WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

This document is the report of The Secretary of

Labor’s Task Force on Excellence in State and

Local Government Through Labor-Management

Cooperation.

Material contained in this publication is in the

public domain and may be reproduced, fully or

partially, without permission of the Federal

Government. Source credit is requested but not

required. Permission is required only to reproduce

any copyright material contained herein.

This material is available to sensory impaired

individuals upon request.

Voice Phone: (202) 219-8595 ext 165

TDD* Phone: (800) 326-2577

*Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

Inquiries should be directed to:

Edward Hilz

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

(202) 219-8595 ext 165; ehilz@dol.gov

This material also is available on the U.S.

Department of Labor’s Internet homepage:

http://www.dol.gov/cgi-bin/consolid.pl?media+reports

Thanks to a partnership with two other organizations,

electronic copies also are available from:

1) Martin P. Catherwood Library of the School of

Industrial & Labor Relations, Cornell University:

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/library/e_archive/Labor Excellence/

2) Public Innovator Learning Network, Alliance

for Redesigning Government, National Academy

of Public Administration:

http://www.clearlake.ibm.com/Alliance/
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

REPORT . O F . THE . U . . S . . SECRETARY

O F . LABOR'S . TASK . FORCE . O N

EXCELLENCE . I N . STATE . AND

LOCAL . GOVERNMENT . THROUGH

LABOR-MANAGEMENT. COOPERATION

Co-chairs:

Governor James J. Florio

Mayor Jerry Abramson

Submitted to: Robert B. Reich, Secretary

U. S. Department of Labor

Issued May 1996

WORKING

TOGETHER

FOR . PUBLIC

SERVICE
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
I WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

The Secretary of Labor’s Task Force

on Excellence in State and Local Government

Through Labor-Management Cooperation

May 28, 1996

The Honorable Robert B. Reich

Secretary of Labor

U.S. Department of Labor

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Secretary:

In today’s climate of taxpayer revolts and hostility toward government in general, perhaps the single most

important thing that government can do is to restore faith in its ability to deliver quality services in a costeffective manner. Clearly needed is a change from more traditional ways of planning and delivering services and the traditional roles of labor and management.

Based upon more than a year of extensive analysis, this Task Force is unanimous in its belief that the

movement toward employee participation and cooperation between labor and management offers state and

local government an unparalleled opportunity to improve delivery and quality of services.

We have been impressed by the benefits enjoyed by those jurisdictions where workplace innovations are

being built upon serious and well-structured employee participation. They are recording measurable improvements in service, cost-effectiveness, productivity, efficiency, quality of worklife and in labor-management relations, and related reform of bureaucracy.

In return, these cities, counties, special districts and states are beginning to be “rewarded” for their service

excellence by a public more willing to make necessary investments to help workers and management

acquire skills and tools needed to perform in this new and challenging environment.

This report provides not only dozens of examples, but lays out specifics on how to initiate and sustain such

workplace practices. It details how roles of labor and management leadership and of key professionals in

a highly productive and cooperative public workplace are often quite different than traditional labor, management, and administrative roles. These superior results have emerged from every kind of history, including those with a tradition of problem and crisis. The report calls upon labor and management leaders to be

willing to break some molds and take some risks in the pursuit of better public service. Many are already

doing so, and their stories are told in the report.

While this cooperative and participatory approach is not yet widespread and not all localities will be able to

adopt it, the Task Force is encouraged by the strong interest and actions displayed by workers, their unions,

management, public officials and others who influence the workplace.

We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the effectiveness of public service through this study and

look forward to more and more state and local jurisdictions adopting this more fruitful approach to workplace relations and service delivery in state and local government.

Jim Florio, Former Governor, State of New Jersey

Jerry Abramson, Mayor, Louisville, Kentucky

i
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE ii
iii WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Acknowledgments

The backbone of the Task Force conclusions

comes from visiting and analyzing successful service

improvement in dozens of communities and governmental institutions across the country. The Task Force

thanks and congratulates the hundreds of state and local government employees, managers, elected officials,

union leaders and staff and others responsible for these

cooperative efforts and who assisted us in learning

through their explanations, data and facilitation of Task

Force visits.

This report owes much to the writing and editorial talent of Maggie Brown, Seattle, Washington, and

benefited from contributions of Doug Marchant and

Joy Reynolds of the U.S. Department of Labor. The

tireless work and creative problem solving of Leslie

Redd of the Cascade Center at the University of Washington kept the entire hearings, research and editorial

process on track. No task was too big or too small.

The thoughtful and dedicated work of Ed Hilz, U.S.

Department of Labor, exemplified the highest traditions of the civil service in pursuit of excellence. The

logistics of the Task Force work was complex and

Pamela Hayes saw to it that nothing got in the way.

The Task Force also appreciates the many contributions of Rebecca Bennett Crow, David Applebaum,

Lisa Osborne Ross, Rickie Harmon and Colleen

Young.

Of particular importance in support of the entire activity was the work of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Richards. He put at the disposal of the Task Force a broad array of personal

and institutional knowledge of effective workplace

practices, much of it compiled by the Office of the

American Workplace.

The Task Force also appreciates the courtesy

of the David Lipsky, Dean of the Cornell University

School of Industrial and Labor Relations and the Library Director, Stuart Basefsky, who made research

and background material available to the Task Force

often on short notice. The Task Force is grateful to

many other colleagues in the labor, management,

neutral and academic communities who were generous with the their time and thoughtful with their input. ■
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE iv
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Task Force Members*

Co-Chairs

Governor James J. Florio

Mayor Jerry Abramson

Members

Arvid Anderson

Martha Bibbs

Al Bilik

Hezekiah Brown

Lucille Christenson

Mary Hatwood Futrell

Arthur Hamilton

Michael Lipsky

James Mastriani

Beverly Stein

Kent Wong

Kenneth Young

Task Force Staff

Leslie Redd

Task Force Coordinator

Cascade Center for Public Service

University of Washington

Edward Hilz

DOL Task Force Staff Chief

Office of the American Workplace

U.S. Department of Labor

Joy Reynolds

Industrial Relations Specialist

Office of the American Workplace

U.S. Department of Labor

Pamela Hayes

Staff Assistant

Office of the American Workplace

U.S. Department of Labor

Executive Director

Jonathan Brock

Designated Federal Official

Charles A. Richards

v

* See Appendix B for brief biographies of Task Force Members.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

Chapter 1 Typical Results: 13

Labor-management cooperation as a powerful

tool for service improvements, cost-saving, and

a better quality of worklife

Snapshot: MassHighway 27

Chapter 2 Public Services and the Public Workplace 29

Facing Pressure for Change:

A responsibility to meet the challenge

Snapshot: Indianapolis, Indiana 35

Chapter 3 Some Basic Data: 41

Trends and attitudes in public sector services

and employment

Snapshot: Portland, Maine 57

Chapter 4 Nuts and Bolts: 61

How to build and sustain cooperative, servicefocused workplace relationships

Snapshot: State of Ohio 89

Chapter 5 Everyone Has a Role to Play: 93

Ensuring that state and local governments can

meet the challenge

Snapshot: Charlotte, North Carolina 107

Chapter 6 Food For Thought: 109

Issues for further attention and observation

Snapshot: Cincinnati, Ohio Public Schools 117
Appendixes

Appendix A: Task Force Mission Statement 122

Appendix B: Task Force Members Biographies 123

Appendix C: Hearing Agendas and Witnesses 125

Appendix D: Summaries from Site Visits and

Examples, Including Contact Persons 138

Appendix E: Index of Surveys Received 166

Appendix F: The State and Local Government

Labor-Management Committee 176

Appendix G: Features of a Service-Oriented

Collective Bargaining Law 177

Appendix H: Quality Standards and Principles for

Alternate Dispute Resolution 181

 i) Quality Standards and Principles for

Developing an Effective Alternative Dispute

Resolution System for Rights Guaranteed by

Law and for Other Workplace Disputes

ii) A Due Process Protocol for Mediation and

Arbitration of Statutory Disputes Arising

Out of the Employment Relationship
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

WORKING

TOGETHER

FOR . PUBLIC

SERVICE

EXECUTIVE . SUMMARY

REPORT . O F. THE . U . . S . . SECRETARY

O F . LABOR'S . TASK . FORCE . O N

EXCELLENCE . I N . STATE . AND

LOCAL . GOVERNMENT . THROUGH

LABOR-MANAGEMENT. COOPERATION
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

The economic success of our nation and the social well-being of its citizens depend, in large measure, on the essential services and infrastructure provided by state and local governments. We rely upon

those employed within the public sector to teach our

children, to protect us from crime and fire, to maintain

roads, bridges and sanitation systems, to provide necessary social services, and to safeguard the environment.

“In this era of reinventing government, our

nation’s citizens need and deserve high-quality, costeffective state and local government services,” observed US Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich when

he formed this Task Force to examine labor-management cooperation in state and local governments. “Further, the imperative to compete in an increasingly

worldwide economy and to respond to increasing societal demands requires that governments at all levels

perform in a timely and cost-effective manner.

“I am relying on this Task Force to chart a clear

path toward that goal through labor-management cooperation.”

To this end, the Task Force’s research included

five regional visits across the United States, seven

Washington, D.C. hearings and approximately 55 detailed responses to a Task Force survey. During the

regional visits, the Task Force carefully examined and

analyzed nearly 50 examples of cooperative approaches

to labor-management relationships that were instrumental in creating service-oriented environments. The

examples came from state, county and city governments, schools, transit and other special services. Firsthand observations were further supported by reports

of other impressive service improvements from jurisdictions the Task Force was unable to visit.

Key Findings

The findings in this report are the unanimous conclusions of a 14 member Task Force on Excellence in

State and Local Government through Labor-Management Cooperation, whose members were drawn from

the ranks of labor, management, elected officials,

neutrals and academics.

The findings include the following:

To meet their obligations, state and local governments must transform the way services are planned

and delivered, the way the public workplace is managed and how public worker knowledge is engaged

in the process.

In most places, the public workplace of the future

will have to be different than it is today in order to

meet the challenges it will face. Traditional methods of service delivery, traditional personnel and administrative systems, traditional styles of supervision and workplace communication, and traditional

approaches to collective bargaining will not be sufficient.

In order to meet these challenges, many state and

local governments have begun to move away from

traditional ways of doing business. Like many successful private sector companies, they are depending upon the participation of employees. When successful, this strategy leads to continuous improvement, not merely one-time changes.

Service improvement through workplace cooperation requires that the confrontational rhetoric be lowered and that elected officials, union leaders and

workers focus on their common tasks. To do so,

they will need new tools. Those tools are in use in

many places now.

A focus on service with employee participation can

also be a doorway to reducing confrontation in collective bargaining relationships that have had a history of conflict.

The possibilities appear to be greater than recognized for labor-management cooperation in the public sector to contribute to service improvement and

EXECUTIVE . SUMMARY
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

provide avenues for employee participation, and perhaps greater than in the private sector.

Looking across the dozens of examples that it examined, the Task Force found that labor-management cooperation which engaged employees in decisions around service planning and implementation

typically resulted in:

 Better Service. Services frequently became

faster; often new or expanded services were of

fered, and all were more responsive to citizens.

 More Cost-Effectiveness. Money was saved

and money better spent.

 Better Quality of Work Life. Employees experienced far more involvement and greater opportunities to contribute, learn skills. They gained

greater job security and found increased respect.

 Improved Labor-Management Relations. Less

conflict, faster conflict resolution, more flexible

contracts, and emphasis on mutual responsibilities for service improvement.

Challenge to Labor and Management

In view of these and other findings summarized

below and the need for transformation in the way public services are delivered, the Task Force challenges

labor and management leaders, both locally and nationally, to follow the lead of the examples in this report, to break some molds, forge new ground and seek

a new approach.

Some Quick Examples

Here is a sample of what was observed

A labor-management committee in Connecticut’s

Department of Mental Retardation with District

1199/New England Health Care Employees Union

(SEIU) tackled the issue of how to improve employee safety. In one year, the committee’s recommendations produced a 40 percent reduction in injuries and a 23 percent reduction -- or nearly $5

million -- in what had been an annual $25 million

workers’ compensation expenditure.

In Peoria, Illinois, health care was becoming a yearly

budget-buster. Costs were climbing annually at 9

percent to 14 percent, while total city revenues were

going down. With cooperation of all city unions,

Peoria took health care off the bargaining table in

1993 and placed it in its own Joint Labor-Management Committee to Control Health Care Costs. The

result was 1994 health care costs of $1.2 million

less than the expected $6 million. In sharp contrast

to past experience, when virtually every health care

decision was fought over and bitterly arbitrated, no

health care decisions have been arbitrated since this

plan was implemented.

In Madison, Wisconsin, as part of a city-wide quality initiative, labor-management cooperation dramatically improved a contentious relationship between city building inspectors, represented by

AFSCME Local 60, and private electrical contractors. Management, employees and their union

worked together with contractors to develop a compliance effort that emphasizes education instead of

punishment. It led to a program that now enhances

electrical safety, conserves resources, focuses inspection efforts on safety outcomes instead of inspection processes, and improves customer relations.

Inspectors happily report they now receive compliments instead of complaints.

Spurred by a severe, city-wide budget crunch, the

Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation formed a joint labor-management committee with SEIU Local 47 in

1994 with the twin goals of trimming costs and improving service delivery. Thanks to the work of this

committee, the Bureau increased truck availability

from 75 percent to 94 percent, largely by improving

cooperation between drivers and mechanics and their

respective departments; and reduced overtime by 54

percent due to increased truck availability. Over the
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

ensuing three years, it expects a 25 percent departmental cost reduction without lay-offs.

At the Foshay School in south-central Los Angeles,

scholastic records were among the lowest in the state

before the new principal and the leadership of United

Teachers of Los Angeles introduced a Leadership

Council, which brings together administrators,

teachers, parents and community members to work

together to improve the education of the largely minority student body. Student drop-outs have fallen

from 21 percent of the student body to 3.5 percent;

suspensions have dropped from 400 cases to 40, and

student scores on a comprehensive test of basic skills

in math, reading and language have improved to near

the state average.

In Phoenix, Arizona, a new fire chief and new president of Firefighters Local 493 took office in 1978.

They decided it was time to work together and end

nearly 40 years of contentious and adversarial relations. They initiated annual planning retreats during which labor and management jointly develop

annual plans for addressing problems and seeking

improvement. Arbitration has not been used in Phoenix for 10 years.

Similar stories sprinkled through this report are

found in activities that cover a spectrum of services, in

jurisdictions large and small, and in all regions of the

country. They tell of improvements that citizens, workers, managers, elected officials and union leaders everywhere would be happy to see occur within their own

communities.

The experiences of these jurisdictions and programs provide compelling evidence that engaging employees in workplace decision-making -- a model with

parallels to similar efforts in the private sector -- can

be a powerful tool to achieve tangible improvements

in service, cost savings, quality of work life and labormanagement relations.

These examples, and several others in richer texture, make up Chapter One, “Typical Results.” Six

examples, called “Snapshots,” are presented in considerable detail following each chapter, and dozens of

others are used to illuminate the principles in Chapter

Four. (The Appendix includes a full listing of examples

visited and submitted.)

Pressures and Challenges to Change

Chapter Two, reviewing pressures on state and

local government, and Chapter Three, on trends that

define and affect state and local government employment, describe some of the important forces that compel or offer opportunities for change:

More pressure to take up tasks formerly or currently

done by the Federal government

Increasing challenges as communities grow more

complex and more diverse, as environmental pressures grow and as technology changes the way

people live, work and communicate

Growing awareness of and demand for quality services.

Financial pressures requiring more cost effectiveness, better ways of delivering service

Growing awareness of the need to handle pension

funds responsibly

Decades of using procedures for budgeting, personnel, and labor relations which don’t easily permit a

focus on service delivery, stemming from traditions

and practices developed in a different era

Trend towards joining unions, reflecting partially a

desire to better bring problems and ideas to the attention of employers

A highly educated public workforce, which

shows a strong interest in participating in workplace

decisions
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

A desire among workers for more cooperative ways

of dealing with employers

Pressures to perform better, forcing labor and management to examine relationships that have traditionally been conflictual

Public employee unions active nationally and locally, that support workplace innovation and service

improvement

Generally, a less adversarial labor-management climate than in the private sector

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, willingness among

many elected officials and managers to work with

the workforce and with union leaders

A growing realization that labor and management

are in the same boat. They must work together and

contribute their respective influence, knowledge and

skills to improve public service

Increased interest in contracting out as an alternative for cost reduction or service improvement has

created a variety of pressures and responses, many

of which vary from common perceptions on the subject. (See Chapters Two and Three for discussions

of issues and trends in contracting out.)

Overall, there is a confluence of pressures, interests and opportunities for change in the way public

services are delivered, and the opportunity to use participative workplace principles, particularly labor-management cooperation, as a primary means to do so.

How to Implement Broader Use of Workplace

Partnerships that Improve Service

Chapters Four (“Nuts and Bolts”) and Five (“Everyone Has a Role to Play”) describe barriers and ingredients to developing workplace partnerships.

Typical Barriers to Establishing Workplace

Partnerships

Mistrust, often arising from a history of difficult workplace relationships, recent campaigns,

impasses, or other conflicts

Lack of skills for carrying on participative relationships. Parties otherwise fall back on skills

common to hierarchical management or traditional labor-management relationships

Failure to recognize that the partnership program must be developed in concert with all affected parties. It rarely works if it is only the

idea of one group

Continued reliance on formal aspects of personnel/labor relations, such as refusal to try new

approaches, or reluctance to discuss issues necessary to service improvement

Fear of job loss makes employees and some

managers reluctant to join in problem-solving

Union leaders, unwilling to support the effort

if a participative program ignores their role and

is seen as an attempt to bust the union

Mid-level managers or union officials who

may feel their traditional roles or status threatened by the team-oriented and participative arrangements

How to Begin

Start Small. Typically, the effort starts small,

in one part of the jurisdiction or agency, takes

time to develop, take root, and spread. Some begin with a broader scale attempt to alter the work

culture. Most start with one of the following:

* a service improvement project -- usually one

that has posed challenges

* desire to reduce conflict, usually grievances

* desire to improve a difficult collective bargaininging relationship

It’s a Circle. Whether the participative effort

begins with a service project, or any of the others, the same skills, people and relationships are

involved. These factors, and the trust that builds,
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

can transfer from one area or project to another.

Where You Start Depends On Where You Begin. Every place has its own history and possibilities. Therefore, the choice of where to begin

must be a local decision by the parties.

Leadership Commitment. Success requires

leadership commitment, on both sides, to start and

overcome mistrust, to keep people focused in the

early going, overcome early barriers and resistance, and put the effort and relationship on track

after inevitable mistakes.

Break with Past Habits. It is too easy to revert

to old habits and ways of doing business. To move

into these new ways of planning and delivering

services, there must be no more business as usual.

* Training. Usually, there was some degree

of training to help the parties get started.

When training is connected to beginning and

sustaining new ways of managing and of involving workers, it’s likely to be a good investment. The most effective and accepted

training is jointly developed and sponsored.

Necessary are development of new skills:

- in conflict resolution and group problem

solving

- in order to perform jobs in new ways

- for analyzing and changing work processes

* Neutral Assistance. Most new relationships

had the benefit of a skilled neutral to assist and

often to train the parties.

* Conflict Resolution. Ensure that efforts and

mechanisms to resolve conflicts are in place.

Unnecessary conflict can breed mistrust that

interferes with cooperation and participation.

Make use of alternative dispute resolution practices that fit the issues.

 Employment Security. It may seem counter

intuitive, but although layoffs are often a favorite method of seeking cost savings, examples

show the opposite to hold more promise:

* Job “safety net” programs, including in

some instances no-layoff guarantees, were

common practice in workplaces that have

achieved significant cost savings and service

improvements.

* This doesn’t mean there are no layoffs, but

when there are, it is done under a plan that show

commitment to employee welfare.

* The security assurances allow employees to

focus on innovation without undue fear of job

loss. They also allow union leaders to focus

on service improvement rather than spending

time seeking ways to save jobs one at a time.

 Respecting the Role of the Union. Similarly,

when the legitimacy and role of the union is not

challenged, union leaders can focus their efforts

on service improvement. Mutual respect of labor and management leadership is critical to success.

Flexibility on Both Sides. A willingness to try

new approaches as well as a new processes for

decision-making are necessities for finding innovative service solutions.

Increased Cohesion Within Each Side.

* Legislative and executive branches, and the

various management functions must be in

sufficient harmony, otherwise one or the other

of the factions can upset the relationship by

acting in the old ways or being otherwise unaware.

* By the same token, unions involved normally form a coalition. Among other things,

such coalitions facilitate resolution of jurisdictional problems interfering with service improvement.

 Changed Roles for Labor and Management in

Collective Bargaining Relationships.

* In successful cooperative arrangements,

management operates in less hierarchical ways

and agrees, through joint and team structures

established, to share decision-making author

ity where it has not traditionally done so.

* The counterpart phenomenon is that union

leaders share power in a responsible fashion

while still vigorously defending worker interests. Normally there is less necessity to de-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

fend in the old ways, since many problems are

resolved through joint problem-solving over

service issues before they become contentious.

* In these successful ventures, union leaders

often take on, and execute well, significant responsibility for service delivery improvement

and cost control.

 Success Can Come From Even the Poorest of

Histories. Some of the most impressive successes

come from relationships that had been extremely

contentious.

Spreading and Sustaining Successful Cooperative

Relationships

Spreading the Innovation and Expanding the

Participation. Even successful experiments

struggle with how to spread the use of a successful cooperative effort to another service or department. It is important that the same leaders

have influence in the new area, and that there are

leadership and training resources applied to the

germination. Also, the new effort must come to

be owned by those newly involved, which implies that they have a role in forming it.

Leadership Turnover. Perhaps the largest challenge is sustaining useful changes in the face of

the common phenomenon of leadership turnover.

Unlike many private sector leadership changes,

in public life, there seems to be a more common

penchant for declaring “ineffective” everything

that came before. Campaigns are often run and

won this way. Particularly with the frequent occurrence of blaming problems on public employees, a return to confrontation is often a danger in

a period of turnover. A number of methods seem

to contribute to sustaining the gains of a cooperative relationship following a transition -- some

formal, some informal:

* Among the more formal is the presence in a

labor contract of the main features of the system, including a joint committee, training and

other features.

* Less formal is the involvement of a broad

sample of front line workers committed to the

system.

* In non-bargaining situations, a major factor

seems to be the tenure of a long serving chief

executive committed to employee involvement.

Improvements in Administrative Systems. Improvements that make administrative systems

more responsive to service needs accompany

most of the successful examples. Front line workers and union leaders have demonstrated they

have a lot to contribute in identifying system

blockages and proposing practical reform:

* Personnel systems were changed to allow

more responsiveness to service.

- classification systems were revised to

have fewer titles, some reduced by more

than 50 percent, and ranges broadened to

allow more flexible deployment in the face

of changed service delivery methods and efficiencies

- advent of gainsharing.

- much greater use of team, rather than individual, recognition

- improved accountability and coaching for

workers

- more use of peer evaluation and scrutiny

to ensure everyone is carrying his or her

share of the load

- better management development and selection to improve accountability and management style in a non-hierarchical setting

* Changes in accounting, budgeting, and purchasing practices to better measure and support service improvement.

- improved cost and quality measures, to

allow examination of inputs to services, and

make more accurate comparisons with privately offered services

- simpler procurement and other internal

systems

Many of these systems have for years been
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

targets of generalized reform. Examples from

this effort suggest reform may come more easily

and have more community and political support

if the change is more targeted, and explicitly related to service and cost improvement. Labor and

management often go together to the appropriate

authorities to seek changes that, in past years, they

might have fought over.

Service-Oriented Relationships and Collective

Bargaining Structures. Employees have shown

a strong interest in, and ability to contribute to,

workplace decisions affecting service quality if

the requisite structure is in place for them to do

so. In specific ways outlined in the report, the

Task Force found that the structure and roles in a

formal labor-management relationship, when carried out using cooperative principles, are extremely supportive of quality improvement efforts

and outcomes in public services.

Public employees have shown, in the large

majority of the instances where they have the opportunity, an interest in being collectively represented. There is reluctance among managers and

elected officials in many places to afford employees the right of representation by unions. Unfortunately, not all labor-management relationships

are productive and some are overly conflictual.

However, the application of a cooperative,

service-focused model of labor-management relationships, as the Task Force has seen, is capable

of producing superior service results and cost effectiveness as key products of the relationship.

Although adversarial aspects of the workplace

relationship necessarily remain, a far different

climate and result pertain when the relationship

is based on cooperative and service-oriented principles.

Task Force members support the right of individuals to choose whether or not they wish to

have collective representation. Where public

employees choose to be represented, their collective bargaining rights should be exercised in a

framework where: the focus is on service delivery; conflicts can be effectively resolved; and

where the relationship, structure and roles are

defined and developed to support service improvement, effective workplace participation and

partnerships, and constructive conflict resolution.

Jurisdictions contemplating the establishment of collective bargaining relationships should

develop their laws with these cooperative, service-oriented principles in mind. In doing so, the

laws should be drawn in a way that the parties

can realistically address service problems. On

the other hand, in making these arrangements,

care should be taken not to unduly interfere with

the overall mission of an agency or program and

the responsibilities of public officials.

Where an established bargaining relationship has been conflictual, the parties should move

towards the cooperative model. The possibility

of doing so--even out of historically difficult relationships--has been clearly demonstrated in the

work of the Task Force. This report contains guidance on how to begin or how to transform labormanagement relationships into mutually productive vehicles for quality service and more satisfying work.

Whether or not employees are collectively

represented, the examples in bargaining and nonbargaining settings examined by the Task Force

make it clear that employees, managers, elected

officials and citizens benefit from employee participation and involvement in determining how

best to provide public services.

Organizational Structures that Support

Participation

 Flatter Organizations. Rather than rely on

hierarchy, common organizational changes in

successful service partnerships include fewer

supervisory layers and the use of teams. These

often cross departmental lines and include a

greater proportion of employees in line service

positions. Teams make, or continue to make, key

decisions that were previously the preserve of a

supervisor. Often heard were phrases like “None
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

of us is smarter than all of us.”

