very little to lose.

The covert argument. But who would approach the trades unionist and ask her to approach the junior minister? In debate, the argument was hardly touched on. However, beneath the surface it had a huge influence. While the overt argument was debated again and again, the real fear – that of engaging an enemy – remained hidden.

As the situation became more desperate, it was decided to ask the junior PR executive to approach the union on the grounds that ‘after all, it was your idea’. He called and, to his amazement, found a human being at the end of the phone who readily agreed to an informal meeting. It was the first non-confrontational contact she had had with the company for years.

The trades unionist was not aware of the magnitude of the problem and immediately saw the implications for her members. That week, she had secured a meeting with the junior minister and the senior minister and secured a change in the proposed legislation.

Analysis

There are a number of lessons to be learned from this case.

• We should never judge the book by the cover: often people are on the same side; they just don’t know it.
• It is very dangerous to generalise about people: just because they oppose one aspect of an organisation’s activity does not mean they oppose it all.
• The world is full of shades of grey – there is little that is black and white. This classification of ‘you are either for us or against us’ is very dangerous. Even members of political parties have different levels of commitment to their own party’s policies and yet remain members of the grouping, as witnessed by the UK Conservatives’ angst over membership of the Single European Currency.
• When someone opposes a project – or, more importantly, is perceived to oppose it – we tend to have an almost paranoid fear about approaching them. They are the enemy: we cannot approach them, we must attack. This is a very dangerous strategy: it is only when one has a dialogue that the true agenda comes to the fore.
• We all change our views with time. There is an old adage: ‘He who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, he who still is at 30 has no brain.’ While the wisdom of the adage is open to question, it makes the point well.
  

Certainly, the trades unionist had conditions for her support for the company in this case: self-interest on behalf of the members of the union. And generally, people are best motivated when they are acting out of self-interest – it is a win–win project.

• Top of page
• Home
• Consultants
• services
• clients
• methodology
• Case Histories
• policies
• Join us
• News
• Links
• Contact