 Joint Labor-Management Committees. Perhaps the most common organizational and communications device in successful partnerships is

the establishment of a top level labor management committee, usually in a department, but

sometimes in the overall jurisdiction. This group

typically sets the agenda and the pace for partnership initiatives, and has representation from

union leadership and program management. Personnel and labor professionals are most productive in this setting when their role becomes facilitative rather than advocacy; a role transformation, and one they report as very satisfying.

Such a committee meets regularly and identifies

agreed upon areas for activity and then engages

appropriate talent and resources in specific

projects.

 Project Teams. Typically, project teams are

formed, often receiving their mandate from the

joint committee. Project teams, or teams for an

ongoing activity, are one of the primary engines

in workplace participation. They bring together

workers and managers from different parts and

levels of the organization to resolve problems and

make improvements.

 Team and Committee Selection. Even in nonbargaining states where the Task Force saw examples, employees involved, not chosen by their

peers, found that their standing and capacity to

act within the committees or teams would have

been enhanced if they had been chosen by their

co-workers rather than by management. Thus,

in either case, it is important for effective labormanagement cooperation that employee representatives be selected by their co-workers. When

employees have an opportunity to choose representatives to reflect their own viewpoints and represent their interests on joint labor-management

committees and project teams, the results of participative committees and similar activities have

a greater likelihood of being trusted, accepted and

implemented by the rank and file.

 Meetings are better. Without the need to observe hierarchy, with new skills for group problem solving and a mandate to solve problems, be

flexible, and try new things, there is greatly improved communication, participation and problem-solving efficiency in workplace meetings.

Changes in Labor-Management Relations

In addition to what has already been discussed,

important improvements in collective bargaining relationships accompany service-oriented workplace partnerships:

greater mutual focus on service delivery within

and around the bargaining relationship

reduction in conflict; reduced reliance on legalistic, formal means of resolution; many fewer

formal grievances

faster contract settlements, sometimes in

weeks; reduction in resort to arbitration

predominance of “win-win” and “collaborative bargaining” rather than traditional bargaining, but parties are still effective advocates for

their constituency’s interests

contract preambles describing mutual service

responsibilities and mutual respect

more flexible contracts, allowing easier adjustments to service needs

more focus in contracts on how problems will

be resolved

labor relations professionals on both sides to

concentrate on the service impact of the relationship

more candid mutual acknowledgment of electoral and constituency issues faced by both management and labor leaders

parties willing and able to discuss all issues

affecting service delivery without invoking formal constraints and fear of precedent

Institutional Support

Successful parties are not alone. New skills are
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

necessary, and so is peer support. It’s difficult for a

labor or management leader to step out and take the

risks inherent in breaking with the past. (Chapter Five

discusses some of these support needs, and efforts already underway.)

 Labor Organizations. National and international

unions are increasingly active in support of these

workplace innovations.

Many have already invested in activities to develop local leadership abilities to participate in

cooperative workplace partnerships. Support of

national and regional leaders and institutions provide peer support as does training and consulting

resources made available by national organizations

Also, service to individual members concerning their own professional development is growing, as for example in education, in which there

are major national initiatives

Many of these service activities and the support of union leadership would be surprising to

some observers, yet they support what surveys

cited in Chapter Two describe as employee interest in participation and adding to the quality of

the service

 Management Institutions. Management organizations that help elected and appointed officials get

acclimated to new roles are in a pivotal position to

help them gain immediate perspective on how to

engage in the more complex, but ultimately productive, dialogue with the workforce and its representatives; to show newly elected officials and their key

advisers this positive tool for resolving service and

cost issues for which they are accountable and jointly

responsible.

 Finance and Personnel Professionals. National organizations supporting finance, personnel and other

key professions can assist and are already pursuing

system changes that will better support services, and

can develop more service-oriented principles to

guide administrative systems.

 Universities and Training Centers. These institutions can also expand their efforts and offerings to

support labor and management leadership development that displays these more effective approaches.

For almost everyone involved in workplace relationships and public service systems, new roles and approaches are necessary and the places where individuals receive their professional training, information and guidance will have to adapt to the needs of

the public sector workplace.

 Neutral Agencies. Also helpful are many neutral

agencies, none more than the Federal Mediation and

Conciliation Service, with its technical assistance

to parties, and particularly well-regarded workplace

cooperation grants and conferences program supporting cooperative labor-management relationships. Many of the state public employment relations boards have begun, and others are beginning,

to expand their preventative training and technical

assistance activities.

Without the support of national labor and management organizations, and other institutions affecting the process, the local parties will not have the resources, the knowledge or the backing to make the

necessary changes.

Food for Thought

A number of issues require further observation

in order to assist the success of participation and cooperative labor-management relations in promoting service delivery improvement. (A number of these, although by no means a comprehensive list, are presented

in Chapter Six.) For example:

Determining how to spread the new approaches from

one project to broader application

Assessing and gaining leadership commitment and

involvement
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Connecting quality efforts and collective bargaining

Developing better cost and quality measures

Identifying the most important skills for effective

worker and management participation

Identifying resistance of mid-level supervisors and

union officials

Examining effects of unit composition and scope

of bargaining

Defining changed roles of key players in the process

Studying impacts and efficacy of contracting out

Assessing use of ADR for resolving disputes over

workplace rights

Without question, the challenges facing state and

local government can get an important assist from the

application of significant employee participation and

cooperative labor-management relationships. Large

scale service improvement, major cost savings, more

loyal, creative and satisfied employees, and better labor-management relations are the result. Elected officials and managers, as the following examples show,

are as gratified by the results as are employees and

union leaders. Many elected officials, who were skeptical of public workers’ ability to meet service and cost

goals, later became convinced of the value of the participative approach and of doing so within a labormanagement partnership. In some instances where

contracting out was the preferred strategy during an

election campaign, cooperation became the dominant

strategy after some experience with both.

While the practice of contracting out takes place

in some jurisdictions as part of an overall service-improvement strategy, the degree and simplicity of contracting out does not appear to be as substantial or on

the rise to the extent portrayed in popular discussion.

Within a cooperative workplace partnership, for most

core services, reforms that emerge from employee participation usually produce equal or better quality and

cost results than contracting out.

There are identifiable ingredients to begin and

support cooperative, service oriented workplace relationships. Some are directly part of the workplace relationship, others involve other systems and institutions that affect service delivery. Almost all can be

affected through a labor-management partnership.

The Task Force, composed of elected officials,

managers, neutrals, academics and labor leaders, is

unanimous in its view that this cooperative and participative approach represents a significant opportunity to respond to the pressures and demands on public officials and public workers. It can help turn

confrontative labor-management relations into a productive interaction that enhances service improvement

and cost consciousness and is representative of the way

in which the public workplace must be transformed to

respond to the forces that are already upon us.

Not every jurisdiction or workplace can do this.

Some histories are too bitter; some leaders lack the

ability. But many more than are currently engaged can

do so, given the knowledge, resources and peer support becoming available. The Task Force urges them

to try. Many painful histories have been plowed under

as a result of successful cooperation.

The Task Force has had an opportunity through

its regional visits and hearings to get a glimpse at the

future of the state and local government workplace.

Elected officials, administrative professionals, managers, union leaders and the organizations that support

each of them, and which prepare them for and chronicle

their interactions, all have an obligation to each other

and to citizens to take up the unanimous challenge of

this Task Force: to break the traditional habits of hierarchy, bureaucracy, confrontation, and over-reliance on

formalities, and begin now--even while protecting their

capacity to exercise their responsibilities--to develop

the cooperative and participative patterns in the public

workplace and in labor-management relations that support innovation and mutual focus on excellence in public service. ■
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

rom school house to fire house, a growing number

of state and local governments are forming cooperative workplace partnerships in an efF

TYPICAL . RESULTS

LABOR-MANAGEMENT. COOPERATION. A S . A . POWERFUL . TOOL . FOR . SERVICE

IMPROVEMENTS, . C O S T- S AV I N G . AND . A . BETTER . QUALITY. O F. WORKLIFE

CHAPTER

ONE

fort to transform their public agencies into flexible, customer-responsive organizations

better equipped to serve citizens.

 From the impressive and convincing array of data

collected, the Task Force firmly believes that workplace cooperation -- in a model with
CHAPTER . 1

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

fun to come to work every day.”

Equally impressive are the examples of innovations born from labor-management cooperation that allowed service improvements to be made not only within

financial resource constraints, but which in many cases

also led to cost savings and stable tax rates. Where the

parties devoted their efforts, it was not uncommon to

see increases of 30 percent to 50 percent in productivity and decreases of 25 percent in time-loss expense,

such as workers’ compensation, overtime and absenteeism. In situations where the public employees successfully bid for jobs against the private sector, it was

not unusual for their bid to be more than 20 percent

lower. Where overall cost savings were targeted, substantial reductions in department budgets were

achieved.

The major assignment facing the Task Force was

to determine how labor-management cooperation can

best achieve service excellence; i.e. how it can be applied as a process to improve the quality of public services. Given this assignment, the Task Force was led

immediately to observe labor-management relationships in which employees now are involved in meaningful decision-making on aspects of work that traditionally were considered the purview of managers and

supervisors. Additionally, conflicts are more effectively

and quickly resolved.

The Task Force observed the following

Typical SERVICE Improvements:

• Better school test performance

• More school safety and discipline

• More police and fire services

• Workers redeployed to underserved

programs

• Improved response to snow, other

emergencies

• Better vehicle readiness for service

• Schedules and shift changes to improve

service

• Faster processing of cases, permits, licenses

• Reduction of regulatory burden

• More convenient transit routes

• Increased ridership

major parallels to quality and cooperative efforts in the

private sector -- can be a powerful tool to achieve improvements in service, cost savings, quality of work

life and labor-management relations.

During hearings and site visits, the Task Force

saw examples of all of these improvements occurring

in activities that cover a spectrum of services, in jurisdictions large and small, and in all regions of the country. As the examples in this chapter show, these are

improvements that citizens, workers, managers, elected

officials and union leaders everywhere would be happy

to see within their own communities.

One of the most impressive aspects of workplace

partnerships observed by the Task Force is the renewed

sense of job satisfaction and excitement which comes

to those involved. Comments such as these by Rich

Meserve, a Public Works Department employee and

member of the American Federation of State, County,

and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 481 in

Portland, Maine, were heard frequently: “We used to

do the same thing every day. Our morale was sacked.

Now the phrase is, “Let’s do it”, not just do it. We had

pride in our work, but something was missing. Now

we have different challenges every day and a belief we

can handle all challenges. It’s been a trip. People are

doing different things every day and enjoying it. It’s

The Task Force observed the following

Typical QUALITY OF WORKLIFE

Improvements:

• Excitement about work

• Increased opportunity to use skills &

judgment to improve service

• Ability to participate in problem solving

• Cross-training to learn & teach

• Upgrades based on skill

• Injury reduction

• Reduction in mandatory overtime

• More family-friendly schedules & leave

policies

• Participation in continuous service

improvement
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Mental Retardation:

• 40 percent reduction in injuries,

• 25 percent reduction in hours lost due to injury,

• Nearly a $5 million reduction from what had

been an annual $25 million workers’ compensation expenditure.

And these benefits occurred when the program

was only underway in one-half of the department!

This is but one example of the results stemming

from pilot programs initiated by a Quality of Work Life

program funded annually at $350,000 through the collective bargaining agreement between the Department

of Mental Retardation and District 1199/New England

Health Care Employees Union (SEIU). Pilot programs

drawing on these funds have been established in areas

such as child care, training, absenteeism and safety.

In this example, labor-management committees

analyzed the incidence of time-loss injuries, focused

on the most common ones and put in a site-by-site injury analysis and prevention program. The employees

used data and analysis, combined with their own knowledge of the job and desire to find an answer, to develop a prevention-oriented solution that increased the

safety at the job site and reduced disruption to patient

lives, mandatory overtime and scheduling problems.

It was determined that most of the injuries were

sustained in lifting and transferring patients in the bathrooms and in related activities.

The solution: Minor remodeling, including the

The Task Force observed the following

Typical COST Improvements:

• Service improvements made within

resource constraints

• Stable tax rates

• Productivity increases

• Decreases in time-loss expense

• Reductions in department budget

• Decreases in absenteeism

• Decreases in overtime

• Frequently lower cost than private sector bid

• Equipment-saving preventive maintenance

program

• More productive equipment purchases

• Reductions in health care costs

• Reduction in overhead functions

• Technology used to service growing

population without increase in workforce

The intent of this chapter is to offer a quick

glimpse at concrete improvements which these arrangements are providing to the benefit of local communities or states.

Snapshots of Success from Across the

Country

The following stories highlight specific results

and improvements that are occurring in local and state

governments engaged in labor-management partnerships and employee involvement arrangements. These

examples illustrate that where management engages

workers and, in bargaining settings, their unions, in

workplace innovations, the results are better; more cost

effective services are combined with better quality of

worklife and better labor-management relations.

Fewer Injuries, Millions of Dollars Saved

Here’s what labor-management cooperation accomplished after one year of joint attention to employee

safety in the State of Connecticut’s Department of

The Task Force observed the following

Typical Improvements in:

LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

• Time to settlement substantially reduced

• Dramatic reduction in grievances filed

• Reduction in classifications

• Fairer, more effective discipline

• Contracts better reflect service needs

• Simpler, more flexible contracts

• Use of gainsharing

• Joint approaches to legislative,

administrative bodies for policies to help

service delivery
CHAPTER . 1

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

lice Benevolent Association; Teamsters, Chauffeurs

and Helpers Local Union 627; Laborers’ International

Union of North America Local Union 165; Central Illinois District Council of Carpenters Local Union 183;

International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades

Local Union 157, and International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers Local Union 51.

City and union officials alike testified that the

agreement to take health care “off the bargaining table”

made mutually agreed-to flexibility possible and produced win-win solutions for everyone. A primary result of the cooperative effort has been a shift away from

adversarial decision-making about health care to one

based on cooperatively and jointly owned decisions.

In 1994, the city’s health care plan was expected

to cost $6 million, but because of the committee’s success, actual costs were $4.8 million, for a $1.2 million

savings. In the past, virtually every health care decision was fought over and ultimately arbitrated. Since

the joint committee completed its planning and implementation work, no health care decisions have been

arbitrated.

The committee consists of 8 union and 8 administration employees. It makes all decisions by consensus. This consensus-based decision-making process reassured the unions that they were not giving

away their right to negotiate health care, and management that it was not losing control of this very costly

area -- the medical care plan.

The Task Force observed the following

Typical Results in:

SAFETY & WORKER’S COMPENSATION

• Joint development of safety programs

• Prevention focus on policy, practices, training

• Improved return-to-work rates

• Large savings in overtime, time loss expenses

overwhelmingly simple application of non-skid surfaces onto the tile floors; purchase of back-support belts

at about $19 each; and a training program developed

and run by the employees themselves, giving each site

a chance to perform its own analysis and to target the

training.

Controlling Spiraling Health Care Costs

For the city of Peoria, Illinois, health care was

becoming a yearly budget-buster. Costs were climbing annually at an average of 9 percentto 14 percent,

while total city revenues were going down. Solutions

seemed limited: take away benefits or ask employees

to pay more through higher deductibles and/or cost

sharing.

“Unfortunately, that’s what we as a City Council

did in past years,” said City Councilman Dave Koehler,

who also is director of the Peoria Area Labor-Management Committee. “We couldn’t come up with good

solutions. Two years ago, what we did has turned out

to be very logical and the best decision of all. We turned

this challenge over to the employees who were the users of the health care plan and said, ‘We’ll provide the

resources. You solve the problem.’ With union cooperation, Peoria took health care off the bargaining table

in 1993 and placed it in its own Joint Labor-Management Committee to Control Health Care Costs. After

many months of education, frustration and compromise, the following parties entered into a three-year

agreement to form the joint labor-management committee: the City of Peoria; City of Peoria Municipal

Employees Association/American Federation of State,

County and Municipal Employees Local 3464

(COPMEA); Peoria Firefighters Local 50; Peoria PoThe Task Force observed the following

Typical Results in:

HEALTH CARE

• Improved bidding and provider selection

• Cost savings, employee satisfaction

• Improved, more tailored benefit package

• Better plan design

• More incentive for effective utilization

• Joint local utilization review

• Joint work with expert staff & consultants

• Continuing joint effort to improve plan and

economize

• Less conflict and fewer appeals
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

City and union officials credited the outside assistance provided by Health Research Institute of Walnut Creek, California. HRI offered a neutral, facilitative type of expert assistance unavailable in the past.

HRI’s approach is to educate and assist joint committees in identifying their mutually agreed-upon goals,

then to identify actions that can be used as win-win

steps to accomplish the goals. In fact, the two key

ingredients for change such as this are education/communication and joint goal-setting, according to those

testifying before the Task Force.

Reducing Regulation, Improving

Customer Relations

In Madison, Wisconsin, as part of a broader labor-management quality effort, a labor-management

cooperative project was initiated not to save money

(although savings did result), but to improve electrical

safety and ameliorate conflict between city building

inspectors and private electrical contractors. The relationship was characterized by so much animosity that

one service inspector was nicknamed “Dr. No.” Inspections used to occur after hours, allowing for no direct

contact with customers. Instead, contractors would

arrive the next day to find red stickers awaiting them.

The need to change the method of operations also

was driven by the increasingly diverse workforce in

construction, along with more work being done by

homeowners themselves with little or no knowledge

of codes. Finally, the Building Inspection Unit of the

city’s Department of Planning and Development recognized the need to anticipate and cope with technological and other changes.

Management, the inspectors and their union,

AFSCME Local 60, arrived at a bold idea: Develop a

training program in conjunction with electrical contractors and deliver it on-site to the front-line electricians. In addition, inspectors began to work more as a

team, not only in the field but in planning ways to make

the inspection process more customer-oriented. Inspectors also have succeeded in convincing clients that the

primary focus of the inspection is safety -- not onerous

regulation.

Many positive effects have emerged from changes

in process and continued employee involvement:

The Task Force observed the following

Typical Results in:

ADMINISTRATIVE & CASE

PROCESSING

• Faster case processing

• Use of technology to help customers and

workers

• Elimination of unnecessary steps

• Collaborative education of customer

• More field workers, fewer layers

• By changing their role from “policeman” to

“consultant", inspectors have built goodwill among

clients. Inspectors now are able to suggest fire safety

standards not covered in the code, such as educating

contractors regarding the potential for fires caused by

neon lighting or the old-fashioned "knob and tube" wiring found in old buildings

• The department has become more consistent in

enforcement and has acquired knowledge about problem areas not covered adequately in the code.

• The quality of work life for inspectors has improved tremendously as their roles have changed. They

now receive compliments instead of complaints from

customers.

• While cost reductions were not the goal of the

program, the training has reduced by 25 percent the

number of inspections needed to complete a project.

This saves about $30,000 annually, compared with the

$3,000 to $4,000 annual cost to conduct the training

program.

• In summary, the city has found that a compliance effort that emphasizes education instead of punishment enhances electrical safety, conserves resources,

focuses inspection resources on safety outcomes, not

inspection processes, and improves customer relations.

Reducing Department Budget

Without Lay-Offs

Spurred by a severe, city-wide budget crunch, the

Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, in 1994, formed a

joint labor-management committee with the Service
CHAPTER . 1

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 47 with

the twin goals of trimming costs and improving service delivery. The initial effort of the joint committee

was to set work standards that defined such things as

the average number of containers drivers should collect per hour. This led the group to recognize that any

goal would be difficult to meet if vehicles were not

available in ready condition.

Through the work of teams, the Bureau:

• Increased truck availability from 75 percent to

94 percent, largely by improving cooperation between

drivers and mechanics and their respective departments;

• Reduced overtime by 54 percent due to increased truck availability; and

• Over the ensuing three years, expects a 25 percent departmental cost reduction without any lay-offs.

“The worker who does the job on a daily basis

knows firsthand of the waste and inefficiency that exists in the system, yet they seldom are asked for their

input,” said Los Angeles City Council member Jackie

Goldberg, who was instrumental in passing legislation

that established the joint labor-management committee. “Instead, their jobs are threatened with

privatization.

“If there are lessons from the private sector that

the city should examine, it would be to follow companies such as Xerox that have regained their market share

dramatically by involving line employees in the decision-making process.

“City leaders should be looking for new ways to

include workers in the dialogue to enhance service quality while making the shrinking budget dollar go further.”

Increasing Police Services

Without Increasing Costs

As part of an employee involvement effort, working in teams in 1982, the Charleston, South Carolina,

Police Department began a comprehensive, anti-crime

campaign referred to as “Take Back The Streets.” It

was designed to target several commercial and residential areas and reduce the incidence of crime and

the influence of criminals. The Police Department tackled this challenge by creating a team-oriented community policing model that permits not only a neighborhood focus, but the sharing of resources and talents

among neighborhood teams for vexing problems requiring special attention. Essentially, teams “borrow”

resources and talents from each other. This not only

eliminates a layer of specialists at headquarters, but

also allows police officers to more fully use and develop their own skills, which leads to a greater variety

of tasks and increased job satisfaction.

The result has been an increase in police services

without an increase in budget, leading to a consistent,

downward crime trend since 1982 in Charleston, including a period when most American cities had their

highest crime increases ever.

Through the team approach and joint problemsolving, more services are provided within the existing budget. In addition:

• Coordinating with other teams, team leaders

are able to draw upon greater resources for their neighborhoods.

• Merchants, citizens and tourists are safer.

• Police officers are able to use more of their

talents, pooling their skills within the department to

provide the equivalent of several additional positions.

• The department provides more services without the necessity of hiring a number of specialists for a

central staff.

The Task Force observed the following

Typical Results in:

REDUCING OVERTIME

• Changed or added shifts for better coverage

• Schedule changes to reduce set-up and

take-down time

• Reduced injuries

• Better equipment maintenance and readiness

• Cross-training to increase skills available

• More flexible work practices

• Flexible leave policies that reduce

absenteeism

• Contract out non-core or fringe tasks

• Union leadership responsibilities for

services & costs

• Team responsibilities to complete tasks
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Improving Student Performance and

School Safety

At the Foshay School in south-central Los Angeles, surrounded by fences and drug deals, the chapter

chair of the United Teachers of Los Angeles told the

Task Force, “No one was able to focus on education

here until this principal arrived. Now we have a partnership,” said Wayne Stevens.

Principal Howard Lappin arrived in 1989 at

Foshay, a K-11th-grade school with 2,900 students.

Two-thirds of the students are Hispanic; one-third are

black, and 91 percent qualify for the Title One program (Federal compensatory education funding; also

used to determine numbers of students who qualify for

the free lunch progam). The scholastic records were

among the lowest in the state.

Faced with an 80 percent student turnover rate,

Lappin and Stevens worked together to institute a

school-based management program and a Leadership

Council to govern the school. The Leadership Council consists of parents, community members, teachers,

staff, students, the principal, the chapter chair, other

union representatives and a bilingual coordinator.

For the past six years, teachers and administration have worked together to improve the education of

minority children. For the first time, teachers were

involved in planning and curriculum as well as decision-making in general. The school’s test scores in

reading and writing have moved from near the bottom

to the state and district average.

As Task Force members toured the school, they

saw a safe environment with halls and classrooms filled

with active, well-behaved students and teachers excited

about their work. The annual dropout rate has gone

from 21 percent of the student body to 3.5 percent and

suspensions have dropped from 400 cases to 40. The

contrast between the school and the world just outside

the fence could not have been greater

The Task Force observed the following

Typical Results in:

EDUCATION

• Better test scores

• More safety and order in building

• Peer selection of teachers to better match

school needs

• Peer rehabilitation for teachers

• Peer evaluation

• Professional development for teachers

• Reduction in administrative costs

• Joint curriculum improvement

• More parent involvement

• Links with social service agencies

Improved Labor-Management Relations

Leads to Improved Customer Service and

Cost Savings

Labor has had a 100-year presence in the transit

and sewer agencies that have been combined into

METRO. METRO serves King County, Washington,

which includes metropolitan Seattle. Non-exempt employees are represented by the Amalgamated Transit

Union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers, and the Service Employees International

Union. Over this long history, labor-management relations have been quite contentious, including a major

impasse in the early 1990s. Increasingly dissatisfied

with their adversarial relationship, labor and management turned to interest-based negotiations, seeking a

more cooperative, service-oriented partnership. Since

the introduction of interest-based negotiations, the collective bargaining process has moved much more

smoothly and quickly -- an agreement recently was

reached in one month instead of the usual two years of

prior talks. Equally important, this new approach has

allowed METRO to embark on a major cultural change

process that involves considerable employee involvement with restructuring and redesign of work. The

effort first began in the water quality division handling

sewage issues, and later moved to transit.
CHAPTER . 1

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

The Task Force observed the following

Typical Results in:

PUBLIC WORKS

• More efficient road & infrastructure repair

for better service

• Changed shifts

• Routing and transfer efficiencies

• Better equipment and crew configuration

• Equipment sharing and scheduling

• Better equipment readiness

• Supervisory layers removed

• More use of team leaders

• Gainsharing leading to cost savings

• Improved inter-departmental coordination

tric buses from an annual average of 31 to only eight.

This has provided significant relief for the hundreds

of commuters who had been forced either to endure

hour-long waits for repairs or were re-routed over alternative paths to avoid the disabled bus, not to mention fewer traffic tie-ups for auto commuters.

• The unit that provided telephone information

on routes and schedules dramatically improved its customer service through an employee-management team.

The unit was receiving five million customer calls a

year (the bus system handles 250,000 daily riders), but

answering only 50 percent. Employee morale was so

low and a group evaluation of the supervisor was so

negative that she resolved to make the unit a better

place to work. With that catalyst, a team of employees

tackled the various issues and became involved in a

range of tasks that used their knowledge of customer

needs. For example, they now help plan routes and

schedules; they have developed an improved system

map, and have developed a phone menu system to answer calls more effectively. The team’s efforts led to

increased morale and far better customer service. The

number of daily route-information calls answered increased to 90 percent from 50 percent, while the average wait time was decreased from 157 to 65 seconds.

• Gainsharing, in which a portion of the savings

were returned to employees and a portion to ratepayers

via the budget, also was part of a major effort to reduce costs and improve service in the large sewage

treatment portion of METRO. Gainsharing was negotiated and developed by METRO and SEIU Local 6.

Joint Problem-Solving Leads to

Increased Productivity

Rock Hill, South Carolina, a city of some 42,000,

believes that if employees are more involved in decisions around their work, they will perform better.

That’s why an employee involvement program led to a

significant restructuring of work in the horticulture

department, the agency charged with keeping the City’s

landscape attractive. The City views landscaping as

an important tool to instill pride in its citizens and to

attract future residents.

Previously, workers were divided into four crews:

litter, mowing, mowing the ballpark, and shrubs and

The impressive results of this cooperative approach are widespread throughout the agency as employees, organized into teams that often cross departmental or divisional lines, work with management to

produce concrete results in terms of customer service

and cost savings. A sampling:

• Teams of workers, represented by ATU Local

587, through a collaborative effort with management,

were able to identify a number of significant cost savings in maintenance of the underground transit tunnel

that runs through downtown Seattle. For example,

working in teams, they reduced time required to complete routine work and made room for more frequent

heavy cleaning, keeping a much higher standard of

commuter cleanliness and appearance in the heavily

used tunnel. Private contracting previously handled

much of this cleaning work for $150,000 per year. Part

of the solution also involved redeploying outdoor workers during seasonal downtime.

• In another tunnel maintenance project, METRO

employees sealed the granite floors for $150,000 less

than the estimated cost of work contracted out.

• Fixing chronic water leaks in the tunnel used

to require more than $100,000 per year in outside contracting. An intra-divisional team has developed a different method, costing around $35,000 annually.

• Similar employee-management teams, in 1994,

found ways to reduce power interruptions to the elec-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

flowers. They moved from site to site with no particular attachment to any park or area. Under the restructuring, teams of two or more workers -- which include

a lead worker and crew worker(s) depending on the

number of workers a job requires -- gained responsibility for the full range of jobs at particular sites (there

are 110 sites).

The benefits are noticeable:

• Productivity has increased as a result of a new

work ethic that says no one is done until everyone is

finished. Thus, the workload is spread more equitably, also ensuring that citizens receive full service in

all city parks.

• Cost savings were realized from decreased

travel times between sites. Also, new communications

styles and technologies -- each team has a radio as a

result of an employee suggestion -- have reduced the

need for trips to headquarters, and teams can communicate easily with each other. Teams have determined

efficiencies that have allowed attrition to reduce the

needed number of positions.

• Teams decide who should be dispatched to finish any uncompleted job.

• A savings of $40,000 in maintenance costs plus

the elimination of one maintenance position resulted

after supervisors began sharing with employees budgets and financial constraints. Now that workers have

access to operating and capital budgets, they are working more cost effectively. This includes increased preventive equipment maintenance to control costs.

• Other savings resulted when group leaders developed a plan to remove incentives to use sick leave.

Sick days dropped from 20 per person to about three

annually.

The Rock Hill experience indicates that training

is a key factor in the system’s success: new workers

receive 50 hours of horticultural training and 32 hours

in customer service. Crew leaders get three hours in

performance management training.

Simpler, More Flexible Contracts

Inspired by the need to remedy service problems,

Mercer Island, Washington (population: 21,700), initiated a dramatic reorganization in the Maintenance Department in 1990 that has resulted in the replacement

of a traditional, hierarchical structure with a flat, teamoriented structure established around products and services. This reorganization followed a similarly successful one in the Development Services Department.

The City worked closely with maintenance workers and their union, AFSCME Local 21-M. The move

to self-directed teams involved rethinking and re-engineering virtually all aspects of the department, including organizational mission, the labor agreement (or

“compact” as it came to be called), worker responsibilities and authorities, management responsibilities

and authorities, and other issues.

Key to the success of this effort was early and

constant involvement of employees and their union and

a continuing recognition of the need to maintain job

and pay security. According to Mercer Island representatives, the promise was made: “No one will lose

their job, no one’s pay will be reduced, but the work

will change!”

Equally important were the changes made to the

labor contract, which was transformed from a long,

cumbersome, legalistic document into a much simpler,

service-focused agreement. The new contract focuses

on the collective service responsibilities of the parties

and defines the structure through which the parties will

discuss and resolve issues facing them. Contract provisions concerning wages and working conditions are

clear. Provisions concerning work rules are subject to

constant, joint re-examination by labor and management if service needs or quality of work life requires a

re-examination. Continuous improvement is a fundamental part of the ethic in this relationship.

Today, nearly 50 percent of the maintenance employees are divided into four product teams: environmental, utilities, support services and special projects.

There is no department director. Instead, four team leaders report to the city manager as a self-directed team.

The city’s Labor-Management Committee continues

to serve as the problem-solving group for the union

and the city.

The results of this move to self-directed teams

include:

• Through attrition, full-time positions (mainly

supervisory) were reduced from 42 to 35, with attendant cost savings.

• There have been demonstrated improvements
CHAPTER . 1

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

who are systems thinkers, have skills in team building,

communications and facilitation, and are able to work

as partners with other agencies, nonprofits, businesses,

schools and community groups.

As Multnomah County and union officials recognize, this transformation will not occur overnight.

As in all places seeking a new form of partnership,

these changes in historic relationships and workplace

culture will take time.

The county chair stressed that government, by its

very nature, is inclusive and its policy-making processes entail reaching out to many different constituencies, its citizens and taxpayers, who have a right to

be involved and be heard. That takes time.

Transforming Labor-Management

Relationships

For nearly 40 years, a contentious relationship

existed between the Phoenix Fire Department and the

International Association of Fire Fighters Local 493,

which represents some 1,400 members. Then, in 1978,

both a new fire chief and new union president took

office. They decided it was time to focus upon their

relationship in order to improve customer service.

Their personal relationship was a key ingredient to the

success of this cooperative effort and was critical to

getting it started.

Since then, firefighters and management have

held joint annual planning retreats. This process of

jointly developing annual plans has become ingrained

in the way the Fire Department does business and thus

is expected to continue despite any turnover in leadership. The parties’ effectiveness in jointly resolving issues was enhanced in 1984 when labor and management received training by the Federal Mediation &

Conciliation Service in “Relationships by Objectives.”

RBO, which is separate from the collective bargaining

process, creates a way to place issues on the agenda

and provides a focal point from which to start discussions. It also can indirectly influence the collective

bargaining process.

Today, arbitration has not been used in Phoenix

for 10 years. Labor and management no longer are

preoccupied with fighting one another. Instead, they

are working cooperatively to improve the delivery of

in customer satisfaction, public relations, productivity

and worker morale.

• The new organization has led to improved

record keeping, reduced labor costs on a product by

product basis, reduced overhead costs, and consistency

in decision-making that has resulted in increased community and political acceptability of the department’s

efforts and credibility for its decisions.

Using Cooperation to Produce RESULTS

Even in a community where services were generally considered good, labor and management found

that cooperative approaches produced substantial service improvements.

Beverly Stein, the county chair of Multnomah

County, Oregon, won office in August 1993 on a platform of providing better services called “Results Not

Excuses.” Her first task was to seek innovative ways

to improve county services and increase efficiency.

What has emerged is a plan to do no less than transform county government. Emphasizing the county’s

commitment to outcome-based measurements, the plan

was named RESULTS (Reaching Excellent Service

Using Leadership & Team Strategies). The goal of the

RESULTS campaign: to empower managers and employees so they can provide quality service, practice

continuous improvement and, above all, improve the

county’s ability to efficiently respond to the needs of

its customers while improving the work life of its employees.

Joe Devlaeminck, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,

Local 88, in Multnomah County recalled that when the

chair ran for office, “I thought she was nuts. I thought

that our workers were doing the best jobs that could be

done. But, now I know we can do better. We all have

a responsibility.”

Since then, Multnomah County has engaged in a

serious and effective labor-management partnership

that produced some $160,000 in savings in its very first

round of projects from a workforce already credited

with being hard-working and productive.

“We need to engage government and community

in a whole new way,” said Stein. In Multnomah County,

that involves developing a core of people in the county
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

The Task Force observed the following

Typical Results in:

PUBLIC SAFETY

• More services to community with same

workforce

• More responsive to neighborhood

• More crime and fire prevention activity

• Shared resources & talents for specific needs

• Increased coverage to problem areas

• Reduction in incidents

• Better vehicle investments for effectiveness

• Better costing/chargeback for special events

• More equitable pay system

• Less confrontational bargaining

Hampton as the most livable city in Virginia” -- and a

statement of organizational values -- “responsiveness

to citizens, quality, integrity, teamwork, professionalism and innovation.”

It then set to work to redesign the government’s

structure. This involved decentralizing management,

refocusing assistant city managers from line tasks to

strategic issues, extensively training employees in everything from benchmarking to joint problem-solving,

and assembling most employees into self-directed work

teams.

The human resources department has shifted its

role. It serves as a consultant to departments, helping

them create and implement workable ideas, but doesn’t

dictate any programs to be established.

According to Personnel Journal, this applies to

the city’s incentive program as well. Called ‘The

Achievement Program,’ it requires each department to

develop an alternative reward system that provides incentives for innovation and productivity improvements.

The only stipulation is that departments must share 10

percent of their annual savings with employees who

make cost savings suggestions. There are no limits on

non-monetary rewards. So far, the program has generated more than $4 million in savings since its inception in 1985, while rewarding workers more than

$200,000.”1

Citizens of Hampton, VA consistently rate employees’ performance well above average – more than

85 percent -- in annual citizen satisfaction surveys.

Streamlining Operations to Increase

Customer Satisfaction

Faced with an extremely critical report of its employees, the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles formed a quality team of front-line workers plus

district managers to recommend improvements. The

team was assisted by two facilitators, one from inside

the department, one outside.

After team members were trained in the quality

process, they began gathering data on customer complaints, wants and needs. The most frequent complaints

services to its customers -- both citizens and employees.

Creating High-Performance Workplaces

A decade ago, Hampton, Virginia (population:

134,000), had a workforce of 1,300 full-time positions,

dwindling resources, and stagnated population growth.

Businesses began moving to neighboring cities.

Today, the city attracts world-wide businesses,

has one of the lowest tax rates in the southeastern Virginia area, boasts a low-debt service and has improved

its commercial tax base. It sports a new corporate center, a revitalized downtown waterfront park and plaza,

and a new golf course (built by city employees after

private bids proved too high). And the size of the

workforce is about the same as 10 years ago -- one of

the smallest ratios of workers to citizens served of any

city in the state.

The city reversed its fortunes by tackling its problems head-on with a decade-long re-engineering process that concentrated on promoting the qualities

present in high-performance workplaces: clarity of

purpose, and a willingness to share power with employees and customers, to take risks and tolerate failures and to remain focused upon results instead of activities.

The city developed a mission -- “To establish

1

 Dawn Anfuso, “City of Hampton: a Public Deployment

of Corporate Tactics,” Personnel Journal, January 1995, 70-71.
CHAPTER . 1

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

by the public concerned long lines, and the need to

make repeat visits because of inadequate documentation and unclear instructions and letters sent by the

department. The team made 90 recommendations for

improving service to the public, 10 of which required

legislative action. As of April 1995, eight legislative

initiatives had passed, following testimony by the frontline employees.

Team solutions led to both improved customer

service and cost efficiencies, such as:

• Extending the vehicle tag conversion (license

plate replacement) period from six to 10 years, resulting in a $6 million savings;

• Extending the driver license renewal period

from four to five years;

• Eliminating the notary requirement on applications;

• Installation of 1-800 help telephone service;

• Ability to issue most titles at branch offices,

rather than only at headquarters;

• Allow fully accredited dealerships to issue tags

and registrations to customers.

Turning an Adversarial Bargaining

Relationship into a Productive Partnership

For years, the University of Montana paid the

lowest salaries in the nation for any Ph.D. granting institution. Labor-management relations were adversarial

and narrowly focused. The University Teachers Union

(UTU), an American Federation of Teachers affiliate,

used to bargain with management over the “crumbs”

left by the legislature, testified School of Business Professor Jerry Furniss, who also had been UTU president and chief negotiator. Since they were starting at

the bottom, all issues other than money were ignored,

he said.

All that has changed since Montana Governor

Mark Racicot agreed in 1993 to try a whole new approach that involved the sharing of information and

exploration of a wide range of issues, including

workload and student access to classes, with the professors and their union. A strategic plan for bargaining was developed with the involvement of a professional mediator and trainer. Because of the traditionally adversarial nature of their relations, both management and labor leaders had to persuade their colleagues

to participate. Furniss, for instance, put a chief dissenter to the process on the bargaining team and reassured members that they could go back to traditional

bargaining at any time.

But early progress under the cooperative approach

eliminated anyone’s desire to return to the old bargaining techniques. Instead of stalemates and confrontation, a new agreement virtually “wrote itself,” said

Furniss, through the successful use of techniques such

as:

• Loosening up the hierarchy in the bargaining

teams;

• Eliminating chief spokespersons in the talks;

• Breaking stakeholders into smaller satellite

groups to work on specific issues;

• Using a mediator/facilitator and joint problemdefinition and problem-solving;

• Setting time frames for completion of tasks and

issues, and;

• Honoring confidentiality and permitting any

party to withdraw from the process at any time. (No

one has withdrawn.)

Savings From a Simpler Procurement Process

The Oregon Health Science’s University had 14

different departments in procurement. Neither customers nor suppliers were happy with the process or costs

stemming from such a needlessly complicated arrangement. A labor-management steering group, including

employees represented by AFSCME and the Oregon

Nurses Association from the various affected departments, initiated a study of the procurement process with

the assistance of a consultant.

From flow charts, the team saw what the old process looked like, saw the opportunities for savings, designed a new process and decided how to implement

it.

Pointing the Way to the Workplace

of Tomorrow

These are just a few of the dozens of examples

described in greater or lesser detail throughout this report that demonstrate the various ways in which pub-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

The following chapter describes some of the

forces compelling these new approaches to service

delivery. Chapter Three summarizes some major demographic and financial features and trends concerning public service and the people that work there, as

well as results of surveys and public opinion polls regarding government services. The report goes on in

Chapter Four to describe “Nuts and Bolts”, the “how

to’s” and conditions of achieving the kinds of service

and workplace successes described above. The last

two chapters (Five and Six) go over some activities by

organizations at a national level that are required to

support this more effective model of the state and local government workplace, and describe, particularly

in Chapter Six, some of the issues that could benefit

from further attention. ■

lic workplaces were made more effective, efficient and

better places to work by involving and relying more

substantially on employee judgment and experience.

Some, called “Snapshots,” are described in greater detail to provide an idea of the atmosphere and overall

elements of the program in that location. Others are

mentioned more briefly in connection with a particular ingredient, technique or issue.

All of the instances cited required new attitudes,

approaches, changed roles and the use of a communication and decision-making structure to gain the interaction necessary to achieve workplace effectiveness.

The examples take place in a variety of services and

settings, and arise from different histories. All represent possibilities for other communities or programs

that choose to venture into this more promising way of

planning and providing public services.
CHAPTER . 1

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

W

Snapshot: . MASSHIGHWAY

hat began as a union response

to the contracting out of state highway maintenance work has evolved into a highly successful

example of labor-management cooperation

resulting in numerous improvements to the

Massachusetts Highway Department

(MassHighway) and benefits for the workers,

motorists and taxpayers.

The catalyst came in 1993 when

Governor William F. Weld announced he was

expanding the contracting out of highway

maintenance to include all of Eastern Massachusetts. Bids were solicited from private firms

and from MassHighway employees for seven

geographic areas. Faced with competition in the

workplace and the possible loss of 424 maintenance worker jobs, three unions -- SEIU Local

285, AFSCME Local 1009 and the National

Association of Government Employees (NAGE,

SEIU Local 5000) -- formed a unique alliance

to compete with the private contractors and

ultimately were awarded three of the seven

contracts in October 1993, saving 264 jobs.

Charles E. Kostro, chief policy analyst

for the Massachusetts Executive Office of

Transportation and Construction, told the Task

Force: “The public workers who were awarded

these three contracts remained as state employees with full pay and benefits. These workers,

however, were bound to fulfill the obligations

of their contract just as if they were a private

company. MassHighway managers met weekly

with union and worker representatives to

address operational issues for the one-year

duration of the contract. During this time, the

cooperation which developed between management and labor as a part of this process resulted

in numerous improvements to MassHighway

and benefits for the workers, motorists and

taxpayers.”

Following the first year of the new

arrangements, dramatic improvements and

changes were cited by Kostro, Frank Borges,

secretary-treasurer, SEIU, Local 285, and other

union representatives:

 • The state and taxpayers saved more

than $7.8 million in operating from the overall

efficiency program in the department of which

this cooperative effort was a major component.

 • There was a 60 percent reduction in

workers compensation claims.

 • On union-operated drawbridges,

workers designed flexible work schedules to

reduce overtime expenses by 70 percent and

sick time usage by 49.5 percent when compared

with a similar period prior to this program.

 • There was a renewed pride and

interest in the work of the department.

 Borges pointed out that road sweeping

used to be done sporadically -- a few roads in

an area were spot-cleaned. But in 1994, “for the

first time in probably 25 years, [union-managed] areas were swept completely.” Union

workers also spent hundreds of hours washing

bridges, he said. This previously neglected task

involved clearing years of debris from gutters.

“If gutters aren’t free,” he explained, “water

accumulates on the road instead and makes

winter travel unsafe.”1

These efforts allowed the union workers to compete effectively with the private

contractors and when the maintenance contracts

were re-bid in the summer of 1994, the

MassHighway workers retained their three

contracts and were once again competitive

bidders on much of the remaining work.

Kostro pointed out that as a result of the

cooperation between management and labor in

this area, several other aspects of

MassHighway’s operation were improved.

Suggestions by the union workers for improved

vehicle and equipment maintenance have been

adopted by MassHighway, for example. This

improvement in vehicle and equipment mainte1

 Nicole Crawford, “We Thought You’d Never

Ask!” Union, March/April 1995 7-9.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

nance has provided management with the

confidence to purchase and lease new vehicles

and equipment, further improving

MassHighway’s efficiency andperformance.

“Finally,” Borges said,“MassHighway’s

work force has been energized by their experience of the past year. The unions’ membership

happily sees the unions changing to meet the

new conditions. They also are satisfied that it

was their union which freed them from traditional job restrictions and allowed them to

perform a more professional and respect-worthy

job.

Kostro responded: “Management has

been energized by this program as well. Public

employee unions at MassHighway are no longer

viewed as obstacles, but as partners in achieving the agency’s productivity goals.”

The roles of workers, their unions and

management have all changed significantly as a

result of this cooperative approach.

Since winning the bids, Borges told the

Task Force, unions assumed the responsibility

for organizing and managing highway jobs, just

as their private-sector competitors. Union

leaders have been engaged in virtually continual

meetings with their membership. Officers have

de-emphasized their role as “grievance handlers” in favor of becoming “motivators” who

urge employees to work smarter to save their

jobs. They act as liaison between workers and

management in sharing concerns and solving

service problems, including those that might

develop because of poor managers or inefficient

management policies or systems. Union leaders

also have had the opportunity to become much

more sophisticated in the use of operational and

budget information. They have input into

budget matters since they now share accountability for the bottom line. The union locals

received moral and technical support from their

national and international unions which supplied money, research materials, consultants,

encouragement and suggestions.

For workers, morale is higher than ever.

They exercise peer pressure to see that tasks are

performed in a timely and effective fashion. The

development of clearer and more measurable

work standards has led to substantial selfmanagement by workers (as well as more service

and production leadership by union reps and

more effective management by managers themselves).

Two maintenance workers, Steve Lowery

and Lee Devereaux, liaisons between SEIU Local

285 and the Highway Department, told the Task

Force that they attributed much of the success to

teamwork and planning. They reported that they

get two or three times the work done with half

the workforce. The workers now take on things

not in the contract. For example, although snow

and ice removal was not in the bid or contract,

the unionized workforce helped with snow and

ice removal in the extraordinarily hard winter of

1994. Normally, snow and ice removal is

contracted out. As a result of the efficiency,

flexibility, and improved communication in the

new relationship, the workers and team leaders

rescheduled and readied the necessary equipment

and teams. They were able, thereby, to contribute

to the task, reducing the need for additional

contracting out in those areas.

Management has become much more

open to the sharing of information and to acknowledging that front-line workers have expertise that is of substantial and important value in

determining how the work can be done better.

Improved communications with workers has

helped management to realize that real authority

should be vested in the supervisors and workers

who actually oversee the work. Management

used to be reluctant to get the whole workforce

together, union spokespersons testified, but now

full staff meetings are held every two months.

The increased sharing of information has improved both work processes and trust.

As a result of this experience,

MassHighway indicated the cooperative and

participative model is more likely to be used as

the primary approach in other attempts to improve service and efficiency in the department. ■

S n a p s h o t : M A S S H I G H WAY
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

 Many forces are converging upon government today, driving an urgent need for a thorough re-examination of the way jobs are performed

and a fundamental reshaping of the way services are delivered.

 These forces often appear to be in conflict: On one

hand is the demand for more services; on the other, an outcry for a leaner government.

Business and government alike are seeking ways to become more customer- and serviceoriented in response to people’s demands for better, more cost-effective products and

PUBLIC . SERVICES . AND . THE

PUBLIC . WORKPLACE . FACING

PRESSURE . FOR . CHANGE

CHAPTER

TWO

A . RESPONSIBILITY . T O . MEET . THE . CHALLENGE
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

CHAPTER . 2

services. The workplace itself is undergoing constant

change as rapid technological advances continuously

affect the way workers do their jobs, communicate with

each other and, ultimately, deliver services.

The intent of this chapter is to describe what those

forces are, how they are affecting the public workplace

and why the traditional workplace arrangements must

change to enable local and state governments to respond

effectively.

The work of this national Task Force comes at a

useful moment in the national debate over public services and the role of government.

In accepting the challenge to investigate how labor-management cooperation can lead to the provision

of high quality government services within this constantly changing environment, the Task Force focused

upon the intersection of the way jobs are performed,

the way public services are delivered and the kind of

workplace interactions that can improve both.

The Task Force’s findings offer local and state

government a proactive and positive approach to making changes needed to remove inefficiencies, to improve

service delivery and to create excellence in the public

sector. The extent to which the kind of workplace practices described in the Task Force’s research and analysis are discussed and widely attempted will affect the

degree to which citizens will reap the benefits of applying the best practices available to provide excellent,

cost-effective services. 

The Context for Change

There are many different historical, political and

other forces pressuring local and state governments to

re-examine how they can provide high quality service.

Problems Facing Communities and their

Governments are More Complex.

Problems and issues are becoming more complex.

For example, people are living longer, populations are

increasingly diverse, greater accommodations are being sought and offered to citizens with various handicaps, the courts are more crowded, and local and national conflicts over economic development and environmental protections have increased. At the same time,

interest groups are becoming stronger, better organized

and more vocal. Thus, governments are finding greater,

more insistent demands placed upon them at a time that

their financial and other resources are dwindling.

Citizens Expect More.

Citizens, as consumers, generally have become

much more aware of quality in service and product and

have come to expect more as a consequence. This extends beyond demanding a quality automobile or a better service in a supermarket to include services delivered by government, as well

Emergence of Quality Improvement

Movement.

Increased attention to finding ways to “work

smarter” has led to a more focused approach to improving quality on a continuous basis in the workplace.

As a result, there are now many useful examples and

techniques available to engage people in continuously

producing higher quality services, constantly re-examining the steps of the work processes to gain greater

cost-effectiveness, and improving the quality of work

life. These approaches have relied on front-line participation in product and service decisions.

Learning How to Provide Better Products

and Services.

Considerable progress has been made in the private sector during the past decade or so in learning how

to provide better products and services. The dramatic

turnaround in the U.S. automobile industry is a good

example of how a business, when faced with intense

competition driven by a changing environment, found

new ways to produce better products and services. This

knowledge is transferable not only among private sector industries, but also to the public arena.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Citizens Increasingly Skeptical of

Government.

The public expresses dissatisfaction with government at every level. Many voters and taxpayers believe

they do not get a good value for their tax investment in

public services. Elected officials are trying to balance

taxpayers’ demands for fiscal austerity with expectations for improved quality in services and, at the same

time, fulfill their roles as public stewards responsible

for the long-term, overall health of the community.

Many Public Sector Workers Feel Maligned.

Public sector employees are distinguished by a

higher average level of education than the rest of the

nation’s work force, indicating the level of skills required and that highly skilled individuals are choosing

to be public sector employees. (See Chapter Three for

demographic data.) However, many are becoming disheartened by the weight of bureaucracy and the difficulty in making changes. Years of budget cuts have too

often targeted innovative programs, useful training or

created impossible workloads without changes in priorities or work systems.

Generalized anti-government sentiment is wearing away at employees’ pride, job satisfaction and productivity. It is important to note, however, that while

public attitudes are very negative on a general level,

when people are asked for their opinions regarding the

performance of nearby workers, like their children’s

teachers, the postal workers or sanitation workers on

their route, these nearby workers receive approval ratings in the 80 to 90 percent range.

Effects of Restrictive Government Systems.

In many instances, procurement, budgetary, civil

service, regulatory and other systems have become so

complex that in the effort to add accountability, service effectiveness and needed flexibility have been severely diminished.

 More Services at the State Level.

Current policy discussions underway as this Task

Force Report was being completed suggest that some

functions traditionally performed at the federal level

may come to the individual states for delivery and

implementation. Therefore, the need for service excellence, cost effectiveness and a means to continuously

seek improvement is even more urgent.

Increased Discussion of “Contracting Out”

of Public Services to Private Sector.

Faced with limited resources and the need for

high-quality, cost-effective services, governments increasingly are exploring the notion of contracting out

some public services to private businesses. The Task

Force found that this issue can be very controversial

and divisive for labor and management, particularly

when based solely or primarily upon the notion that

the private sector can do a better job. On the other

hand, there are a number of areas where advocates and

opponents are not in total disagreement.

Contracting out, like other service delivery approaches, has risks and complexities, as pointed out by

Richard Loomis, senior vice president of COMARCO,

Inc., testifying on behalf of the Contract Services Association (CSA), a group of some 150 government contractors.

Loomis said that, as a general rule, the process of

seeking bids for a project is helpful even if the work

ultimately is kept in-house. Further, he noted that

privatization or contracting out works only as a longterm strategy, not as a quick fix. It should not be used,

he mentioned, for union-busting or to solve short-term

cash problems. He spelled out some criteria by which

decisions on whether to contract out should be made:

Governments should make a conscious effort not to

displace employees if cost savings are not significant

or measurable. Issues of quality, corruption and cost

inflation need to be addressed. He also agreed with other

witnesses that governments should maintain some inhouse capability.

It is very important, he said, for managers to have

good cost and quality data to support their decisions.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

CHAPTER . 2

The ability to measure -- and thus compare -- results is

key to cost-effective service improvement, regardless

of whether the service is delivered by public or private

sector employees. This brings accountability into the

process and enables comparison of performance against

goals.

Ron Utt, former Associate Director of

Privatization for the Federal Office of Management and

Budget and currently a Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noted among other considerations, that a major

obstacle is that state and local governments do not

maintain accounting systems that can determine the cost

effectiveness.

Added Diana Orantes Ceresi, associate general

counsel for the Service Employees International Union,

in her testimony: “In this era of heightened budget consciousness, it is also easy to forget that governments

have a responsibility to publicly promote values beyond mere cost reduction,” she said. “These include

access, quality and effectiveness of services, equality

of opportunity and increasing improvements in the general standard of living for its citizens. These values are

the ‘givens’ that should not be overlooked when government services are contracted out.”

“Experience has taught us that contracting out is

not a panacea for the budget crisis facing state and local governments. It should never be resorted to without careful consideration of all factors involved and

assurance that necessary safeguards are implemented.”

Understandably, public employees oppose contracting out when it is forced on them. However, the

Task Force observed instances where public employees can accept it when evaluations and decisions on

contracting out are handled in an open fashion, and

where the facts and comparison methodologies were

sensible and fairly derived. In many of those instances,

given a level playing field, the public employees were

able to produce better cost and quality results than private competitors.

The current debate over contracting out reflects

the pressure on government to perform efficiently, and

illustrates just one more element pressing on state and

local governments to change the way they deliver services. Chapter Three, which follows, includes a brief

description of some trends in contracting out observed

through the work of the Task Force.

Opportunity for Improvements in LaborManagement Relations.

The principles and structures that today define

public sector labor-management relations in most states

date from 20 to 30 years ago. At that time, only limited

experience with public sector bargaining and labormanagement relations was available. Practices were

developed state-by-state and rarely has there been an

opportunity to review the experience from among the

states, particularly with respect to service effectiveness.

Thus, systems were established within the context of

the times and with significant dependence on interpolations of private sector experience. Among other differences, public sector organizations have structures and

controls reflecting separation of powers that are not

characteristic of private organizations. Public sector

organizations are also affected by elections and electoral politics. Observations of the Task Force (reflected

in Appendix H) provide some lessons useful in assisting states which are establishing, or revising, collective bargaining laws to cause these laws to more directly support service improvement.

For a variety of historical and legal reasons, collective bargaining practices in many jurisdictions have

developed in an overly conflictual manner, often enveloped by a legalistic or formal tone.

Collective bargaining relationships that are characterized by confrontation not only make it more difficult to work on effective long-term responses to service improvement and to work effectively on a daily

basis, but they also attract unfortunate attention to the

conflict. While it may make good newsprint or political fodder for elections, the attention drawn by such

conflict undermines public confidence in both workers

and elected officials. Further, such conflict draws important energy and resources of management and labor

leaders into the conflict rather than into the resolution

of service issues affecting the public and the work environment of public employees. Confrontational rhetoric rarely contributes to finding solutions to real problems like resource limitations and service needs of a

community.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

In other places, however, relationships or traditions have developed in the public workplace that provide for more effective problem-solving, usually resorting less frequently to formal methods and relying less

on outside adjudication of conflicts. A number of states

and localities are well known for leadership in these

developments -- some over many years, some more

recently. The Task Force saw or heard from many of

them. Even here, the inherent adversarial nature of the

relationship doesn’t disappear, but the parties can cooperate substantially and effectively in the way they

deal with issues.

These public sector examples -- many highlighted

in this report -- demonstrate that there is a substantial

opportunity for labor-management cooperation to contribute to service improvement and alter, where it exists, some of the negative imagery associated with public services and employment.

Reflecting on the many successful joint labormanagement efforts made by his union, John J.

Sweeney, testifying before the Task Force as International President of the Service Employees International

Union, said: “The public sector, unlike private industry, has a relatively high rate of unionization, and less

adversarial labor-management relations are more the

norm. These factors have combined to produce an environment that is conducive to joint efforts for promoting excellence.” Also evoking these possibilities, Governor George Voinovitch of Ohio, where a substantial

labor-management equality partnership effort is underway, said, “My feeling is that labor is key to this whole

thing.1

” (For more information on Ohio, see “Snapshot:

State of Ohio” following Chapter Four.)

As part of its findings, this report, in subsequent

chapters, describes how collective bargaining relationships can better realize their potential to join worker

talent with management authority and resources. Where

practiced in a less conflictual and formalistic manner,

and more in a way that focuses on workplace participation, collective bargaining relationships demonstrate

particular value in supporting better service results. The

results of this review of service excellence makes it

clear that labor-management cooperation can play a

major role in developing a strategy for service excellence.

The juxtaposition of the possibilities of cooperation with the missed opportunities of confrontation creates an imperative for state and local government to

take advantage of the opportunities that stem from more

participative and cooperative labor-management relationships in the public sector.

A Confluence of Forces of Change

All of these pressures affecting state and local

government create a clear need to make the most of the

capacities of state and local government workers, managers and elected officials to provide effective service.

Also clear is the degree of change that has -- and will-

- occur and, therefore the urgent need to seek ways for

public workers and leaders to respond and continue to

respond effectively.

Although the challenges and barriers are substantial, public officials and workers have not, in all instances, done their collective best job for the public.

Today’s changing conditions provide an opportune

moment to identify where they have done their best

and to see how the overall system and practices can be

improved by following the examples of those who have

succeeded.

The enormity of this challenge should not be underestimated. Meeting it will require doing many things

differently, not just getting along better. Labor and

management must work together to ensure everyone

has the skills not only to perform new jobs but to adapt

to new skills and workplace behavior. There must be

changes in philosophies, attitudes, roles, work practices

and more.

As the report illustrates, the Task Force saw many

examples of how this transformation can be made. It

does require a willingness to break with past habits and

traditions, to take risks and learn new ways.

All of this will take time. But if public managers

and workers fail to seize the initiative to “fix the system,” sweeping changes may be foisted upon them by

an increasingly hostile citizenry frustrated by

government’s perceived lack of responsiveness and effectiveness. The result could very well be a series of 1 Jonathan Walters, “TQM, Surviving The Cynics,” Governing, September 1994, 40-45.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

CHAPTER . 2

changes in government driven more by negative politics than by a desire to achieve service excellence.

As Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, testified, “I honestly believe it is not too dramatic to say that the viability of our institutions of governance depends at least in part on the success of our

journey as we begin to move from confrontation to cooperation.

I challenge the Task Force -- to challenge us --to

make our public workplaces laboratories of experimentation to drive and manage these kinds of changes.” ■
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Snapshot: . INDIANAPOLIS

ees have won the bulk of the contracts put up

for competition by examining methods, systems

and cost structures in conjunction with management.

“I was increasingly impressed with the

inherent ability of our own employees to

perform better when the system allowed them

to; I underestimated what they could do if we

unloaded the bureaucracy off the top of their

heads,” Goldsmith said.1

His goal then became providing the

best service at the lowest cost for citizens -- a

goal embraced by the city’s workers, largely

represented by the American Federation of

State, County and Municipal Employees

(AFSCME). AFSCME leadership viewed the

competitions as a way to help eliminate the

myth that the private sector always is more

efficient than the public sector, as well as to

take back work that had been contracted out

years ago.

“Using the private sector as a yardstick

with which to measure ourselves, we’re fine

with that institutionally,” said Steve Fantauzzo,

executive director of Indiana’s State Council 62,

AFSCME. “But to simply say that the private

sector is always a better answer, that’s simply

not true.” Fantauzzo points out that under

public management, for example, refuse

collection routes have been redesigned and

worker productivity has doubled, producing

annual savings close to $15 million.2

In another example, the city’s fleet

maintenance workers outbid three outside

companies. This effort had its roots in a

cooperative labor-management program started

several years earlier under the leadership of the

president of the local AFSCME unit and the

department administrator of Indianapolis Fleet

1

 Rob Gurwitt, “Indianapolis and the Republican Future,” Governing, February 1994, 24-28 2

 “Indianapolis Wins Big on Savings, Safety,

Effluent Quality Under Contract O&M,” Public Works

Financing, March 1995, 14-16

W hen Stephen Goldsmith ran for

mayor of Indianapolis, he vowed to engage in

widescale privatization; in other words, transferring delivery of services to private contractors.

Convinced that Indianapolis was in a struggle

with its neighbors for both business and residents, raising taxes to pay for improved city

services did not seem a viable option. Goldsmith believed that market forces and competition would ultimately serve citizens better than

what he and his staff call the government

“monopoly.”

Once in office, however, he says he

quickly came to realize that the real answer to

improving service delivery was not privatization

because “monopolies, public or private, are

inefficient.” Instead, Indianapolis launched a

comprehensive effort that features labormanagement cooperation and, in some areas,

fosters competition between city departments

and private contractors. In these instances, it

treats city departments as businesses and gives

workers a voice in ways to cut costs. If the

department can put in a winning bid against

private competitors, the city workers continue to

provide that particular service.

In addition, city workers also bid for

new work and work that was previously contracted out--returning those services to the

public sector when it can be done there in a

competitive fashion. For example, both the sign

shop and fleet maintenance services are now

performing work purchased by community

organizations, by other governments and by

local utilities.

Although Indianapolis receives much

attention for its competitive initiatives, the Task

Force found in its site visit that the structured,

cooperative relationship pervading city operations is the unsung hero of the service and cost

improvements.

In fact, where the union has bid, city

and union officials estimate that public employ-
Snapshot:INDIANAPOLIS

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Services (see Chapter Four). This cooperative

program predated the Mayor’s initiatives, and

became a helpful vehicle for success by the

department’s workforce under the new arrangements. As part of the cooperative effort, fleet

maintenance workers voted to forgo a raise in

the first year of their four year collective

bargaining agreement. In exchange the union’s

service contract to provide fleet maintenance

specifies that, in addition to negotiated wage

increases for subsequent years, employees will

share 25 percent of any savings below the bid

price and 30 percent during the following two

years. (For more details, see below.)

This gainsharing program has been a

major component in changing how line level

employees and managers look at their work. It

has resulted in participating employees receiving an average of over $2,200 each in bonuses

for work in 1994 and 1995.

Since taking office in 1992, Goldsmith

has reduced the city’s operating budget by $26

million without raising taxes for the eighth

straight year while still managing to invest more

money in public safety and infrastructure

improvements than at any other time in the

city’s history. The only layoffs came shortly

after Goldsmith’s election, when he eliminated

hundreds of political patronage jobs, in the

ranks of middle managers. While this initially

prompted fear among workers that “if middle

managers could be laid off, they’ll do it to

anybody,” the union eventually viewed the

move as a commitment by Goldsmith to eliminate “the bureaucratic stranglehold on employees.” No rank-and-file workers have lost their

jobs. As functions have improved and changed,

workers have been redeployed and retrained

under a comprehensive employment “safety

net” program.

Indianapolis presents a comprehensive

example of how a municipal government

accrued tremendous benefits through labormanagement cooperation. To effect this cultural

change, Goldsmith took several steps that are

helping Indianapolis to improve delivery

through improved labor-management cooperation, including:

SELTIC. Goldsmith created the

Service, Efficiency and Lower Taxes for

Indianapolis Commission to identify opportunities for competitive bidding of city services. It

is composed of the most entrepreneurial members of the Indianapolis business community.

SELTIC has identified many areas with potential savings for taxpayers. Thus far more than

68 city services have been open to competition

with the private sector.

Strategic Tools Initiative. It became

clear from the first day that if the city was going

to be successful in creating a more efficient and

responsive government, a whole new set of

financial and management tools would be

necessary. City employees would need new

financial tools in order to analyze costs and

make improvements. The administration would

need to be able to make “apples to apples”

comparison of public versus private sector costs

of provision. Thus, both labor and management

recognized that without clear measures of

comparison, bids by public sector operations

might be disadvantaged by such things as

assigned overhead costs and other internal

requirements of city administrative systems.

Decisions on competition require a level

playing field and cost analyses fair to both

sides. Several strategic initiatives were taken in

this regard:

1. Activity-based costing. The city

needed to know how much every service and

activity of government cost in order to

measure performance and improvements and

to make relevant comparisons when necessary.

2. Performance measures. Competitive contracting required very clear standards

describing how the contracts would be

evaluated. Inputs, outputs and efficiency

measures are now used to review services

provided to the city.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

3. Infrastructure balance sheets.

City government had never kept systematic

track of the value and condition of its roads,

bridges, parks and other assets. Proper

maintenance and valuation of city services

led Indianapolis to create “infrastructure

balance sheets” tracking the value of its

assets.

Financial training. Another useful

initiative instrumental to success was financial

training. Employees were trained by both

AFSCME and the city in advanced financial

issues, including how to make bids. Today,

many union officers share managerial and

service responsibilities and have computers at

their work stations. Line employees and union

officers now talk about fund transfers and

similar issues previously reserved for upper

management. The result is greater accountability and problem-solving.

Partnership with unions. Following a

typical adversarial beginning, the union and

management committed to a good faith attempt

to work together. The collective bargaining

process was used to define the parameters of a

level playing field; set the rules for contracting

out, including timely notice and the opportunity

to bid, and plan training to develop employee

skills. AFSCME participated in defining core

services. This aggressive partnership also

helped union leaders become more comfortable

with the cooperative route. As elected leaders,

the union officials took a risk in attempting to

persuade employees to try the new approach.

Union leaders received considerable criticism

from some members the first year that they

participated in the bid process. Many of their

members were afraid they would lose their jobs

as a result -- the mayor’s election upon a

campaign to privatize services was quite fresh

in their minds. The union leaders “buy-in”

essentially put the union’s credibility on the

line.

Fantauzzo acknowledged that the

reinventing process demands a lot more of

public employee unions. “If it’s not working

and we’ve been invited to the table and have

had a part in developing a level playing field,

then we can’t sit back and say, ‘You’re the

problem.’ “ Nationally, he predicts that the

public employee unions will “proactively move

to fix what’s wrong with government and also

re-examine the way we do business. Some of

the restrictions may actually be contractual, not

just purchasing, bureaucracy and all the other

things.”3

 Employee safety net. Because natural

attrition creates vacant positions, Goldsmith

pledged from the beginning that “no earnest,

hard working employee whose position has

been eliminated but wants to continue working

for the city” would be denied the opportunity to

do so. If employees do not win a particular bid,

they are shifted to other jobs. This involves

constant training to ensure a skilled, flexible

work force. When management of the waste

water treatment plant was privatized, some

layoffs were expected. However, this was

avoided by a combination of efforts developed

with the new contractor and in a “safety net”

provision negotiated into the city’s collective

bargaining contract with AFSCME. These

provisions effectively ensured that any city

worker displaced by competition would have

employment if they want it. A combination of

redeployment, retraining, and placement

assistance is used. These programs and the

commitment of the parties to them contribute to

employment security in a way that provides

cooperation towards service efficiency.

Involvement of front-line workers.

Front-line workers have an opportunity to

determine how to perform services more

efficiently. Says Goldsmith, who joins a crew

of city employees on a job once a week, “Nobody knows better than the worker how the job

can be done more efficiently. You spend an

hour with a guy filling potholes, and he can

give you a dozen good ideas about ways to

3 Ibid.
Snapshot:INDIANAPOLIS

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

MUNICIPAL FLEET SAVES JOBS

WITH INSOURCING VICTORY*

Member [of NAFA] John

McCorkhill, Administrator of Indianapolis

Fleet Services, and his staff won a bid in

February over three national private

competitors to manage, maintain, and

repair 2,771 vehicles owned by the city of

Indianapolis.

make the service more efficient.”4

Managers are on the line, too. Interestingly, even when there is private competition

for a service, the managers and the union

members work together: They succeed or fail

together in the bid and performance. More

frequently, however, cooperative partnerships

determine this mutual success.

The combination of strategic tools,

improved measures and comparisons, and a

cooperative union-management effort to

eliminate barriers to effectiveness have provided strong motivation for workers to find

ways to perform their jobs more efficiently.

Before Goldsmith was elected, “We

didn’t give a hoot what anything cost,” recalled

Isaac Sanders, a city crew leader responsible for

street repair.5

 Previously with a monopoly on

street repairs, Sanders continued an age-old

practice of using five trucks and 12 city workers

to perform the same work he now does with two

vehicles and eight workers. Once equipped

with the necessary skills and information and

4

 Dirk Johnson, “In Privatizing City Services, It’s

Now ‘Indy-a-First-Place’,” New York Times, 2 March, 1995 5

 William M. Stern, “We got Real Efficient Real

Quick,” Forbes, 20 June, 1994.

offered an opportunity and incentive to find a

better way to perform the service -- and guaranteed a level playing field -- workers and their

managers consolidated equipment and duties

and modified work rules.

The Competition and Costing program

jointly implemented by the City and AFSCME

Council 62 won a 1995 Innovations in American Government Award by the Ford Foundation

and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The parties say

they will use the $100,000 award to provide

further training to enable employees to participate effectively in competitive bidding, to

develop a video and other informational materials and to host delegations from other localities

seeking to learn from the Indianapolis model.

The Indianaplis program was the only

winner with a union (AFSCME Council 62) as

a co-applicant. In a press release announcing

the award, Steve Quick, representative for

AFSCME Council 62 and president of Local

725, said, “Indianapolis has empowered its

AFSCME members as partners in the process of

redesigning government. Tomorrow [at an

October 26, 1995 award ceremony] that partnership will win a national award, but our community has already been awarded better services

and more efficient government. ■

Indianapolis Mayor Stephen

Goldsmith’s challenge when taking office

in 1992 to “either make this place competitive, make the customers happy, or this

operation is going to be gone,” further

inspired McCorkhill to propose efficiencies which will save city taxpayers $8

million.

The adrenaline rush of competing

for their own jobs, plus the vision and

support of municipal leaders, cooperation

with and from local union management

and workers willing to make sacrifices, * Reproduced, with permission, from

NAFA Fleet Executive, April 1995, 10-11.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

helped put IFS over the top, according to

McCorkhill.

“We knew we would have to get

competitive if we wanted to stay in business,” he said.

McCorkhill actually began preparing

for the competition in 1992 by reorganizing

the department, trimming middle management and empowering employees to work in

self-directed teams. “The game plan at the

end of two years of reorganizing was to take

this operation to the street to get the price (of

services) that had never been established.”

he said. “At least seven consulting reports

had been done on the agency and each spoke

highly of the level of service but none addressed the issue of price.”

A selection team including individuals from legal, purchasing and the Mayor’s

office plus McCorkhill and an individual

from the fleet department’s customer base

wrote the bid specifications in conjunction

with consultant Chip Taggart with David M.

Griffith & Associates. The specifications

were mailed November 2, 1994 with proposals due on Friday, January 13, 1995.

Sacrifices and Incentives Essential to

Bidding Success

McCorkhill and his staff made

personal sacrifices to meet and beat the

competition but also had built-in incentives

to save costs in the bid proposal. IFS

employees agreed to forego raises in the

third year of the three-year agreement and

adopted a plan that gives them an incentive

to generate additional savings beyond those

in the proposal itself. Fleet services employees will share 25 percent of any savings

below the bid price during the first year of

the contract and 30 percent during the

following two years, which effectively ties

raises to strict performance.

Based on the proposals received,

McCorkhill knew the specs were literally on

the money. “Not one of the bidders questioned the performance standards stated in

the specs as being too rigid or unrealistic nor

questioned whether the city employees were

doing the job. I think many of them sensed

that this is not a traditional municipal

operation, that some good things are in place

here.

“In addition, we didn’t want to

create a situation where someone could come

in and piecemeal the operation. The bid

covered the whole gamut of repairs and

service. We could have broken it down

without going to a bid. That was not the

intent. We wanted to make sure that when we

received prices from the private sector

people that the comparison was apples to

apples. Each of the bidding contractors said

they would comply fully with the specification which is a boiler-plate of everything we

do.

“I figured one of our private competitors would possibly undercut it to get

their foot in the door but it didn’t happen.

But we had honed our price to the point that

it didn’t matter. Often, government will keep

the in-house provider unless the vendors

offer services for a savings of at least one

percent or more. This did not happen to us.

We actually beat their price by almost 1

percent.”

The IFS will still outsource selectively. “We have always looked for what is

best for us to do. We have two body shops at

two facilities but we still farm out probably

15-20 percent of the work if we can’t do it

with the time and people available.

We are constantly looking at the

economies and time periods of doing it inhouse and make decisions from there.”
Snapshot:INDIANAPOLIS

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Union Cooperation, Support from

Leaders Sewed Up Bid

McCorkhill credits Indiana Local

3131 of AFSCME, and Dominic Mangine

its president, with a significant role in the

bid victory. “You’ve got to get your union

working with you as a team rather than

fighting and bickering with each other. By

working with the union, we started empowering them and making some of the

employees working group leaders. And

now they actually help manage the

process. Rather than a lot of foremen

looking over their shoulders, we made

these people responsible for getting the

work done. They not only turn the

wrenches but they lead and guide.

“Another neat thing about our bid

is that I didn’t play a part in getting the

numbers together. As a matter of fact, I

took a driving vacation and was not within

reach by phone. Mr. Mangine and my

deputy, Steve James, were responsible for

the IFS bid and handled it without my

overview.”

What put IFS over the top started

at the top, according to McCorkhill. “It

starts with a leader with a vision to see

what needs to be done, then be willing to

take on the challenge. Our Mayor,

Stephen Goldsmith, has taken a lot of heat

within the City because of his agenda for

competition and his willingness to accept

challenges and not walk away. He in turn

gave me a challenge. Knowing the

competition was there staring you in the

face. . . we made absolutely sure we

were competitive going in.” ■

FLEET PREPARED YEARS PRIOR TO

OUTSOURCING THREAT

Member John McCorkhill, Administrator

of Indianapolis Fleet Services, and his staff

found it essential to get the operation down to

fighting weight before competing to retain

control of fleet services for the City of

Indianapolis. With the support of city

management and cooperation from unions he

made the following remarkable changes after

taking charge in 1991:

• IFS has reduced its work force from 117 in

1991, before competition, to 86 in 1994

• IFS has reduced its spending from $11.1

million in 1991 to $9.1 million in 1994. (IFS

spending in 1994 was the lowest since 1988.)

• Productivity is up significantly: billable

hours per mechanic are up by 21 percent

over 1991 levels.

• Quality is up as well, the number of written

complaints plummeted from 149 in 1990 to 5

in 1994.

“Another neat thing about our bid is that

I didn’t play a part in getting the numbers

together. As a matter of fact, I took a driving

vacation and was not within reach by phone.

Mr. Mangine and my deputy, Steve James,

were responsible for the IFS bid and handled

it without my overview.”

What put IFS over the top started at the

top, according to McCorkhill. “It starts with

a leader with a vision to see what needs to be

done, then be willing to take on the challenge. Our Mayor, Stephen Goldsmith, has

taken a lot of heat within the City because of

his agenda for competition and his willingness to accept challenges and not walk away.

He in turn gave me a challenge. Knowing the

competition was there staring you in the face.

. . we made absolutely sure we were competitive going in.”
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

 N o matter our job or age, services provided by public workers and managers assist and influence our every day life. The intent of this chapter is to provide some basic facts about the state and local public sector, such as who works

there, services provided, projections of future trends in terms of employees, revenues, and

expenditures, recent trends in contracting out, the extent of union representation, employee attitudes, and public opinion.

CHAPTER

THREE

SOME . BASIC . DATA

TRENDS.AND .ATTITUDES. I N.PUBLIC.SECTOR. SERVICE .AND. EMPLOYMENT
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Dimensions of the Public Sector

As of 1995, there were 16.5 million employees

of state and local governments in the United States,

compared to 97.3 million private sector employees.

These numbers are presented below in Figure 1 for both

1995 and 1985. When federal employees also are considered, total public employment as a percent of total

U.S. employment has remained fairly steady at between

15 percent and 16 percent since 1980. Total public

employment as a percent of total U.S. population has

also remained steady during the period at approximately 7.5 percent.

Both employment and the U.S. population have

been growing, however, and state and local public

employment has been consistent with this growth. Figure 2 shows employment in state and local government

from 1970 through 1996. Following a slight dip in

local government employment in the recessionary periods of the early 1980’s, both local and state employment have grown at a steady pace in recent years. Local

government employment has grown at a higher rate

than state employment, having increased by more than

20 percent over the last 15 years.

Since 1983, Bureau of Labor Statistics figures

show that the average annual rate of change of state

and local government employment has been somewhat

higher than the rate of population growth. Projections

into the year 2005 show the rate of population growth

declining, while the rate of state and local employment

growth remains steady, primarily due to growing demand in education and corrections. Figure 3 indicates

the magnitude of past and future growth in state and

local government employment.

When all three components of the public sector

are combined, as in Figure 4, it is apparent that the

local sector accounts for the largest share, with 59 percent of all public employment. State government is

Fig. 1 Employment in Private Industries, and State and Local

 Government, 1995 Annual Averages

Fig. 2 Employment in State and Local Government, seasonally

 adjusted, 1970-96

Fig. 3 Population Growth vs. State and Local Government

 Employment Growth

1995 1985

Private State

government

Local

government

Private State

government

Local

government

(In millions)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

97.3

4.6 11.9

81.0

3.8 9.7

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

(In Thousands)

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Local

government

NOTE: Shaded areas denote recessions.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

State

government

Population State & local governmant

employment

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

1983-94 Projected 1994-2005

1.0

2.0

0.8

2.0

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Fig. 4 Most Public Sector Employees Work in State or Local

 Government (1992)

the second largest, accounting for 25 percent, with the

federal government running third at 16 percent.

The three sectors also are distinguished by the

relative size of the different public functions in each:

Education is by far the largest component of both

state and local government employment.

Health is the second largest component of state

government and third largest component of local government.

Public safety is the second largest employer in

local government and third largest in state government.

The federal government, by contrast, has a different employment mix with defense forming the largest employment sector, followed by postal services,

with health running a distant third. These employment

components of state, local and federal government are

presented in Figures 5, 6 and 7.

Professional specialty occupations make up the

largest part of state and local government employment,

accounting for 33.6 percent of state employees and 37.2

percent of local government employees. Such occupations include teachers, registered nurses, social workFig. 7 Services Provided by Federal Government Employees

 (1992)

Fig. 6 Services Provided by State Government Employees

 (1992)

Fig. 5 Services Provided by Local Government Employees

 (1992)

Local 59%

State 25%

Federal Postal 4%

Federal NonPostal 12%

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Employment: 1992,

Series GE/92-1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

1994

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Service Categories

Education

PublicSafety

Govt.Admin.

Environ. &Housing

Health

Utilities

SocialService

Transport

Other

56.8%

11.0% 7.4% 6.6% 6.0% 3.9% 3.1% 2.7% 2.5%

Source: U.S Bureau of the Census, Public Employment: 1992,

Series GE/92-1 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1994

Percentages

44.6%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Employment: 1992,

Series GE?92-1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

1994

Service Categories

Percentages 45.0%

40.0%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

 5.0%

 0.0%

0.6%

15.7%

9.5% 7.3% 6.9% 5.8% 5.0% 4.6%

Education

HEalth

PublicSafety

SocialServices

Govt.Admin.

Transport.

Other

Environ. &Housing

Utilities

32.3%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Employment: 1992,

Series GE/92-1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1994

Service Categories

Percentages 35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

 5.0%

 0.0%

2.4%

25.4%

10.2% 9.4% 7.2% 5.4% 3.7% 2.6%

Education

Health

Space Tech.& Research

SocialServices

Govt. Admin.

Transport.

Other

Environ. &Housing

Postal

0.8% 0.6%

Public Safety

Defense
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

 Fig. 8 Employment in State and Local Government by Major

 Occupational Group

ers, counselors and recreation workers.

The second largest group is made up of administrative support occupations, including clerical workers. These make up 21.7 percent of state employees

and 18.1 percent of local government employees in

such occupations as teacher aides, secretaries, clerks,

and library assistants.

The third largest group is composed of service

occupations, such as police and corrections officers,

fire fighters, janitors, cooks and nurses aides. This

group accounts for 16.7 percent of state employees and

21.3 percent of local government employees.

The smallest major group of state and local government employees is composed of executive, administrative and managerial occupations, accounting for

14.3 percent of state employees and 9.3 percent of local government employees. Figure 8 displays the past,

present and projected future relative size of occupational groups in state and local government.

Future Public Sector Growth

The state and local public sectors are expected to

continue some growth. Although the average annual

rate of change in population growth through the year

2005 is expected to equal 0.8 percent, the rate of employment growth in state and local government is expected to average 2 percent. (See previous Figure 3.)

This growth in public sector employment will be largely

attributed to the growth in state and local education,

which is expected to grow much faster than any other

Fig. 9 Total Employment vs. State and Local Government

 Employment

component of state and local government. The “State

and local other” category shown in Figure 9 below is a

diverse grouping of many other components of state

and local employment, including service occupations,

administrative and support occupations, precision production workers, professional occupations, and executive/managerial occupations. A preliminary breakdown

of this group indicates that the protective service subgroup (fire fighters, police, and correction officers) will

experience the second highest average annual rate of

growth into the year 2005.

 State and local government purchases are expected to increase at a significantly lower average annual rate into the year 2005. When compared to the

projected lower rate of increase in private demand, there

will also be a relative slowing of the pull of state and

local purchases on the Gross Domestic Product. These

relationships are presented in Figure 10.

An important factor which may accentuate the

growth of the state and local component of the overall

public sector in the future may be the devolution of

federal functions to state government and the state or

local operation of previously national programs.

 Public Sector Revenue and Expenditures

State and local taxes made up 44 percent of all

non-Social Security taxes collected by all levels of

Percent distribution

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

1983 1994 Projected 2005

100

80

60

40

20

0

Professional specialty

Administrative support

occupations, including clerical

Service occupations

All other occupations

Executive, administrative,

& managerial occupations

Toatal economy

State & local other

State & local education

State & local hospitals

Average annual rate of change

4

3

2

1

0

-1

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

1983-94 Projected 1994-2005

2.0 2.1 2.3

1.2

1.6

2.8

0.1

-0.3
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Fig. 11 Federal Grants to State and Local Governments

 (1978-94)

Fig. 10 GDP vs. State and Local Government Purchases

Fig. 12 State Government Revenue by Source

government in 1992. This was an increase of 8 percent since 1981. Excluding Social Security, income

taxes account for nearly 90 percent of federal public

sector revenue, but only about 25 percent of state government receipts. The bulk of state and local government revenue is made up of sales, excise, and property

taxes, plus user fees. Approximately one-third of state

revenue and more than one-half of local revenue come

from these later sources.

Another very significant source of state and local government revenue is federal grants-in- aid, which

accounted for more than 18 percent of state and local

budgets in 1980. Federal grants have decreased since

that time, however, dropping substantially between

1980 and 1990. After bottoming in 1987, the amount

of grants, in real dollar terms, leveled out and began to

rise very slightly. These trends are presented in absolute dollars Figure 11.

The pattern of revenue from various sources differs significantly when state and local government are

compared. State governments receive a smaller portion of their revenue from other governments than do

local governments and rely more on sales taxes and

other non-income, non-property taxes. In 1992, local

governments received 33.4 percent of their revenue

from other governments, while states received only

22.8 percent of their revenue from this source. State

governments received 26.3 percent of their income

from sales taxes, while local governments received only

6.6 percent of their revenue from this source. Local

government, on the other hand, received 28.5 percent

of their revenue from property and income taxes as

compared to 17.9 percent received from this source by

state government. These comparisons can be seen in

Figures 12 and 13 for both 1992 and 1982.

State and local government revenues are very

sensitive to changes in both national and regional

economies. If the growth of personal income does not

keep pace with needs for revenue through income or

sales taxes, jurisdictions must adjust expenditures or

[1987 dollars]

GDP Private

demand

State & local

government purchases

Average annual rate of change

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

. 0.5

0

2.9

3.1 3.0

2.3 2.5

1.9

1983-94 Projected 1994-2005

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables:

Budget of the United States Government, FY 1996.

Billions of Constant Dollars (1987)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

19781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994

Years

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United

States: 1995 and 1985. Washington, D.C.

Percentages

From Other

Govt.

Property &

Income Tax

Sales & Other

Taxes

Charges

Misc.

Revenue Categories

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

22.8%

20.9%

17.9% 19.0%

26.3%

30.2%

14.5% 13.1%

18.6%

16.8%

1992

1982
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Fig. 13 Local Government Revenue by Source

tinker with revenue mechanisms to assure sufficient

resources. Most state and local governments do not

have the option of deficit spending. Many state constitutions require balanced budgets and allow the incurrence of debt only for capital expenditures, primarily through the issuance of bonds. There is a realmarket check on borrowing in this manner, imposed

by bond ratings and interest rates, which can serve to

enforce a substantial level of fiscal discipline on state

and local governments.

In recent years, state and local revenue growth

has suffered from the change in direction of the U.S.

economy from a manufacturing to a service orientation. Revenue-producing measures have lagged behind this trend in several respects. Although sales taxes

are the most important revenue source for most states,

they are usually assessed only on goods and only in

limited ways on services. A service-based economy

may also be characterized by lower wages and less

capital investment and may, therefore, limit the revenue potential of property and income taxes.

In some states, local taxing authorities may exist

for special municipal or regional purposes, such as the

public schools, utility service districts, and others. In

such cases citizens may have an effective veto or approval power over the raising of revenue for such services through their ability to vote on specific income

or property tax increases.

Federal policies have had a great effect on state

and local government revenue in recent years. While

there has been a decline of federal grants-in-aid to state

and local governments, total federal aid has increased

over the last 20 years, when payments to individuals

as entitlements, such as Medicaid, are included. Medicaid expenditures have increased steadily. Rising

health care costs and population increases also have

been factors. Federal financial support for Medicaid

entitlements may decline or grow less rapidly in the

future with perhaps little corresponding decline in the

expectations of benefit recipients. This prospect for

devolution of federal responsibilities may force hard

choices onto state governments and bring pressure on

state and local revenue. The use of revenues may be

affected, which in turn, may influence demand for local services.

Total expenditures of the public sector equal $2.9

trillion. The federal sector spends 53 percent of this

total, while the state and local sectors split the remainder almost equally at 24 percent and 23 percent, respectively. The largest portion of state and local government spending, 33 percent, is devoted to education.

Public welfare and “other,” which includes housing and

community development, account for 16 percent and

14 percent of expenditures, respectively. Figure 14

depicts fiscal year 1992 state and local government

expenditures by all categories.

Pressure on state and local governments are being brought by three increasingly large components of

spending: education, corrections and Medicaid.

Medicaid is the fastest growing component of

expenditues, having increased by 8.4 percent between

1994 and 1995. Expenditures in corrections, where

major capital improvements and increasing operating

costs are projected into the future, grew 8 percent over

the same one-year period.

Expenditures for primary and secondary education grew at a 4 percent rate from 1994 to 1995. Litigation has required some states to become more involved in the financing of school operations, since local expenditures for kindergarten through 12th grade

have fallen short of needs in some areas. Related to

this trend, there have been serious questions in some

states regarding the equity of school funding when poor

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical

Abstracts of the United

Percentages

From Other

Govt.

Property &

Income Tax

Sales & Other

Taxes

Charges

Misc.

Revenue Categories

40.0%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

33.4%

37.0%

28.5% 27.1%

6.6% 6.0%

20.1% 19.0%

11.4% 10.8%

1992

1982
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Fig. 14 State and Local Government General Expenditures

 (1992)

districts or communities are contrasted to areas with a

more robust tax base. Expenditures for higher education also grew at a 4 percent rate last year and are expected to continue experiencing financial pressures.

Finally, public employee pension funds represent

a large sum of capital. As of the end of 1994, total

state and local government retirement funds equaled

nearly $1.176 trillion dollars, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Of concern as fiscal pressure mounts in state and local government is

the importance of appropriately managing these dollars. Because of their size and the complexity of evaluating fund assets, pension plans are sometimes scrutinized in the context of budget balancing activities. This

practice is the subject of controversy. The predicted

demands on public employee retirement plans in the

coming decades will be large, necessitating careful

planning for benefits and sound management of pension funds.

Trends in Privatization and Contracting Out

Privatization and contracting out of functions and

services of state and local government have been politically in vogue and have received a lot of attention

in recent years. Strictly speaking, privatization involves

a divestiture of public responsibility, resources and/or

facilities. Contracting out involves the government

entity retaining a measure of control, and sometimes

providing facilities or resources. While the Task Force

did not set out to research privatization trends in a comprehensive manner, there is information of significance

to share from a full day of testimony and from field

visits, that hopefully will contribute constructively to

the debate and consideration of the topic.

On the one hand, contracting out is not new.

Government has long contracted out for many services,

prominent among them major construction projects,

food services, certain social services, janitorial services,

golf courses and, to some extent, sanitation services.

Growth in these typical areas seems to continue, perhaps paralleling growth in state and local populations

and government services. Despite the increased level

of discussion and debate on privatization or contracting out, especially in non-traditional areas, the extent

of any increase in it is far less clear, and may be overstated in the current conventional wisdom.

Whether or not contracting out grows substantially in the future, and in which areas, is open to further observation and tests of efficacy in different settings. In hearing testimony from advocates, opponents

and observers and in visiting many communities where

contracting out was an important subject of discussion,

a number of trends and issues worthy of note to a rational debate seem to emerge from observations in both

union and non-union settings:

First, although the level of discussion of, and interest in, contracting out is quite substantial, any increase is far less dramatic than the level of discussion

and popular reporting suggests. Even in areas which

were reputed to be active in contracting out, new contracting out was actually limited, normally to a few

services, and normally to a small impact on numbers

of employees. There are some dramatic examples of

Note:

1) "Public Safety" includes only police, fire, and corrections -- judicial administration

is included in "other."

2) "Environment & Natural Resources" includes parks & recreation, sewerage

 and solid waste.

3) "Other" includes housing & community development and administration.

Source: NCSL chart based on census data reported in U.S. ACIR, "Significant

 Features of Fiscal Federalism -- 1994."

Environment & Natural

Resources

6%

Public Safety

8%

Highways

7%

Health &

Hospitals

9%

Public Welfare

16%

Education

33%

Interest

on Debt

6%

Other

15%
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

contracting out or privatization, but those seem to be

the exception rather than the rule.

Second, contrary to much of the current popular

discussion, private sector costs are not necessarily

lower than the cost of providing the service within the

governmental structure. As the Task Force saw in numerous site visits, where internal systems are reformed

and overhead reduced, and the work, in some instances,

redesigned, in-house cost of services can be even with

or cheaper than outsourcing. There does not appear to

be a widespread inherent cost advantage to outsourcing,

particularly in core services. As in other comparisons,

the advantages or disadvantages depend importantly

on local factors and history, as well as the leadership

and imagination of the employees, union officials and

managers on the local scene.

Some projected cost savings may actually represent cost-shifting to another budget or to the future,

although it is early yet to fully measure or assess. One

example of cost shifting that requires examination is

that payroll savings for a jurisdiction may show up as

welfare or health care costs in a different budget or at

another level of government. There is some evidence

that workers laid off through contracting out and, who

do not find other work, or work with benefits, can end

up receiving public assistance and health care through

emergency room service, funded through state or

county programs. In regard to long-term costs, as opponents and proponents all acknowledge, creating private monopolies risks lack of attention to or control of

costs.

Third, where it has been attempted, contracting

out does not appear to be as quick or easy as is often

suggested. Monitoring contracts of complex, hard-tomeasure services is far more difficult than traditional

contracting or purchasing. Many public jurisdictions

do not have well-established means to set effective bid

requirements and conditions, to thoroughly evaluate

the bids, and then to measure performance.

Fourth, there is a general lack of adequate financial and performance data to actually measure cost and

quality in order to know whether either a bid or later

performance represents an improvement in cost or quality of the service. Most public jurisdictions do not

collect financial information in a way that allows those

comparisons to be made. Without such data, comparisons between in-house work and outsourced work are

nearly impossible. In fact, without the data to make

year-to-year comparisons, it is equally difficult to identify improvements or difficulties in cost and service

levels when performed in-house.

Fifth, in some of the popular discourse on

privatization or contracting out, there is an implication that public employee wage and benefit levels make

it impossible to match private sector costs of the same

service. While wage and benefit levels can certainly

have an effect, depending upon the combinations of

skills and schedules applied to accomplishing particular work, the wage and benefit levels appeared to be

far less significant factors than changes in systems,

work practices and improvements in communication

and coordination arrangements. Even in the most impressive examples found by the Task Force of public

employees matching private sector bids (or otherwise

achieving significant cost and quality improvements

through systems changes, elimination of overhead, redesign and other reforms), the levels of employee

wages and benefits were unchanged.

Sixth, the presumption that quality is lower when

done by government appears to be a part of the government bashing that is currently popular, rather than

a reflection of reality. As noted and acknowledged in

site visits and in testimony, excellent work, in fact, is

available in both sectors. Employees with the tools to

affect the way in which the job is done can provide

high quality service, whether they work in government

or the private sector. Where service was not sufficiently

effective or costs were too high, poor management systems, poor accountability, poor planning and other

problems were noted in both contracted and in-house

services.

Seventh, a major issue about which there is substantial agreement among proponents and opponents

is the importance of a “level playing field.” This concept involves having fair and clear ground rules -- primary among them, what cost comparison methodology will be used -- as well as other expectations of the

competitive process, such that the public actually gets

a real benefit in quality and cost of services. Some

new contracting out is occurring in the context of “level
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

playing field” arrangements. Naturally, public employees oppose contracting out that is simply imposed, since

it threatens their jobs and because the surrounding discussion often demeans their personal abilities.

However, where public employees whose jobs

would otherwise be on the line have a full and fair

chance at preserving those jobs through effective opportunities at systems reform and other changes, they

were most often able to demonstrate their ability to

deliver the services in a sufficiently cost effective and

high quality manner to preserve those jobs. This was

most commonly accomplished through cooperative

labor-management relationships where employees and

their representatives participated in defining the ground

rules for cost comparisons, and which also served as

the structure for identifying reforms in the way the work

was performed.

Overall, the trends are clearly toward an increased

level of discussion of contracting out, with some interesting experiments, and no diminution of traditional

areas of contracting. Despite some increase, the use

of contracting out appears to be more limited and with

far more variables affecting cost and quality than simply the difference between government or private sector responsibility for the service. While there are examples of successful contracting out as one tool in a

service improvement strategy, and instances which take

place within the context of a cooperative collective

bargaining relationship, it has not become a widespread

substitute for delivery of core government services.

(For additional observations concerning contracting

out, that draws further on site visits and testimony, see

Chapters Two and Six. Witnesses and sites where this

issue was considered are noted in Appendix C and D.)

Demogaphics of the State and Local

Government Workforce

The demographic characteristics of the state and

local government work force are somewhat different

from the private sector. The previous Figure 1 compares the private sector work force with that of state

and local governments over a 10 year period. In 1995,

state and local governments employed a higher percentage of women and blacks than the private sector.

Although Hispanic employment has been less than that

in the private sector, the proportion of Hispanics in the

state and local sectors increased significantly over the

last ten years. These comparisons are reflected in Figures 15 and 16 below.

State and local governments also employ higher

percentages of older workers than the private sector,

Fig. 15 Percent of Employed Persons in State and Local

Government by Sex, 1995 Annual Averages

Fig. 16 Percent of Employed Persons in State and Local

 Government Who are Black and of Hispanic Origin,

 1995 Annual Averages

Men Women

Percent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

54.3

45.7 45.7

54.2

41.0

59.0

Nonagricultural State government Local government

private wage and

salary workers

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Percent

20

16

12

8

4

0

10.4

9.3

15.4

6.3

14.5

7.6

Nonagricultural State government Local government

private wage and

salary workers

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Black Hispanic

origin
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Fig. 17 Percent of Employed Persons in State and Local

 Government, by Age, 1995 Annual Averages

ments graduated from college as have employees in

the private sector. While approximately the same percentage of workers in all three sectors attended some

amount of college short of graduation, the private sector employs significantly more workers with only a

high school education or less than does state or local

governments.

Public Employee Attitudes Towards

Participation and Representation and

Comparisons to the Private Sector

In early 1994, a survey of private sector workers

was released which examined their attitudes towards

workplace participation and representation was presented to the Dunlop Commission.1 Princeton Survey

Research Associates performed the survey and the

analysis was by Richard Freeman of Harvard University and Joel Rogers of the University of Wisconsin.

Their analysis and conclusions noted a high level of

interest among private sector workers in participating

in decisions at their workplace. One important conclusion was that employees felt that they could contribute far more to the improvement of products or services if given the chance.

Also, most workers responding to this private

sector survey said that the most effective workplace

employee organization would be one that management

accepted and with which management cooperated. Cooperation rather than conflict was the preferred way of

dealing, although the independence of the employee

organization was important to them.

After reviewing the analysis and hearing testimony from one of the authors, the Task Force commissioned the same group to do a parallel study of public worker attitudes at the state and local level.2 The

purpose, similarly, was to gauge the attitudes and exFig. 18 Educational Attainment of Wage and Salary Workers in

 State and Local Government, 1995 Annual Averages

1

 Report and Recommendations of the (Dunlop) Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations, December

1994, Appendix A, p.63 2

 The private sector survey was funded by the Russell Sage,

Sloan, and Joyce Foundations. The public sector study was funded

by the Task Force through a grant from the Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor.

as shown in Figure 17. Job tenure tends to be slightly

longer in the public sector. Average tenure in the same

job is more than eight years in state government and

more than nine years in local government, compared

to fewer than seven years in the private sector.

Educational attainment in the public sector is

higher than in the private sector. Figure 18 shows that

twice as many employees of state and local governPercent

100

80

60

40

20

0

Nonagricultural State government Local government

private wage and

salary workers

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

16 to 24 years 25 to 54 years 55 years and over

17.6

71.7

10.6 9.3

78.2

12.6

6.5

79.8

13.7

State Government Local Government

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Nonagricultural

private wage and

salary workers

Percent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

13.7

34.3

29.6

22.5

4.2

21.9

28.7

45.2

6.1

24.9

43.6

25.3

Less than

high school

High

school

Some

College

 College
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

perience of public sector employees in the areas of participation and representation. Among the observations,

several factors emerged that may make the environment for participative programs in the public sector at

least somewhat more hospitable than in the private sector. These included the somewhat unexpected high

incidence of participative programs in the public sector than in the private sector. It was even a bit higher,

proportionately, than in the private sector.

The following is a summary of results of the public sector study, with references to interesting comparisons with the 1994 private sector workforce survey.

Job Satisfaction

Public employees report higher levels of job satisfaction than employees in the private sector. About

75 percent of public employees say they look forward

to going to work every day. Interestingly, by education, 22 percent of college graduates report dissatisfaction and 32 percent of those without college report

dissatisfaction with their jobs in the public sector.

Evaluation of Managerial Competence

Public workers saw managers as competent and

concerned, but rated them as mediocre in leadership

and poor to negative on fairness and sharing power.

These results suggest some opportunities for improving managers’ ability to lead in a more participatory

workplace and also probably reflect some of the difficulties in leadership and decision-making in the often

changing public sector environment.

Participation

The incidence of participatory programs was

higher in the public sector than in the private sector,

but private sector workers found the programs effective twice as often as did public employees. In the

public sector there are more participative programs in

union settings. Only 20 percent of public workers

found participation mechanisms “very effective” in

improving productivity or quality, although a majority

of workers found them “somewhat effective.” Many

workers felt that they could contribute more if given

the opportunity.

There was also significant sentiment that public

sector management is only completely dedicated to

existing participatory programs 30 percent of the time.

Fifty-one percent of the time they were “mostly committed” and 17 percent of the time they were “not too

committed”. In the private sector nearly 50 percent of

employees covered by participative programs thought

management was completely dedicated. In reviewing

these results, the survey analysts suggest that there is a

“shallowness” to a high proportion of the public sector

participation efforts, reflecting perhaps lesser experience or investment in working out program details.

While all public employees show a high desire

for input into service and workplace issues, teachers

show the highest desire. About 17 percent of public

employees say they are “very satisfied” with their degree of input. Twenty-six percent of public employees

said they were “not too satisfied” or “not at all satisfied”. In the middle were 56 percent who reported

being “somewhat satisfied” with their level of input.

Teachers, once again, led in satisfaction with 20 percent saying they were very satisfied with their ability

to have input. Public safety employees were the least

satisfied, with only 10 percent describing themselves

as “very satisfied” with their degree of involvement in

decisions. (In hearings, police representatives reported

that they could find few, if any, examples of labor-management cooperative programs to report to the Task

Force.) More generally, 85 percent of respondents said

they wanted more involvement in decisions, pointing

out that it was not simply for the benefits they might

receive, but for making the program or service more

effective.

Representation

Like the private sector, employees in public agencies thought that employee representation on workplace

teams and committees would be more effective if employees were directly elected, were volunteers or were

selected by a union or employee organization. Only 8
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

percent in the survey favored management selection.

In rating unions, 64 percent of public sector union

members said they were “good” or “very good;” only

8 percent said they were “bad” or “very bad.” Eightythree percent of union members said they would keep

the union in place if given a choice today, while 13

percent said they would get rid of it. Like the results

of the private sector survey, employees in public agencies indicated that in being represented, they preferred

an employee organization that a) selected its own representatives to workplace teams, and b) had independent resolution of disputes (such as by an arbitrator).

However, they wanted more “jointness” or cooperation with management as a standard way of operating.

Cooperation was preferable to conflict, although public employees were willing to have an employee organization more independent of--and less cooperative

with--management than were private sector employees. Clearly, however, a conflictual form of representation was not preferable. Public employees saw a better climate than did private sector employees for cooperative relationships between management and employee organizations.

Survey Summary

To summarize the results, public workers are generally somewhat more satisfied than are private sector

workers with their jobs. As do private sector employees, public employees believe that cooperative relations with management are more productive; they wish

to be attentive to service needs and seek greater workplace influence in improving government productivity and performance. Similarly, public workers welcome management’s interest in workplace innovation

and cooperative programs, but would like to see stronger programs in which they feel they can play an effective role and have a real voice in decision making.

So, while existing private sector programs may often

be more fully developed, there appears, interestingly,

to be a greater proportionate incidence and interest in

participative programs in the public sector. These factors suggest a more receptive environment in public

employment. If so, the public sector could benefit from

some leadership effort and investment in strong employee participation programs in order to upgrade service quality, cost-effectiveness and quality of work life.

Representation and Collective Bargaining

Union presence in the public sector is substantial. In 1995, there were 7 million union members

working for federal, state and local governments. This

was nearly 38 percent of the total employment in the

overall public sector. By comparison, there were 9.4

million union members in the private sector in 1995,

equal to 10.4 percent of total private employment. The

total percent of public sector workers represented by

labor unions (not all are members) is 43.5 percent, equal

to 8.2 million employees. Figures 19 and 20 below

display the characteristics of unionization in the combined federal, state, and local government sectors.

State and local government employees are not

covered by the national labor laws which govern representational and collective bargaining rights and procedures for federal and private sector workers. Unlike

the private sector and federal employment, where all

workers have the right to collective representation, state

and local workers have rights to representation and collective bargaining only if authorized by state law and,

in a few instances, local ordinances. Currently, 23

states and the District of Columbia have laws governing the representational and collective bargaining rights

Fig. 19 Union Membership in Government, 1983-95

(in thousands)

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

6,500

6,000

5,500

5,0001983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Includes Federal, State, and local government employees 1

Represented by unions

Members of unions
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

a legislative body exercising the “power of the purse”

over an agreement negotiated between the executive

branch and employee representatives.

Where state laws provide for public employee

collective bargaining, union representation is high.

Nearly 60 percent of state and local employees who

are guaranteed the right to collective bargaining by state

law are covered by a union contract. In general, when

state or local public sector employees seek to organize

for union representation, a recent study by Kate

Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University and Tom

Juravich of the University of Massachusetts3

 suggests

they are successful far more often than in the private

sector.

Fig. 20 Union Membership in Government1 as a Percentage of

 Employment, 1983-95

of public workers. These laws cover more than 9 million workers in those jurisdictions. Thirteen additional

states have laws which govern certain occupational

groups, such as state employees only or, perhaps, police, fire fighters or teachers. Some 750,000 out of the

2.5 million public workers in these states are covered

under the partial statutes.

Fourteen states have no state-wide representational or collective bargaining statute, affecting 4 million state and local public employees. In some of these

states, jurisdictions have passed local ordinances or

elected officials have issued executive orders granting

some representational or collective bargaining rights

to public employees. Figure 21 is a map which summarizes the states that have laws providing collective

bargaining rights for public employees.

The negotiation of collective bargaining agreements in state and local government is carried out under procedures unique to the public sector. For example, the right-to-strike is limited or more usually

nonexistent. Some states have separate labor relations

and collective bargaining systems, and often a special

method for contract dispute resolution, for police and

fire fighters. In contrast to the private sector, there is a

separation between the executive and legislative functions of government affecting financial commitments.

Unlike most private sector situations, this can result in

 Fig. 21 Collective Bargaining Status for Public Employees

3

 Kate Bronfenbrenner and Tom Juravich, “The Current

State of Organizing in the Public Sector: Final Report,” 1994 study

funded by contributions from the AFL-CIO Public Employee Department and AFL-CIO Organizing Department, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, Service Employee’s International Union, Communication Workers of America and National Education Association, 1994.

Percent

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

1983

Includes Federal, State, and local government employees. 1

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

50

48

46

44

42

40

38

36

34

32

30

Members of unions

Represented by unions

States with all

workers covered by

state bargaining laws

States with some

workers covered by

state bargaining laws

States with no

workers covered by

state bargaining laws

UTAH COLORADO

NEVADA

IDAHO

WYOMING

WASHINGTON

NORTH DAKOTA

SOUTH DAKOTA

OKLAHOMA

TEXAS

ARKANSAS

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI

ALABAMA GEORGIA

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

MISSOURI VIRGINIA

 WEST

VIRGINIA D.C.

DEL

New Jersey

R.I.

INDIANA

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE ARIZONA

KANSAS
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Through painstaking research, Bronfenbrenner

and Juravich considered all representation elections

held in 1991 and 1992. Their study concluded that in

elections for union representation in the state and local public sector, employees chose union representation 84.9 percent of the time compared to 48 percent

of the time in private sector elections. The margin of

victory in favor of union representation in the public

sector was also higher, 83.2 percent compared to 68.2

percent. Interestingly, these results were consistent

across all levels of employment and professions.

Bronfenbrenner and Juravich also found a first contract negotiation rate of 88.4 percent in the state and

local public sector as compared to the 67 percent rate

in the private sector, as estimated by the (Dunlop) Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations. The authors attribute these public and private

sector differences largely to a greater level of employer

hostility to unionization in private employment.

The Public’s Opinion of State and Local

Government

Several Task Force witnesses presented data addressing the declining credibility of government with

the public. This seems to be especially true with respect to confidence of citizens in state and local governments’ ability to provide citizens with timely, efficient and cost-effective services.

Geoff Garin of Garin-Hart Strategic Research

presented to the Task Force an overview of data concerning attitudes towards government gathered by various polling organizations over the last 24 years. He

found that public opinion as to whether the federal

government was doing a “good” or “fair” job fell from

70 percent to 42 percent between 1972 and 1992. The

favorable opinion of state government fell from 63

percent to 51 percent over the same period, though it

rose in some intervening years to as high as 70 percent. Additionally, the favorable rating of local government fell from 73 percent in 1987 to 60 percent in

1992.

Garin suggested that these results should be

placed in the context of a general cynicism concerning

government, politicians and special interest groups. In

a poll conducted by his organization in 1992, only 43

percent of the respondents believed that the majority

of public employees deliver an honest day’s work. Only

19 percent, however, felt that public employees were

not dedicated or were incompetent, apparently placing

some of the blame for poor performance on managers,

politicians, or other systemic factors. Sixty-three percent indicated that workers don’t receive proper motivation and assistance from the heads of their agencies.

In a poll of registered voters in New York, presented in Figure 22, Garin found that the public believed that the state legislature and governor were the

most responsible for New York’s problems. Fewer

voters put the blame on state or local government employees. In fact, more felt that state and local employees were a part of the solution to problems than were

politicians. While 53 percent believed that public

employee unions and contractors were part of the problem, more people indicated that the unions were part

of the solution as opposed to the contractors. The results of the New York State survey are presented in

Figure 22.

Despite their somewhat jaundiced view of the

results of government activities, the American public

in a 1993 Roper poll indicates that they still look to

government to help individuals, families, communities and businesses to prosper. Figure 22 indicates the

percentage of citizens who support more government

action in various areas. Most of the activities highlighted in the Roper study are, in large part, functions

of state and local governments. Garin also suggested

that research indicated that citizens are not necessarily

looking for less government, but for better government

at the most reasonable cost. They want governmental

leaders to set standards of accountability for programs,

employees, and contractors and fix or eliminate programs that aren’t working.

Summarizing the trends described in this chapter, fiscal pressures will continue to grow, even as demand for state and local government services increases,

especially in education, but also in other areas. Contracting out, while interest is expanding, remains controversial and is not a panacea for addressing fiscal
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Fig. 22 Results of the New York Survey4

Continued 4

 Reproduced, with permission, from The Public Innovator, June 8, 1995, 4-5.

If a program

isn't working,

the public wants it fixed

or eliminated.

Citizens Say Changing Incentives

Is Key To Redesign

 Pollster Geoffrey Garin of Garin-Hart Strategic Research recently

shared poll results reflecting the public's diagnosis of how government

runs — and how managers, workers and contractors can improve

performance.

Garin — an advisor to President Clinton — testified before the U.S.

Department of Labor's "Task Force on Excellence in State and Local

Government Through Labor-Management Cooperation." Following are

excerpts of his testimony, which focused on a 1992 poll of 603 New

York state voters.

PUBLIC OPINION

No Confidence in Politicians

 The decline in public confidence in government is first and foremost a

 vote of no-confidence in politicians.

 The symbol of what is wrong with government today is not so much

the lazy bureaucrat as the special interest lobbyist and the elected official who bends to his and her influence. Perceptions of whether government operates efficiently or is "consumer friendly" contribute much less to

the public's skepticism. (See table on page 5.)

 Citizens Want to Hold Government Accountable. People want to see

their governmental leaders setting standards — most importantly, a standard of accountability. The public wants leaders to insist that if a program isn't working, it will be fixed or eliminated.

 But the public believes those kinds of standards don't exist. They

doubt that anyone ever even checks to see whether programs are working the way they are supposed to.

Are Politicians and Public Employees Part of the Solution —

Or Part of the Problem?

 Citizens Want Accountability. . .

Q: "What percentage of public

employees in state and local government give an honest day's work

for an honest day's pay?"

. . . And Citizens Want

Motivation to Support It

Q: When public employees' performance falls short, do you think

it's usually because they're not as

dedicated or competent as they

should be, or because they don't

receive proper motivation and

assistance from the heads of their

agencies?

less than 25% of

public employees

11%

Not Sure

5%

75% – 100% of

public employees

11%

50% – 75% of

public employees

32%

25% - 50% of

public employees

41%

Not Dedicated/

Competent

19%

Both/Not Sure

18%

Need Motivation/

Assistance

63%

Q:"Please tell me if you think [each group[is] helping to make New York a

better place, or if you think it is part of the problem with the things that are

wrong in New York?"

Group Problem? Solution?

State Legislature

Cuomo Administration

State Govt. Employees

Local Govt. Employees

Public Employee Labor Unions

Outside Contractors

70%

54%

31%

43%

53%

53%

20%

37%

46%

43%

33%

21%

Source: 1992 Garin-Hart Strategic Research poll of 603 registered New York state voters.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

problems. Citizens are skeptical of government, find

inefficiencies and waste, but are usually very appreciative of individual public employees with whom they

have contact. Public employees have strong backgrounds and skills, and seek a greater voice in and more

cooperative structures for, service provision and workplace problem solving.

In conjunction with the pressures and opportunities described in Chapter Two, the information in this

Fig. 22 Continued

chapter only adds to the need for participatory and cooperative approaches to public service delivery and labor-management relations. The next chapter offers a

description of the common ingredients that went into

successful attempts to use workplace cooperation and

participation, particularly in labor-management partnerships, as a primary strategy for improvement in public

service and cost-effectiveness. ■

Management Must Motivate. While process issues are secondary to

leadership in the public's mind, people view the labor-management relationship as important — and motivation as crucial to performance. Are

government employees motivated, citizens wonder, and do they have a

reason to be motivated? Do we have a system that rewards initiative?

More than half of those polled believed fewer than half of public

employees deliver an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. But

there is a strong sense that public managers can do a lot more to

achieve better performance from their employees. Part of the problem,

the public believes, is the lack of reward mechanism for workers willing

to take initiative and do things differently and better. (See "Citizens

Want Accountability" "And Motivation" graphs, page 4 and at left, and

"Management and Spending Matter," page 6.)

Privatizing Not a Panacea. While the public considers private sector

workers to be more motivated than public sector workers, the public

does not necessarily see privatization to be an ideal solution.

Most citizens believe government contracts are negotiated for the benefit of the contractors rather than the taxpayers — and believe contracting out creates all sorts of opportunities for corruption and favoritism.

(See "Who Benefits from Privatization?" graph at left.)

The public's bottom line is not that government should do fewer things

than it now does — but that it should get the job done with less waste,

less bureaucracy and a keener sense of the people paying the bill.

The Role of Unions. There is a strong support for public employee's right

to unionize. But the public is more sympathetic toward employees themselves than to their unions (see table, above) — and there is concern

about whether workers have enough voice in union decision-making.

To the extent labor-management cooperation and other reforms are

about making government work better, the public will appreciate it. But

remember: The public believes labor-management cooperation is a

means to an end, not an end in itself. — Geoffrey Garin

 Who Benefits from Privatization?

Q: "Do you think [government

contracts] tend to be negotiated

more in the best interests ot the

taxpayers who pay the bill, or

more for the benefit of the businesses who get the contracts?"

Geoffrey Garin,Garin-Hart

Strategic Research,202-234-

5570, fax 202-232-8134.

Jonathan Brock, Executive Director,

U.S. Department of Labor Task

Force on Excellence in State and

Local Government Through LaborManagement Cooperation, can be

reached at the University of

Washington's Cascade Center for

Public Service, 206-685-0523, fax

206-616-1748.

Best Interest of

Taxpayers

15%

Both/Not Sure

11%

Benefit of

Contractors

74%
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hadlock Field is Portland,

Maine’s most visible example of the benefits of

labor-management cooperation. The city wanted

to build a baseball stadium to attract a minor

league team, but it did not have the $8-$10

million other cities spent to build their

ballparks. So management challenged city

workers to build it themselves. And they did --

at a cost of only $2.5 million and in record time.

Work began in August 1993, and the stadium

was ready for opening day 1994, despite the

severity of the intervening winter.

This feat would not have been possible

a decade ago when the city’s labor-management

relations were characterized, at best, as confrontational.

Portland’s labor-management strife

began in 1981, when the city was grappling

with economic hard times. At that time, the

Parks and Public Works Departments were

merged, 48 pieces of heavy equipment were

sold, and 38 percent or 128 employees of the

city’s Department of Public Works were laid off.

“The memory of that time will never

leave me,” said Jim Pritchard, president of

AFSCME Local 481, who had the unpleasant

task for telling many of his co-workers they no

longer had a job. “It affects how this department

works to this day.”1

When a similar budget crunch arose in

1990, City Manager Bob Ganley took a different approach. Ganley sought to work with the

unions to find ways to work smarter, to reduce

spending and the size of the workforce. As a

first step, a 26-person labor-management

committee was formed that included an equipment operator, a working foreman, an assistant

city manager, a secretary, an arborist, an engineer, and the head of the department as well as

Pritchard. The joint committee prioritized

Snapshot: . PORTLAND, . MAINE

issues, studied them in subcommittees and

brainstormed new ideas leading to cost savings

and increased efficiencies.

For example, the city achieved a 10

percent reduction in positions with no layoffs

and workers actually received pay raises and

benefit improvements. Taxes decreased four

years in a row, yet service levels were maintained.

 We’ve been able to move away from

an adversarial relationship to more of a team

concept,” said Robert Giampetruzzi, Parks and

Public Works employee of the year and Local

481 vice president. “There’s no more ‘us’ and

‘them’,” added 30-year veteran Joey Esposito.2

The city’s cooperative labor-management efforts have received the strong backing of

Mayor Philip John Dawson, who told the Task

Force: “Workers work beyond the work order

just because it’s the way to do the job right. We

felt like the private sector was taking advantage

of the city. We could do it better if workers do

their work well. And that reflects well on us as

elected officials. It makes it easier to run again

for office.”

For many Local 481 members, the new

relationship with management took some

getting used to. City Manager Ganley did his

fair share to improve labor-management relations by holding several meetings with individual workers. “The rank-and-file had to hear

it from me,” said Ganley, who worked his way

up through the ranks. “I understand that if you

want to know where to save money, you ask the

employees. But they have to understand that if

you want a stake in the decision-making

process, you have to take responsibility.”3

This mantra of cooperation and mutual

respect became the key to implementing the

labor-management committee’s specific innovations, such as a calendar of city services. This

calendar was developed to alert residents to the

2 Ibid.

1

 “Versatility and Innovation Keep Maine

Workers One Step Ahead of Privateers,” Public Employee,

May/June 1993, 4-7.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

scheduling of services such as leaf removal and

heavy item pickups. It also introduces citizens

to city employees through photos and project

descriptions and, not insignificantly, saves the

city the money it used to spend on advertising

such special services. Woven throughout all the

projects is the philosophy of cooperation and

respect, and the responsive chord it has struck

among workers. As a result, workers constantly

talk of the pride they feel as they rise to the

challenge of serving the public better.

The building of the baseball stadium

began like all other projects: a labor-management team was created to figure out a process

for the project. The project team started with a

base of Public Works employees (the field itself

was prepared and maintained by the Parks

division). City workers built everything but the

steel structures and seating. The labor-management team hired a retired contractor to help

with planning, along with drawing upon skills

from the engineering department. Volunteers

were sought to work on the project, and a broad

range of previously unknown talents were

identified in all parts of the city workforce. For

example, truck drivers, workers in white collar

and other jobs were found to have electrical,

masonry and welding skills. By sharing their

skills through cross-training, other team members learned new skills from fellow workers for

use on the stadium and future projects. This

cross-training has since enabled many to move

to other jobs with the city and to use a broader

range of skills, frequently at a higher classification. The greater range of skills has permitted

the city to more effectively provide public

works services to neighborhoods.

At first, it was feared that several

aspects of the project might create difficulties in

labor relations, but that never happened. Moreover, because of the trust that had developed

between union leaders and management, the

project team was able to identify certain provisions in the city’s collective bargaining agreement with the union that could have potentially

created impediments to the project. The union

insisted on the integrity of the main contract,

but on a major issue -- working out of class --

the contract clause was waived, but not permanently changed, in order to complete the

stadium. Later, the newly gained skills benefited both the city and the workers,through

skill upgrades and promotions.

The project team decided matters such

as the work schedule, a system of incentives,

including points for timely completion, safety,

attendance, and so forth. Team members

received comp time as well as free tickets,

“recognition nights” at ball games, and other

awards befitting the nature of the project. For

instance, much of the reward system was based

on public recognition of city workers, in front

of their families and the whole community, for

the contributions and sacrifices they made. This

was particularly appropriate since the families

also contributed to the project’s success by not

only adjusting to the sometimes long work

schedules needed to accommodate weather and

time changes, but by providing meals, snacks

and moral support.

Few grievances -- and no formal ones --

developed in this atmosphere characterized by

cooperation between labor and management.

Whenever there was a problem, the dispute was

dealt with by taking what became known as

“the walk to center field.” That’s where individuals involved immediately met to attempt to

resolve their conflicts. This method worked: the

deputy director of the division was jointly

empowered to make on-the-spot decisions to

keep the project -- and the teamwork -- moving

along. This smooth working relationship

illustrates one of the key lessons of Hadlock

Field: when people communicate and believe in

each other, they develop trust and teamwork.

The success of this extraordinary

project has been reflected in a number of other

new ways of work organization that are continuing to contribute to the excellence of city 3 Ibid.

Snapshot:PORTLAND,MAINE
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

services.

For instance, the public works division

is now divided into five districts based on the

boundaries of city council districts. Five teams

of five members were selected with an eye to

spreading a variety of talents throughout the

city. Training and cross-training provided

during the stadium project were expanded so

that the teams are responsible for all public

works functions in their district. Through daily

meetings of team leaders, they share or swap

people and equipment across districts lines, as

needed. The teams have developed a sense of

ownership of the work, accountability to the

citizens and their political leadership and a

good-natured competition for improved performance and recognition. Team competition and

performance measurements are facilitated by

the availability of data by district on specific

tasks. A sophisticated report is presented to the

city council at the end of each year detailing

such things as hours worked and dollar costs

per function.

Another innovative effort is the city

construction company, formed after the stadium

project demonstrated the ability to do construction projects in-house at lower cost. The company puts together written plans for projects and

checks them against expected or actual bids. In

one example shown to the Task Force, the

company built a brick sidewalk in a historic

district for 42 percent less than the estimated

cost of traditional contracting out. City workers

have shown flexibility in the ability to change

shifts rapidly, especially in winter. In one area,

they adopted a 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. work schedule,

took responsibility for equipment and continued

to search for other means by which set-up and

take-down time can be saved.

Taxpayers reap the benefits of lower

costs, increased efficiency and attention to safe

work practices. But workers also are rewarded

through a system of bonuses based on cost

savings on a per project basis, much like a gainsharing system. For instance, if cost savings of

10 percent to 25 percent are achieved on an

individual project, workers receive a $100

bonus. For savings of 25 percent to 50 percent,

the bonus is $250.

But perhaps the real reward is the fact

that by working together, labor and management have found a way to retain a loyal and

talented public workforce, to enable managers

to share power and credit, and to receive the

trust and confidence of local elected officials. ■

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

 Much has been learned in the private sector during

the past decade about producing service excellence. In an effort to properly serve and

retain customers, a growing number of businesses and their workers have greatly increased worker participation as an effective tool to produce and deliver high quality products or services in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

Contrary to popular belief, this push for excellence is

NUTS AND BOLTS

HOW TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN COOPERATIVE,

SERVICE-FOCUSED WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS

CHAPTER

FOUR
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

not limited to the private sector. In fact, the Task Force

saw dramatic and compelling evidence that high performance through greater employee participation is

being achieved in the public sector, as well. The Task

Force saw much of this being achieved through labormanagement partnerships where employees are represented by unions or otherwise play a role in selecting

their representatives. In some settings, improved performance is being achieved through employee involvement and other approaches.

Over the past few years, an increasing number of

elected officials, administrators, employees and union

leaders around the country have come to realize that

the public is impatient for and demanding excellence

in public service delivered in the most cost-effective

manner possible. They have come to realize that, despite the differences between them, they all face the

same daunting challenge to provide services to the taxpayers in an era of limited resources coupled with

greater societal needs, competing demands and more

complex tasks. Moreover, these challenges are being

raised in an atmosphere of growing hostility by a public increasingly skeptical of government’s ability to effectively operate in this environment.

Where this new cooperative approach has been

taken, leaders and workers also realized it was in their

collective best interest and that it was their collective

task to regain public trust by re-examining and ensuring that they deliver quality services at a reasonable

cost. These pioneering leaders and workers are involved

in joint efforts that are transforming states, cities, towns

and their agencies into more flexible, customer-responsive organizations better equipped to serve the public.

“We see this movement toward cooperation as an

essential ingredient in improving the quality of government services and the delivery of those services,”

testified Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

“Labor and management must both accept that

jointly achieving excellence is necessary for each side

to achieve its goals,” agreed John J. Sweeney, testifying as International President, Service Employees International Union. “Furthermore, we must accept as the

final arbiters of excellence our customers -- taxpayers

and clients. Meeting our responsibility to taxpayers

includes undertaking joint steps to eliminate wasteful

and unnecessary spending.”

Mayor Paul Soglin of Madison, Wisconsin, whose

city initiated its quality improvement efforts in 1985,

pointed out: “Quality customer service requires the involvement of all stockholders, both customers and employees, in the defining of excellence and making sure

our delivery systems reflect those requirements. The

more we strive to meet our customer needs, the more

our unions and management must work together. Our

continuing efforts are aimed at building these opportunities into the day-to-day activities of the organization

and not as special events.”

The mayor of Louisville, Kentucky, Jerry

Abramson, agrees. His city also has begun to replace

the top-down management style that dominates typical

government organization with a high-performance system built around collaboration and problem-solving

teams, called CityWork.

“If you engage the hearts and minds of the people

closest to the problem, their knowledge and experience

will give them an edge in figuring out a better way to

do the job,” says the mayor, whose city won a 1995

Innovations in American Government Award given by

the Ford Foundation and the John F. Kennedy School

of Government at Harvard University.

“CityWork has proved that engaging workers with

different perspectives and experiences in structured

problem-solving can produce breakthroughs on problems that have confounded managers, workers, and

union leaders for years. CityWork also demonstrates

that a culture of innovation can become a permanent

fixture of local government.”

Similar comments to these were expressed by

elected officials and managers throughout the Task

Force’s year of research, which included five regional

visits across the United States, seven Washington, D.C.

hearings and 55 detailed responses to a Task Force survey.

During the regional visits, the Task Force carefully observed and analyzed 47 examples that support

the premise that cooperative labor-management partnerships in the public sector produce far more innovation in services than traditional relationships, and that
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

this approach supports development of new and better

approaches to work. These findings were further supported by survey responses reporting impressive service improvements in jurisdictions the Task Force was

unable to visit. In addition, many other examples and

observations by experts in both the public and private

sectors were related during the Task Force’s seven

Washington, D.C. hearings.

Obviously, there are many examples of this trend

occurring in more places than could be visited or invited by the Task Force. What’s even more evident, is

that this cooperative participatory approach can -- and

should -- be adopted in more public jurisdictions and

agencies as a primary tool for pursuing service improvements.

While every situation is different, there appear to

be common ingredients that can help foster cooperative relationships. This chapter summarizes the factors

and ingredients the Task Force found contributed to or

were necessary for a successful service-oriented workplace relationship -- from how to initiate a cooperative, service-oriented relationship, to how to sustain it

over time. The chapter also points out some common

barriers that often have to be overcome in order to be

successful. The examples included here are drawn from

situations reviewed by the Task Force.

It is useful to note that labor-management cooperation that is specifically focused upon employee participation and service improvement represents a fundamentally different approach from more traditional

labor-management relations. In traditional relationships

employee involvement in problem-solving is limited

or absent and the organization is characterized by hierarchical service delivery and decision-making systems.

Workplace problems and conflicts are likely to be more

difficult to identify and resolve. In a successful and

stable labor-management partnership, labor and management agree to assume and allow new roles for managers, workers and their representatives in workplace

decision-making. This means that employees participate on a daily basis in decisions about services in areas traditionally reserved only for supervisors and managers. In exchange, the workers and their representatives are committed to responsible improvement of

public services.

“Contrary to the prevailing view that unions block

workplace innovations, when given the chance for

genuine involvement in strategic, operational and working level decision-making, unions can and do work as

allies with public management to elicit and sustain commitment that is essential to teamwork and improving

productivity,” testified Jerome M. Rosow, president of

Work in America Institute. This institute, founded in

1975, strives to improve U.S. productivity and the quality of working life through labor-management partnerships, using its national research and diverse members,

which include leaders from labor, management, government and academia. “Workplace innovations built

upon genuine employee participation give the organization a sharp competitive edge, a sustaining life force

which goes beyond technology and capital, and an inherent capacity for self-renewal,” according to Rosow.

To begin these new relationships, however, requires bold action, takes time and careful nurturing in

order to grow. Labor and management leaders at the

local, state and national levels must be willing to take

some risks, to learn some new ways and to break some

molds. The pace of change in communities, in the national and local economies, in workforce demographics and in technological advancements all demand that

labor-management relations be carried out in ways that

depart from traditional practices. Or as AFSCME President Gerald McEntee observed, “The way I see it is

that we all need to change simply to stay alive to be

able to serve our customers.”

The Task Force challenges elected and appointed

officials, union leaders, personnel and labor relations

experts, researchers, and others to step forward, to learn

from their peers, to be willing to try something new, to

provide the strong, creative leadership necessary to

make labor-management relations a strong tool for problem-solving and achieving service excellence within

their own communities.

Barriers to Overcome

Adopting a cooperative approach will not mean

all conflict will be eliminated in labor-management

interactions or that labor and management will agree
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

on every issue. By providing an avenue for meaningful

participation by employees, cooperation can provide a

creative response to our changing times. These approaches embody several of the practices generally associated with high-performance work systems, such as

joint problem-solving activities at various levels and

self-managed teams at the workplace level; continuous training, and other learning opportunities.

Characteristics of a High-Performance Workplace

• Employee Participation

• Employment Security Stratiegies

• Education, Training/Retraining , Skill

Upgrading

• Gainsharing

• Safe, Flexible, Family-Friendly Workplace

Starting something new, however, entails a willingness to try something new. It means taking risks.

Therefore, it is important to recognize that significant

change in the culture of a workplace will occur. Patience and flexibility -- demonstrated first by elected

officials and union leaders -- will be needed by everyone involved. Increased and refocused training and

other systems changes also are necessary to develop a

service-oriented partnership based upon excellence.

In every example examined by the Task Force,

those present faced -- and overcame -- one or more similar obstacles in order to proceed with a cooperative relationship. Workers and managers in jurisdictions or

agencies whose leaders choose the cooperative route

should be prepared to face at least some of the following common barriers to changing the workplace relationship:

Difficulty in Convincing Everyone of the Need

to Change

The Task Force observed that it can be difficult to

convince some mid-level managers, shop stewards,

senior managers, elected officials, and front-line employees or union leaders of the need to change. No group

is immune from being difficult on these matters. Typically, people who are positioned in the middle rungs of

the organizational or union hierarchy exhibited the most

resistance and misunderstanding and experienced the

greatest sense of threat from the outset of a workplace

partnership or participation scenario.

Unaddressed Personal or Institutional

Concerns

In the absence of assurances or arrangements to

the contrary, fears of layoffs as a means to achieve efficiencies -- or as a result of efficiencies -- understandably inhibit employees’ willingness to engage in service improvement. Where a union is present, and union

leaders see the efficiency initiatives as union-busting

or as a circumvention of representation rights and duties, they will not be willing to cooperate. If members’

personal security concerns or the union’s viability is

thus threatened, union leaders and the members they

represent frequently will feel there is no choice but to

defend the status quo. Conversely, if a mayor’s need to

clearly demonstrate concerns to constituents for efficiency is not acknowledged or understood by the union,

he or she is unlikely to begin a cooperative relationship.

Internal Inability to Agree or to Develop

Cohesion

The inability of managers or workers to agree

among themselves internally about issues makes it difficult for them to work cooperatively with the each

other. Thus, it is critical to have some way to develop

internal cohesion within labor or management, respectively. If division and department managers -- or employees and leaders of several bargaining units -- can

not agree sufficiently among themselves on issues that

arise, then the necessary relationships with other groups

cannot begin or succeed. Often, important obstacles and

problems lie within one group or another, just as much

or more than across the table.

As John Loos of the Communications Workers

of America told the Task Force in describing an agreement between the New Jersey State Judiciary and some

6,500 employees represented by about 75 bargaining
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

units across 21 counties, “Labor-management cooperation is challenging, but you shouldn’t forget the challenge of labor-labor cooperation!”

Must Learn to Work Together; Cannot

Impose Cooperation

Just as you cannot impose trust -- you have to

build it -- cooperative relationships cannot be imposed.

If budget or personnel office managers want to initiate

“total quality management,” but they don’t engage the

cooperation and support of program managers, the affected workers and their representatives, as well as the

city council and mayor, it won’t work. The parties have

to start early together, before a plan is well developed,

and then march down the road together. Otherwise the

process of cooperation is very difficult to start.

Political Considerations or Forces

Another common obstacle is found in situations

in which candidates for public office “run against”

workers or where union leaders “run against” management. While such situations obviously make it more

difficult to begin cooperative work, they don’t make it

impossible if early efforts are made to initiate or restore trust. For instance, the Task Force observed situations where chief elected officials, whose campaigns

were run against public employees, now are considered among the leaders of cooperative work. Similarly,

the Task Force also saw union leaders who were aggressive in their adversarial approach turning to a partnership approach as being in the best interests of their

members. In other situations, the Task Force saw unions

that were fully engaged with total quality management

programs yet politicaly opposed to the elected officials

who were their workplace partners.

Intent to Contract Out “No Matter What”

The Task Force observed that a management intention to contract out “no matter what” can interfere

with cooperation because of the lack of trust engendered by the implicitly negative message to employees. However, the Task Force also observed that where

criteria and systems for making relevant cost and quality comparisons are developed through discussions or

negotiations with workers and their unions, or in the

context of a partnership, contracting out can be considered in a more objective, service-oriented manner. (See

Chapters Two and Three for a more thorough discussion of these conditions.)

Over-Reliance on Legalisms and Formalities;

Formalistic Traditions of Personnel/Practices

and Labor Relations

In instances where the parties emphasized

legalisms and formalities, vital issues can go

undiscussed because governing bodies may fear losing

a non-negotiable managerial prerogative or unions may

fear the dilution of a statutory or contractual benefit.

Fear of setting a precedent often seems to interfere with

developing a solution to a significant problem. These

attitudes can be obstacles to making the commitments

necessary to resolving personnel, labor relations and

service-related issues.

The nature of most civil service systems and practices also creates a barrier to change and service effectiveness. Prominent are the difficulties imposed by traditional job classifications, which make it difficult to

adapt positions and redeploy and train workers to address changing workplace needs and to developing new

skills in response.

 Scope of Bargaining

The Task Force heard conflicting testimony on

the scope of bargaining as it affects participative, service-oriented relationships. Because it affects the capacity of an agency or jurisdiction to improve service,

the clearest need is for workers, managers, and union

leaders to be able to discuss the full range of issues

affecting the service they are working to improve. In a

traditional labor-management relationship characterized

by formal or legalistic approaches, such discussion often is precluded by concerns over setting precedents

that might lead to giving up prerogatives. When focused on the process question, many parties fail to discuss service and workplace issues that could improve
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

service as well as their relationship. Cooperative relationships that foster joint work between labor and management rarely fall prey to this failure. These parties

find a way to talk about what must be addressed either

within the existing contract framework or by modifying that framework to accommodate the mutual interest and responsibilities for service excellence.

In a comment reflective of what the Task Force

saw in successful examples of labor-management partnerships, Albert Shanker, president of the American

Federation of Teachers, noted that those parties with a

successful cooperative relationship in place that improved a school or system found a way to talk about all

issues affecting education, despite any restrictive statutory or contract language. Where it was necessary to

bargain over an issue, he said, the issue was brought to

the appropriate forum and effectively handled.

As this report was being prepared, legislative

battles were taking place in a number of states over

efforts to restrict the statutory scope of bargaining. The

Task Force recognizes that this is a highly symbolic

issue to many labor and management leaders. However, relative to the capacity for cooperation, these initiatives and battles may miss the point in the quest for

better public service. Service problems can best be

solved and innovation encouraged when workers can

talk with management about a wide range of issues

within appropriate problem-solving settings. While it

is important not to inappropriately delegate or interfere with the responsibilities of elected officials and

managers, the importance of the opportunity to discuss

seriously matters affecting the quality of service and

related aspects of the workplace should not be overlooked.

Pensions and Financial Security

An important backdrop to cooperation and trust

is the issue of employee pensions. In tight economic

times, pensions can be a controversial issue, particularly if there is the suspicion that monies in pension

funds are being used to balance budgets.

Harold Schaitberger, legislative counsel to the

National Conference on Public Employee Retirement

Systems and assistant to the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, testified that public

sector retirement systems should guarantee the future

financial security of employees’ families. He noted,

however, that some jurisdictions treat pension obligations as a budget item and, consequently, some retirement systems face dangers. Such threats and fears can

become another wedge separating labor and management.

Schaitberger and Ian Lanoff, a former Administrator of Employee Retirement Income Security at the

U.S. Department of Labor and presently a partner in

the law firm of Groom and Nordberg, testified persuasively on the need to govern the administration of public sector retirement funds in accordance with recognized professional practices. Applicable standards, they

noted, always should be utilized to protect the integrity

of the funds. This would include representation by both

labor and management on pension boards of trustees.

Schaitberger noted that conflicts in the pension area

can be very destabilizing to labor and management

cooperation. As an example, he cited the present situation where Orange County, California, has filed for

bankruptcy, where pensions have become the subject

of controversy and labor-management relations are in

a highly unproductive status.

Mistrust and Difficulty in Beginning New

Relationship

A key obstacle observed in many places is an institutional history of mistrust, which makes it difficult

to begin a new relationship. Building trust takes time

and usually is achieved in small steps. It also takes leadership courage because someone has to be the first to

step out and accept the risk to try something new. (There

are many techniques for building trust, as observed in

the subsequent section, “Where to Begin.”)

In summary, however, the Task Force saw examples of all of these obstacles successfully overcome

by agencies or jurisdictions ultimately more interested

in jointly establishing and achieving workplace excellence and more effective relationships. 
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Where to Begin

Over the course of a year, the Task Force saw four

prevalent approaches serving as catalysts for labormanagement cooperation. Some began from workplace

relationships that were very contentious; others came

from more positive roots. In the majority of the situations reviewed, some sort of crisis or difficulty provided the motivation to try something new. Here are

the four beginnings most frequently observed:

1. Service Improvement Project

A changed relationship with employee participation often began when labor and management successfully worked together on a specific project with the

defined goal being to improve a particular service or

its cost-effectiveness to the public. In these instances,

the experiences and expertise of front-line employees

were drawn upon, making them partners in the decision-making processes and thus shifting away from traditional, hierarchical decision-making relationships.

For instance, city officials in Portland, Maine,

working with the employees and leaders of AFSCME

Local 481, built a baseball stadium for the city’s minor

league franchise in record time and at a record price,

providing the catalyst for labor and management to view

cooperation as an effective and powerful means to improve a wide variety of services. Since this initial and

dramatic success, the entire public works system for

providing infrastructure and other services has been

revamped into self-managed teams with a high level of

community, labor and management satisfaction. Cost

savings, faster response times, less conflict and continuous innovation are now regular features of much

of the public service in Portland. (See “Snapshot: Portland, Maine”)

2. Improved Bargaining

In some jurisdictions, the desire to improve the

bargaining relationship -- perhaps after a strike or a

series of impasses -- prompted an effort to depart from

a tradition of confrontation. In these situations, bargaining had become increasingly bitter, prolonged and focused more upon legalistic challenges and procedures

than on ways to improve services or the work place

environment.

Such was the case in the transit and sewer utility

(METRO) that serves King County, Washington, where

employees are represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Service Employees International Union,

and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Increasingly dissatisfied with their adversarial relationship, labor and management turned to interestbased negotiations, seeking a more cooperative, service-oriented partnership. Since the introduction of interest-based negotiations, the collective bargaining process has moved much more smoothly and quickly -- an

agreement recently was reached in one month instead

of the usual two years experienced in prior talks.

Equally important, this new approach has allowed

METRO to embark on a major cultural change process

that involves considerable employee involvement with

restructuring and redesign of work. This process has

given rise to widespread labor-management partnerships throughout the agency ranging from maintenance

to scheduling, marketing, and customer service.

3. Better Conflict Resolution

The Task Force also saw examples of jurisdictions or agencies confronted with a clogged-up grievance system or other workplace conflicts that were diverting the attention and energy of all involved away

from service improvements and creating mistrust that

precluded candor necessary for cooperation.That was

the situation at the State of Oregon Health Care Sciences University. Here employees, represented by

AFSCME and the Oregon Nurses Association, and

management turned to interest-based negotiations in an

effort to stem the growing tide of worker grievances,

among other issues. Labor and management received

training to learn how to solve problems themselves,

instead of resorting to arbitration. The grievance-handling system was changed, eliminating two of the five

steps involved, to push the process down lower in the

hierarchy and closer to where the problems occurred.

As a result, filed grievances have been reduced by 40
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

percent and a grievance adjustment board composed

of four members, two each from labor and management, has reduced reliance on arbitration. Later, the

parties used the same skills and relationships to cooperatively develop a major cost savings plan for the hospitals at the University.

4. Cultural Change

In some instances, cooperation sprang from efforts at large-scale change in the work culture initiated

by a desire for a different workplace environment and

service improvement in the pursuit of excellence. This

method was less usual as a beginning strategy, but often resulted after a cooperative relationship was first

established through these other routes, underscoring its

importance not only as a place to start, but as a strategy

to sustain or institutionalize the cooperative relationship.

Cultural change was how Madison, Wisconsin,

started on the road to labor-management cooperation

with unions and employee associations -- Teamsters

Local 60, AFSCME Local 690, Madison Professional

Police Officers Association, Laborers International

Union Local 236. In 1985, under then-Mayor

Sensenbrenner, the city initiated training and other techniques for both management and its workforce to establish a total quality management culture throughout

city agencies. These ongoing efforts have resulted in

numerous service improvements projects, reduction in

grievances and other workplace conflicts and have improved the bargaining relationship. For example, the

streets and sanitation activities have saved more than

$550,000 in five years and added services as a result of

joint labor-management efforts in their quality program.

Preventative maintenance programs prioritized and

developed as a result of worker input have saved nearly

$200,000 in the Motor Vehicle Equipment Division and

in the Police and Fire Departments. Other cost savings

have been realized in public health and forestry activities as well as in the public library.

The RESULTS (Reaching Excellent Service Using Leadership & Team Strategies) plan in Multnomah

County, Oregon, is a more recent but similarly comprehensive approach to quality improvement. RESULTS is conducted through a partnership with

AFSCME Local 88, the Oregon Nurses Association,

the Multnomah County Corrections Officers Association and six other unions. Here, the approach is to combine a quality program with a move toward a cooperative labor-management relationship in a strategy to

change the culture to one of high-performance workplace. (For a more detailed example of cultural change,

see “Snapshot: State of Ohio.”)

In summary, the Task Force found that regardless

of the route taken toward cooperation, the approach

often migrated into the other areas -- service improvement projects, better bargaining, better conflict resolution, or changed culture. The same skills, the same

people, the same trust that allowed workers and management to work together on a service improvement

project eventually produced positive benefits in other

areas, such as improved bargaining or conflict resolution. Where there is a structure established for carrying

out and expanding the partnership-- such as a seniorlevel joint committee -- these improved relationships

and problem-solving skills can more easily migrate.

In short, the basic skills and relationships are transferable. To begin, the parties must choose a starting

point that fits their circumstances and possibilities.

Every workplace is different and each should take into

consideration its own organization’s history and particular workplace and service characteristics. But it

takes leadership on both sides to move the trust and

skills to other parts of the organization and other services or processes. The truly strategic and flexible leaders interested in a cooperative approach, whether labor

or management, will begin early to lay the groundwork

for trust and constantly look for opportunities to initiate cooperative relationships. In so doing, they will

always be looking ahead, anticipating what will be

needed to begin and sustain cooperative relationships.

They will avoid situations that place them in the traditional, rigid, adversarial-only mode that restrains them

from achieving excellence in a demanding environment.

People also must recognize that success is not

guaranteed, and acknowledge that the road may not be

smooth. Similarly, parties should not be afraid to try

something new for fear of failing. Sometimes it takes
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

ers must be committed to real involvement and power

sharing.

Breaking Past Habits

In order to engage in a new, cooperative relationship, it almost always is necessary for all parties to acquire new skills through such processes as:

Joint training: The use of joint training -- jointly

sponsored and jointly attended by labor and management -- in conflict resolution and group problem-solving skills typically is used to help parties break with

past habits. Almost all successful new relationships

observed by the Task Force contained some such training at the outset. In addition, in the more sophisticated

or longer-lasting experiments and innovations, joint

training for labor and management was conducted in

process analysis to teach techniques of identifying service problems and in using organizational systems, such

as budgeting, procurement and so forth.

Benchmarking: The ability to establish measurements or benchmarks to gauge progress or to identify

effective practices often can be developed by visiting

high performance organizations in other locations in

the public and private sector performing similar services. Witnesses told the Task Force that some improved relationships and trust can begin on such visits

while the parties learn lessons to bring home.

Neutral assistance: Bringing in some neutral assistance from the outside normally helps the parties

move along farther and faster in the new relationship.

Recognizing the Need to Attend to Individual

Security Concerns

Workplaces that wish to engage in innovation need

to create a safe environment that encourages employees to come forward with new ideas and ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their work.

In almost all cases examined by the Task Force, there

was some very substantial employment security “safety

net” or program for at-risk employees that paid attention to their income and personal security. In these

employment security/safety net programs, significant

and valuable investments in retraining combined with

placement and classification reforms served to increase

several attempts before the effort really begins to take

root and succeed, as was the case in the state of Ohio,

which is now among the leading examples.

But the opportunity to achieve excellence in service for the benefit of citizens surely is worth the risk.

Key Ingredients to Begin Cooperative

Relationships

Breaking with the past and beginning a new, service-oriented relationship built upon trust and cooperation will require more than a single event. It will

require a careful strategy and structure that recognizes

the unique characteristics, traditions, histories, politics

and so forth of each jurisdiction and then adopts techniques and approaches to address these elements today

and in the future. During its work, the Task Force observed several key elements that helped to foster cooperative, service-oriented relationships:

Top Leadership Support

Top officials of both labor and management must

be supportive of any cooperative, participative effort.

Without top leadership support on both sides, it’s difficult to get started, convince others to take a new approach, allocate resources and, particularly, to guide

the process through inevitable problems in the early

going. In a typical scenario, someone will revert to

doing things the “old” way. Then someone on the other

side sees it as retreat from the new, not-yet-fully trusted

approach. Normally, at these moments, assurances from

top management or labor officials to one another and

admonitions to their own side are necessary to put things

back on track.

Commitment to Real and Responsible

Decision-making

Cooperative, service-oriented partnerships require

a different approach to decision making. Employees

gain significant participation and often become primarily responsible for decisions previously made by supervisors. Employees and their representatives must

be committed to responsible participation and manag-
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

both trust and productivity. Typically, a jointly developed set of tools used to create this assurance would

include:

• Planning ahead to see where jobs will change,

what kinds of skills will be needed;

• Worker re-training to prepare for new positions;

• Eased transfers, often through centralization of

vacancies and simplification of job classification policies;

• Building of an “Income Safety Net” for those

who do lose their jobs, such as early retirements, employment services and so forth; and

• Active pursuit of new jobs, in the public or private sector, for laid-off workers.

Key players in this process, along with senior

management and top employee representatives, are

human resource departments and labor relations professionals.

For example, the Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Resources (DILHR), working with AFSCME, the State Engineers Association and

the Wisconsin Professional Employees Council, developed a joint Labor-Management Advisory Council in

May1992 to improve labor relations within the department. This Council subsequently created an “at-risk”

program for workers facing job loss due to work redesign, introduction of technology and so forth. When

voice mail was introduced in the Unemployment Insurance offices and weekly claims could be filed by

phone, AFSCME anticipated that the jobs of 360 employees were at risk. However, only one worker actually was laid off. Displaced workers were given priority for vacancies within the department. They received

time off to interview and were reimbursed for travel,

moving expenses and training. The state later adopted

this “at-risk” system for all its agencies as they faced

cutbacks -- a system that did not require any modification to civil service laws.

Contrary to many expectations, even where full

job security was addressed by a “no layoff” guarantee,

the Task Force still saw tangible benefits to citizens

and major cost reductions because of the improvements

in systems, managing attrition and so on.

Acceptance of Union Presence and Role

In situations where employees are considering

whether or not to be represented, negative tactics should

not be used by either side. Otherwise, antagonisms

between labor and management naturally will develop.

This initial antagonism can significantly interfere with

subsequent attempts to develop a cooperative labormanagement program and a high-performance workplace due to the residual, negative impact on trust and

credibility.

In situations where a cooperative relationship was

established within a unionized setting, formal management recognition of, and commitment to, working with

the union enabled the union leadership to fully participate in the cooperative process and to serve as a focus

for employee leadership and communication. With recognition and acceptance, union leadership can participate without feeling it has to defend its legitimacy. Even

in established relationships, clear acceptance of the

union role enables the participative process to go forward.

For instance, Bill Burwell, manager at the Renton

Water Treatment Plant operated by METRO of King

County (Seattle), Washington, credited SEIU Local 6’s

leadership as critical to his agency’s successful transformation into a “Participative Workplace Program”

built upon the principles of labor-management cooperation. “If you had asked me six years ago, I would

have said otherwise,” he said during a Task Force visit

to the plant. But he has since realized that “we have

gotten farther, faster with the union” as it adds structure to the process, helps convince employees of the

legitimacy of the effort needing attention and helps to

identify problems.

Echoing these reasons, the Task Force observed

in summarizing its observations that collective bargaining relationships, applied in cooperative, service-oriented ways, provide the most consistently valuable

structure for beginning and sustaining a workplace partnership with effective service results. Neither collective bargaining nor any other workplace arrangements

automatically produce these results, but a collective

bargining framework and roles provide the essential

elements, if applied appropriately with the necessary
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

mutual commitments and energy. The various ingredients in this chapter pertaining to labor-management

relationship suggest some of the elements helpful to

building and sustaining such a service-oriented relationship.

Program Managers Directly Involved in

Labor Relations

Traditionally, personnel experts or labor negotiators are the primary individuals involved in labor relations. But for true cooperation to work, program managers who influence resources and have day-to-day

decision making authority must be involved in order to

help share that authority and the practical perspective

of the workplace. In the Wisconsin DILHR, the involvement of Department Secretary Carol Skolnika and several assistant secretaries was credited with making the

process work.

Flexibility by Both Sides Towards New

Approaches

Flexibility requires the willingness to take risks

and try new approaches. But the necessary trust to take

risks isn’t created overnight. Therefore, openness to new

approaches on the part of leaders on both sides is critical.

Leaving Old Structures In Place as a

“Fallback”

The Task Force found that both sides often feel

more secure while advancing and trying new ideas if

they know that they still have access to the formal, traditional personnel and labor practices, including access

to administrative bodies, courts and so forth. Interestingly, rarely -- if ever-- did the Task Force see anyone

return to the traditional practices once they began to

develop cooperative, service-oriented approaches to

achieving cost improvement and excellence. Nevertheless, parties frequently gain substantial comfort from

the fact that those protections remain. This is especially

important to convince recalcitrant members of management, union leadership or the workforce to experiment with a new, more cooperative approach.

For instance, in Montana, the cooperative relationship between the University Teachers Union (AFT)

and the state Department of Higher Education eventually fell into place when it was pointed out to some of

the stalwarts that access to the old methods remained

available.

Cohesive Management; Cohesive Work Force

On both sides, management and labor, there must

be an internal sense of shared commitment and a means

of accommodating internal differences in interests. In

union settings, where there is more than one bargaining unit, typically a multi-unit coalition is necessary.

Many issues and programs require crossover between

departments and skills to improve or provide services

effectively. The multi-unit coalition is almost always

present in successful service improvements and cost

savings. Similarly, on the management side, program

managers, executives, the legislative body and others

have to be sufficiently in agreement.

Referring again to Montana’s higher education

system, the university regents were part of the partnership that was developed to solve long-standing budget,

wage, quality and working condition problems that had

previously been handled only between bargaining representatives.

Attention to the Value of Leadership Roles by

Both Management and Labor

Management leadership plays a very valuable role

in helping to bring along recalcitrant managers by

clearly supporting the commitment to share power with

labor. In the same fashion, union leadership, including

local officers, shop stewards, building representatives

and so forth, serve a crucial role in bringing other union

leaders and employees into the process. Where there is

a union or association, union leaders serve as a point of

contact with management: they can come to the table

with program ideas and speak with one voice on behalf

of employees and then go back to employees with a

valid program and persuade them to become engaged.
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Motivating Factors: Trust or Tension

Either trust or tension can be a motivating factor

in developing labor-management cooperation: A trustproducing event is one where leaders on one side or

the other have some vision and develop a constructive

relationship based upon mutual interest in service excellence. A tension-producing event, usually involves

some sort of crisis or threat, such as a highly criticized

service, a strike, financial pressures, a difficult negotiation, the threat of contracting out services to the private sector, etc. However, a crisis situation can only

lead to a more positive, cooperative effort if both parties ultimately use it as a catalyst to build trust and an

effective approach to joint problem-solving. 

Key Ingredients to Sustain Cooperative

Relationships

Once a program is put into place, what elements

are needed to keep it in place over time? Creating continuity is a critical element in sustaining cooperative

programs, yet can be difficult to achieve in the public

sector where there may be a frequent turnover of elected

leaders and top administrators. In addition, cooperative relationships need to find ways to maintain participants’ interest and abilities to ensure their participation as full partners.

The Task Force identified certain ingredients that

are useful to help sustain the cooperative relationship.

These should be considered by jurisdictions or agencies when developing their strategies for change. Specifically, the Task Force found that as cooperative, service-focused relationships matured, shifts in the nature

of the labor-management relationship often were coordinated with, and supportive of, efforts to reform an

organization’s “systems,” including budget and accounting, personnel and other administrative systems

that often become anachronistic and impede service

quality and efficiency improvements in government.

In fact, the Task Force saw significant reform take place

in key systems as a by-product of a service improvement strategy, and often more easily than when such

improvements were sought for their own sake. For example, local parties reported more easily achieving

changes in specific personnel system reforms as part

of a service improvement effort than when seeking on

their own reforms to improve the personnel system

overall.

The following are some common ingredients the

Task Force found necessary to sustain innovative relationships:

 Trust

Repeatedly, parties involved in cooperative workplace arrangements spoke of the trust that had developed and how essential it was to resolving matters, especially the more complex and seemingly insoluble

problems. They also acknowledged that at the beginning of the process, they did not have such trust and

did not forsee the extent of its development. Nevertheless, trust was among the most frequently cited ingredients of successful workplace partnerships. The many

other items listed in this chapter contributed in various

combinations to the development of the necessary trust.

Project Goal or Service Standard with

Customer Focus

 Once a program of workplace innovation and

service excellence begins, having an agreed upon

project goal or service standard with a customer focus

almost always is necessary to sustain the initiative. No

matter what the goal is -- cost reduction, quality or productivity improvement -- what really matters is that the

goal be clearly understood and agreed upon by all involved -- management and labor -- and that it relate to

customer service and excellence. Then, plans, projects

and day-to-day decisions can be made to help advance

the goal.

Cost and Quality Comparison Measures

 In order to measure internal improvements over

time or to make comparisons with other public or private sector providers, it is important to have comparable data that accurately measure cost and quality of

providing services. Otherwise, it is not possible to de-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

termine if a service is improving or performing at an

equivalent level to other public jurisdictions. Also, it

is difficult to determine whether a private contractor is

presenting a more attractive alternative. However, public jurisdictions traditionally do not collect budget data

in a way that allows such comparisons. (See following

section on budget and accounting systems.)

Budget and Accounting Systems Changes and

Improvements

Most line-item budget systems do not collect information or produce incentives to improve services.

Thus, in successful cooperative relationships, the parties normally turn to some budget reforms to help them

focus upon service improvements. The City of

Milwaukee’s representative described to the Task Force

many of the deficiencies in most public budgeting systems relative to supporting service improvement. He

also outlined efforts to begin addressing those problems.

In this and other testimony and observations, several trends were noted in budgeting systems. The fabled

year-end incentive to spend the remainder of a budget

now is giving way to a gainsharing approach. Budget

information is available to those responsible for providing service and cost control, including front-line

people and their representatives, project managers, crew

chiefs and foremen. Better cost accounting information is collected so that actual costs of particular services, like handling a public assistance case, making

standard street repairs or hauling a certain tonnage of

trash, can be determined and usefully measured and

compared.

The very act of collecting good cost comparison

data and reforming the cost accounting system compels workers and management to re-examine every step

of a process, including what it takes in employee hours,

materials and overhead, to provide each service or unit

of service. Reforms flow from the development of such

data as well as from subsequent examinations and comparisons that the data make possible. In developing such

data in Indianapolis, the consultant, KPMG Peat

Marwick, worked with front-line employees and managers to identify the full range of cost components and

to develop cost figures for specific tasks.

Bridget Anderson, partner, KPMG Marwick, in

her testimony, emphasized that if workers are empowered to understand and manage their own budgets, it is

possible for labor and management to work together to

reduce costs.

For instance, team leaders and front-line employees were trained in budget and accounting systems so

that they could access and use those systems as part of

their responsibilities for cost effectiveness. Dominic

Mangine, president of AFSCME Local 3131 in Indianapolis, who helped to lead many cost and quality innovations, said, “The best thing management ever did

was to teach me to read the budget.” Mangine oversees numerous cost savings in his role in a cooperative

workplace partnership, and has even initiated decisions

to contract out non-core services as a result.

Personnel Systems Changes and

Improvements

There have been a number of efforts at civil service reform since the late 1970s, with varying degrees

of success. One observation that can be made from the

work of the Task Force is that dramatic changes in classification, pay, discipline and other features of public

personnel systems came as part of the response to a

needed service improvement. So, rather than reforming civil service systems as an end in itself, reform in

response to specific, mutually determined service needs

seems to be a more effective and agreeable route, particularly in light of the complex nature of such reform.

Not only can the collective talent and lobbying support

of the parties be applied to the change, but energy can

be focused upon the features most in need of change.

Classification systems: The Task Force saw important changes in personnel systems in those places

where there was successful service innovation. Most

common were changes to classification systems, thus

helping to reform a structure that many found to be a

major barrier to service improvement and cooperative

relationships. In almost every instance of success, the

systems were simplified, resulting in fewer and broader

classifications. By reducing the number of classifications by as much as half and by “broad-banding” the

remaining classifications, barriers to redeployment or

improvements in pay often were substantially reduced.
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

This was especially important in facilitating redesign

and other service improvements that created efficiencies in one area and permitted the addition of employees or the transfer of employees to other areas as required. Hence, simplification of the classification systems strongly supported service improvement as well

as job security.

Charlotte, North Carolina, provided an example

of classification reform. Here, employee committees

were established in the general government area and

separate committees for the specialized systems in police and fire. Each committee produced changes in the

classification and other systems that were adopted as

city policy. (For more detail, see “Snapshot: Charlotte.”)

Many other successful jurisdictions also simplified their classification systems. In these instances, the

system is now seen as fairer, less regulatory, more logical and as providing more flexibility to program management and more opportunities for job security.

Pay systems: Although traditional pay systems

often work well, the Task Force saw a substantial trend

towards more team-based rewards and lesser reliance

on individual pay-for-performance comparisons. In

some select instances, pay systems were emerging

where employees were compensated based upon relevant skills, rather than on a point system or pure seniority. Where successful, such as in Mercer Island,

Washington, labor and management had developed

sophisticated measuring systems and methodology.

The Task Force also saw the beginnings of different kinds of compensation activities. Taking advantage

at times of more flexible, broad-banded systems, workers who qualified were being upgraded to reflect their

broader responsibilities and the cross-trained skill levels that came from changes in practices that improved

services and job quality. Performance-appraisal systems

were developed that evaluated team performance, rather

than individual performance. Other reforms were made

in appraisal systems as part of participative relationships. In police and fire department examples, many

kinds of team-based incentive programs are being developed to reflect, for example, community policing

approaches.

The Task Force discovered an increase in the use

of “gainsharing” (i.e. when savings are accomplished,

some of that is shared with workers), particularly to

help teams focus upon achieving savings and efficiencies. Sometimes the gainsharing shows up in employees’ pay; sometimes it takes the form of more resources

for training, better equipment and other means to improve productivity and the quality of work life. The

gainsharing is based upon team performance. King

County Metro/SEIU in Washington and the Portland

Water Bureau/AFSCME Council 75 in Oregon, have

prepared booklets that carefully explain their methodology in gainsharing and are available for others to review. (See Appendix D for contact persons.)

The Task Force also noted some helpful efforts to

correct a misuse of classification systems, namely that

of promoting strong performers and others to supervisory positions in order to reward them via increased

recognition and pay. By using other approaches to reward and compensate, this practice was being scaled

back and better means of recognition sought.

Care should be taken in any pay system reform,

however, particularly when compensation is linked and

dependent upon the measurement of individual skills

and performance. It is difficult to make fine distinctions among individuals. With the move towards teamoriented work or problem-solving in the context of partnerships, there could be a variety of difficulties with

any overemphasis on measuring individual performance

and skills. Nevertheless, these new developments deserve examination and the parties involved seemed

pleased with their efforts.

The Task Force also observed that there are other

ways that management and peers successfully recognize workers for a job well done. Task Force members

repeatedly heard workers comment that it is not just

money that motivates them to provide excellent service, it’s also the personal satisfaction that comes from

knowing that they are doing a good job and contributing expertise to better service -- and getting some recognition for it from peers and the community. Farsighted managers and union leaders understand the

valuable role that recognition plays. A wide range of

formal and informal employee recognition programs

connected to team and individual work were observed.

In some sense, the very act of becoming engaged in
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

service improvement provides important personal recognition and intrinsic motivation, but awards, banquets,

letters, praise and other forms can add to the sense of

achievement as long as it is customized to have meaning to those involved.

Evaluation and Assistance for Accountability:

Interestingly, the Task Force found many examples in

public schools, public safety and other sectors where

the disciplinary system was simplified by agreement

of the parties. These improved systems were developed

by joint agreement and characterized by joint approaches to necessary administrative and legislative

bodies or through contract change. They often featured

significant peer review, coaching and judgment, as seen

with the AFT locals and school administrators in the

Toledo and Cincinnati, Ohio schools. This cooperative process began in 1985 with a program of peer assistance and evaluation. The intent is to help new or

struggling teachers. Master or consulting teachers intervene as mentors, assisting and evaluating such teachers. New teachers must pass an “apprenticeship” in

two years or be subject to removal under a review process in which the effective recommendation comes from

a review panel, thus avoiding arbitrations over dismissals. (For more detail, see “Snapshot: Cincinnati.”)

Where employees are engaged in high performance workplace environments, all agree that ensuring full participation and performance by the entire peer

group is critical. Hence, some alternatives for traditional

discipline were sought and developed that focused upon

encouraging positive behavior versus the more traditional, complicated and negative disciplinary processes.

When necessary, the systems permit more effective discipline that is seen as fair and effective by both management and labor leadership. These types of changes

in coaching and disciplinary systems gain effectiveness

and credibility by their joint nature and are helped by

the work and presence of worker-selected employee

representatives.

Holding managers accountable: Just as there

are systems to hold employees accountable for performing their work, parallel actions should exist to ensure

managers are doing their jobs as well in the new environment. The emphasis -- as on the employee side --

should be on developing ways to assist managers to do

a better job. In addition to evaluation, coaching and

training, the more advanced workplaces are seriously

reviewing criteria for placement and promotion to supervisory positions to better select individuals with the

appropriate leadership skills for the new workplace.

Increased Training: Without increased training,

workers and managers have insufficient means to develop the necessary new skills and habits required to

engage in cooperative and service-oriented relationships. Although training is often cut off when looking

for cost savings, it is a critical ingredient for identifying and sustaining cost savings and service improvements and for producing a humane and effective workplace.

Nearly all of the successful examples included

significantly increased training, most often sponsored

on a joint labor-management basis, that improved service and the underlying capacity to resolve problems.

In addition to joint training in workplace relations and

problem-solving, such as conflict resolution, this included retraining for redeployment in response to

changed job responsibilities; cross-training, which resulted in skill upgrades; and training for workers and

managers in the analysis of work processes in order to

become more efficient and eliminate unnecessary steps.

Training activity went well beyond the initial stages of

instilling workplace cooperation to include ongoing

training so that as new people came into the workforce,

they became knowledgeable about the way that workplace operated. Among the successes, jointly developed safety training can produce dividends, as in the

State of Connecticut/SEIU example described in Chapter One. Training workers and managers in better use

of budget, personnel and procurement systems also

produces dividends. Many successful jurisdictions

began to build some in-house capacity to conduct quality and other training, recognizing the constant need to

acquaint new entrants, transfers and the like, as well as

continuous management training.

Overall administration of civil service and personnel systems: To effectively accommodate labormanagement cooperation, civil service and personnel

systems must change from a rule-driven focus to one

of customer service emphasizing flexibility and responsiveness. In Hennepin County, Minnesota, Human Re-
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Organizational Structures and

Communication

Rarely was reorganization itself a primary tool to

gain service improvement. Instead, the changes came

about by adopting different approaches to accomplishing specific tasks, which usually included teams configured around a problem or project. These approaches

included:

Organization-wide labor-management committees and project teams: As at the Wisconsin

DILHR and in the Ohio models, a common mechanism

was the presence of a top-level labor-management committee to guide the cooperative effort. Such committees must involve the key players (the people considered leaders on both sides), usually with equal representation of both labor and management. These joint

committees often appoint specific teams to find solutions to problems needing attention. This top leadership group ordinarily deals with a wide range of labormanagement issues and policy questions, depending

upon the nature of the agreement and the maturity of

the relationship. This group, in various ways, will sponsor or oversee joint teams put together for specific tasks

or projects. This does not substitute for normal organizational lines of accountability; rather it complements

them.

One example of such a joint committee structure

and subgroup in operation is the Joint Labor-Management Committee of the Washington State Department

of Labor and Industries. Under the umbrella of the

labor contract, this committee established a sophisticated and practical set of protocols and practices regarding the formation, resources and responsibility of

quality teams and the way in which the overall labormanagement committee would accept and implement

teams’ recommendations. (Three unions represent the

department’s 2,600 employees: AFSCME, IBEW and

Plumbers and Pipefitters.) The agency’s quality initiative included a large training component to ensure that

team members and facilitators had the appropriate skills.

Among many initiatives, the joint labor-management

effort included a large data automation project that dramatically reduced the time needed to process worker

compensation claims. The new technology, which alsources Administrator Charles Sprafka noted that cooperative labor-management efforts began a decade ago,

and so predate current efforts such as “reinventing government” or Total Quality Management. Working with

AFSCME Council 14, the county has enacted changes

in civil service as well as other cooperative labor-management efforts to meet the challenge of health care

costs. Sprafka noted that while his department has become much more customer-oriented, it still continues

to operate within merit principles. That concept was

underscored by testimony from Linda Hanson of the

Iowa Department of Personnel, who noted that it is important to remember that it is systems -- not the merit

principles -- that often are not working to provide the

flexibility and responsiveness called for in customerdriven programs.

Procurement and Other Administrative

Systems Changes and Improvements

Governments often have internal procedures that

interfere with productivity and service effectiveness.

As Mayor Stephen Goldsmith of Indianapolis has observed, “Contrary to their undeserved poor public image, most civil servants are hard-working and talented,

and they know a lot more about how to do their jobs

well than mayors or union presidents do. The problem

is that they historically have been trapped in a system

that punishes initiative, ignores efficiency and rewards

big spenders. It’s time to free them from the shackles

of bureaucracy.”

Labor and management together can identify barriers imposed by procurement and other systems and

jointly identify changes. As a result, procurement and

administrative systems typically are simplified with an

increased customer orientation.

Rather than seeking overall procurement system

reform, the parties are able to focus their efforts on the

areas that most hinder effective service. This targeted

approach, driven by jointly identified service imperatives, is seen as the more effective route to administrative reforms.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

lows for instant retrieval of files by computer instead

of the previous two to three weeks under the old microfiche system, cost $19 million. It is projected to save

the state $10 million a year.

Concerning project teams and committees, the

Task Force observed and survey results suggest that

employees in union and non-union situations prefer that

representatives not be selected by management. Even

in non-union settings, employees involved in decisionmaking committees for which they were not selected

by their peers, found that their standing and capacity to

act would have been enhanced if they had been chosen

by their co-workers rather than by management. Thus,

in either case, labor-management cooperation towards

service results is better achieved if workers select their

own representatives. When employees have an opportunity to select representatives to reflect their viewpoints

and interests, the results of participative teams and committees and similar activities are more likely to be

trusted, accepted and implemented.

Work teams: Organizations successfully employing labor-management cooperation often find themselves moving toward flattened hierarchies with less

dependency upon reorganization, a popular tool of the

past few decades. The ongoing use of work teams (different from the often temporary project teams described

above) and team leaders leads to a need for fewer supervisors, many of whom will be redeployed. The teams

themselves can display better coordination, moving

easily across departmental and divisional lines, resulting in better project information.

Changes and uncertainties for supervisors and

mid-level managers: It is common to find a reduction

in supervisory layers where a cooperative, participative relationship is in place. Several reasons were identified for this trend:

1. The roles of supervisors and mid-level managers change significantly as does the role of union stewards. Supervisors and mid-level managers generally

serve as the link between employees and management

and therefore possess significant implementation powers. In the participative arrangements, however, employees tend to deal more directly with upper management. The roles of many mid-level union or management officials become more facilitative, resulting in less

clarity regarding their authority, but with more real influence in the workplace.

2. The use of self-managed teams and team leaders reduces the need for supervisors.

3. In reversing old patterns in job classifications,

many supervisory positions are removed with the acknowledgment that these positions initially were created as a way to get around restrictions within classification systems that precluded higher pay for skilled

professionals at the top of their classification. An end

to this practice is welcomed by labor, management and

human resource professionals alike. More positive programs also have helped.

As an example, the Cincinnati Public School District and the American Federation of Teachers developed a Master Teacher Program which recognizes and

gives more responsibility to particularly skilled teachers. This eliminates the practice of pulling highly skilled

teachers out of the classroom and promoting them to

administrative positions in order to increase their pay.

Now, these teachers receive a higher level of compensation and recognition commensurate with their skills,

while remaining in the classroom to do what they do

best.

4. Not surprising, this changing role and status

may produce confusion and some anxiety among affected mid-managers and union officers. Therefore, it

is not uncommon to find these mid-level people resistant to the cooperative structures. Interestingly, at least

on the management side, the job security of these middle

managers often is more at risk than either top-level

managers or front-line employees. Where the cooperative relationships prove successful, the roles and needs

of this middle management group are usually addressed

in some explicit fashion. More should be learned about

this dynamic, as these individuals can be an important

source of resistance to change.

Improved communications: A major reform,

which may seem like common sense, is that work-related communications also improves within teams,

among teams, between front-line workers and management and across departments. This is done through use

of regular or improved team meeting arrangements that

cross traditional lines and draw better upon group problem-solving skills.
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

The Task Force also observed that when cooperative relationships begin, it normally is important for

labor and management to communicate with the rest

of the organization and key outside parties about the

nature of the new relationship and what activities are

taking place. This often is done through newsletters, email or other communication avenues the parties find

jointly useful. Also, there is much one-on-one discussion between leaders of the effort and skeptics.

Because cooperative partnerships are new -- and

possibly threatening -- it is important to provide information to allay fears. It is also important to invite comment and participation. The more inclusive the parties

can be at the outset and as the relationship progresses,

the easier it seems to be to gain acceptance for the new

approach.

Changing roles: In service-oriented, cooperative arrangements it is common -- and essential -- for

managers to move away from their traditional, hierarchical roles. As the private and public sector experience makes clear, to make this partnership succeed,

managers must be prepared to share decision-making

authority with employees and their unions and to encourage others to do the same. Union leaders must similarly be prepared to engage in responsible power sharing.

In cooperative partnerships, it is common to find

union local presidents and stewards serving as team

leaders, coordinators and facilitators. Union leadership

under these arrangements has a much greater responsibility for, and voice in, ensuring service delivery improvements. And this leadership proves pivotal to rapid

and effective movement to cooperative workplace partnerships. At the Massachusetts Highway Department,

for example, cooperation between labor and management has resulted in the role of union leaders changing

dramatically as they became much more involved with

determining how the actual work would be performed.

(See “Snapshot: MassHighway,” and the following section, “Changes in Labor-Management Relationships:

Change in Emphasis for Union Leadership”)

The roles of the human resources office, human

resource professionals and labor relations professionals also change with the adoption of cooperative programs. These individuals become more facilitative and

less regulatory. Increasingly, they serve as sources for

objective information and for facilitation of problemsolving. For instance, in some successful programs,

the human resources office provides all information to

both sides on labor-management committees working

on benefits, health care and other workplace issues.

Also, rather than being management’s lead in labor negotiations, human resource and labor relations

officials now work more substantially with department

and program directors in labor negotiations, rather than

going it alone. Changing roles often is one of the most

significant variables in building cooperative relationships. Human resource and labor relations professionals, whose roles changed in this large way, reported a

much greater degree of job satisfaction as they become

increasingly focused upon service outcomes, rather than

process, and become a meaningful part of improving

service delivery.

Maintaining Continuity

As administrations change -- either labor or management, but particularly on the management side --

there is an inherent danger that the cooperative structure, and particularly the trust that underlies the structure, will be jeopardized. There is evidence in both the

private and public sectors that moments of leadership

turnover represents a danger point in the life of a partnership, especially in the early years.

While recognizing the prerogative of newly

elected officials to implement change and to promote

agendas on which they were elected, the Task Force

observed that parties involved with cooperative structures were concerned that the more productive relationships might be dismantled for political or other reasons, despite their effectiveness. In communities where

such turnover has been experienced, several strategies

seemed fruitful.

Where there is a collective bargaining agreement,

one tactic observed was the negotiation of a cooperative structure into a contract. In one example, a school

superintendent, when confronted with the cooperative

structure in the contract, after some brief observation

reportedly responded, “Well then, I guess we’d better

make it work.” He then suggested a more comprehen-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

sive structure in the next contract, which was agreed

upon by both management and labor. Sometimes the

cooperative structure is put into a local ordinance, thus

ensuring basic continuity.

Whatever the specific program objectives may be,

it would seem a useful priority to find ways to preserve

the infrastructure that is working to produce excellence.

In addition, it is common to see union or management

officials use their personal or institutional standing to

fight for cooperative programs through a leadership

transition. Generally speaking, the union is in a stronger position to make this effort, but the Task Force saw

managers who also were vocal and effective champions for maintaining the cooperative structure and approach.

Such strategies include building community support for the improvements, often by communicating the

benefits attained and sustained by successful partnerships. When local community leaders visibly support

cooperative approaches, for instance, it becomes more

difficult for skeptical elected or appointed leaders to

dismantle them. Often, community leaders who recognize the benefits of the partnership are able to discuss

the value with newly elected officials.

Some union and management officials alike realize it is important to develop a succession strategy before leadership changes occur, and to ensure that the

cooperative structure is one that would serve any leader

striving for excellence. Thus, leadership development

on both sides can help avoid dismantling programs of

a successful partnership.

Continuity of union leadership or contractual provisions appear to be extremely helpful in maintaining

a cooperative, service-focused partnership. Continuity

of a mayor or city manager also is important, especially

in non-union situations: most workplace service partnerships and other significant employee participation

arrangements in non-union situations are sponsored by

long-serving chief executives.

In the end, however, longevity of a program will

depend mostly upon its acceptance by the front-line

workers. The Task Force saw and heard that the more

people involved -- workers and managers -- the more

ingrained the cooperative model became. As the sense

of ownership for this approach spreads among many,

cooperative labor-management relations simply become

the way of doing business. As the approach continues

to meet with success, labor and management increasingly will feel more secure in the new processes, making it more difficult for others to ignore or remove the

process. 

Changes in Labor-Management Relationships

There are changes in labor-management relationships that go along with cooperative, service-oriented

workplace partnerships. Conflictual or even many traditional approaches to collective bargaining do not foster cooperation and partnerships affecting service improvements. Instead, where the Task Force found service improvements arising from cooperation, it found

workplace relationships and other aspects of collective

bargaining practices used much more constructively.

Making a change from a conflictual approach in

labor-management relations will not be an overnight

process. Most importantly, no such change can take

place unless both labor and management are prepared

to accept each other’s legitimate role. The Task Force

noted some important features that characterize productive labor-management relationships that support

participation and service improvement:

Reduction in Conflict

To the extent that both sides can reduce unnecessary conflict, their energies can be focused upon improving service and working together. The Task Force

saw many examples of better contract resolution, primarily through the use of interest-based bargaining and

similar techniques; and improved grievance resolution,

through mediation and other uses of alternative dispute

resolution principles. A wide variety of approaches have

evolved to fit local circumstances.

Stephen Goldberg, professor of law at Northwestern University, testifying about grievance mediation,

suggested that it assists the overall labor-management

relationship in several ways:

• Mediation teaches settlement skills and generally improves how parties get along, which has positive, spill-over effects on the overall relationship. In
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

fact, the goal of mediation is to put all arbitrators and

mediators out of business eventually by teaching problem-solving skills to the parties.

• The mediator has both mediation and arbitration experience and gives an advisory opinion on the

spot.

• Mediation is off the record and “no risk.”

• The process is faster and cheaper than arbitration as no attorneys are involved.

• Mediation has few drawbacks. Mainly, it could

discourage settlement at earlier stages and adds a step

if arbitration follows mediation as a matter of course.

Goldberg said results from mediation are demonstrable. He presented figures showing that in the grievance mediation systems, 83 percent of grievances are

resolved without arbitration. Among his examples, he

described a 95 percent success rate with grievance

mediation of discipline and discharge grievances in a

previously difficult corporate environment.

In a private utility example presented by Boston

Edison and Local 369 of the Utility Workers Union of

America, a new vice president for labor relations approached Local 369 about a mediation program to reduce a large backlog and reduce future conflict in the

collective bargaining relationship. After a successful

program of training in grievance mediation and expedited problem resolution, the parties went on to a much

changed labor-management relationship. The old

phrase so often used previously to prevent resolution -

- “that will set a precedent” -- was set aside and problems then were rapidly resolved.

In contrast to the contentiousness of the past, the

new relationship was characterized by rapid settlement

of a six year collective bargaining agreement that used

to be a highly acrimonious event, and a long-term nolayoff and retraining program to prepare the company

and the workforce for changes coming in the utilities

industry. Problem-solving methods that began with a

joint effort to resolve grievances and reduce the backlog has migrated to every part of the workplace relationship and to overall business planning, and includes

a long-term reform in the selection and development

of managers. Also changed is the development of a

more positive, service orientation for personnel department staff and first line managers.

Leadership commitment, training, and effective

use of outside neutral facilitation helped the parties

move to a productive partnership following the success of improved conflict resolution and the trust that

then developed. This sequence of events -- improved

conflict resolution leading to a transformation of the

overall relationship, leading to a greater service orientation and a more satisfactory work environment -- was

a common theme of Task Force observations.

Another good example is the City of Phoenix,

Arizona and the Phoenix Firefighters Association Local 493. The two have jointly sponsored a novel, annual retreat of labor-management leadership since 1984

to deal with collective bargaining issues. Originally

conceived with the assistance of the Federal Mediation

and Conciliation Service, the retreat is used to tackle

issues labor and management feel they can resolve.

Similarly, both sides agree not to allow difficult issues

to distract them from working on areas of agreement.

Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution for

Rights Guaranteed By Law and for Other

Workplace Disputes

Noting that resolution of conflicts helps create the

necessary trust for a cooperative workplace relationship, the Task Force looked into efforts and ideas for

better conflict resolution. Testimony was invited from

knowledgeable parties and reference was made to the

extensive work of the Dunlop Commission. This led

the Task Force to discussions of grievance mediation

and other means of resolving contract disputes. But

there were also significant vestiges of other types of

conflicts affecting employees in union and non-union

workplaces, usually conflicts over statutory workplace

rights.

In Chapter IV of its May 1994 Fact Finding Report, the Dunlop Commission explored in some detail1

the topic of “Employment Regulation, Litigation and

Dispute Resolution” and reviewed some of the difficulties and expense in resolving a variety of workplace

1

 See Chapter IV of the Fact Finding Report of the Commission on the Future of WorkerManagement Relations, May 1994,

pp. 105-122 and Chapter IV of the Report and Recommendations,

December, 1994, pp. 25-34.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

disputes through established administrative procedures

and the courts. It also noted that the dwindling resources, clogging of courts and administrative processes, and the complexity of enforcement of statutory

workplace rights leaves conflicts outstanding for years,

some virtually never to be resolved. In this regard the

Commission reported difficulties in employees’ gaining access to resolution and closure in disputes under

such diverse statutes as those dealing with employment

discrimination, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, as

well as the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and other programs of

the Labor Department.

Illustrating some of these difficulties, on page 113

in its Fact Finding Report, the Dunlop Commission

summarized that:

“The administrative procedures and remedies used

to enforce workplace laws vary widely, involve multiple agencies from different departments of the federal government, and are administered on a stand-alone

basis, with little or no regard for overlap or conflicting

requirements.”

“The number of employment suits in federal

courts increased by 430 percent between 1971 and 1991.

Another 10,000 cases charging unlawful discharge are

filed annually in state courts.”

“The EEOC handles approximately 90,000 complaints per year, compared to 56,000 in 1980.” (Elsewhere, on page 12, the Dunlop Commission notes that

only 10 percent of these cases are eventually filed in

court, most by individuals, not the agency.)

“Access to legal relief through the courts is limited for the majority of employees whose earnings are

too low to cope with the high costs and contingency

fee requirements of private lawyers.”

Noting these barriers to closure of the conflicts in

these legal and regulatory disputes, significant attention in that Commission’s proceedings was then devoted to the exploration of alternative dispute resolution methods, including mediation and arbitration. A

series of quality standards was adopted in the Final

Report, pp. 30-33, intended to guide the formation of

any private dispute resolution alternatives that might

develop in the private sector, where there is already

some admired, as well as controversial, experience with

ADR systems for employment disputes.

Concerned about the effect of unresolved conflict

on the possibilities for developing cooperative workplace relationships and also concerned about the lack

of access to justice, the Secretary’s Task Force decided

to look further into the possibilities for addressing such

conflicts in the state and local government workplace

setting. The Task Force invited comment from several

witnesses who appeared before the Dunlop Commission on the applicability of such mechanisms in the

public sector to resolve disputes that otherwise might

not have a sufficient channel for fair and prompt resolution.

Overall, it appeared that the public workplace

might be more receptive to such alternative systems,

particularly to setting them up in a manner that protected the fact and appearance of neutrality and independence, and providing employees access to courts if

they felt their case was meritorious or did not choose

to use the ADR system. Among other controversies,

one of the stumbling blocks to widespread acceptance

of such systems in the private sector was the insistence

of some private employers and employer representatives that use of a company ADR system be a pre-condition of employment, precluding access to courts. The

Dunlop report reviews some of the legal history and

experience with this sort of arrangement in the Fact

Finding report, cited above, and in its Final Report, recommends strongly against such pre-employment requirements. This Task Force agrees.

In exploring possibilities in the public sector, there

was more receptivity and fewer barriers to such ADR

mechanisms. As part of its effort to ensure a workplace environment where conflict does not unduly interfere with cooperation, the Task Force created a subgroup to further explore the possibilities and conditions

for introducing more extensive use of ADR systems

into the public workplace for resolving conflict over

these statutory and other mechanisms. Recognizing

the need for systems that are fair, well-understood, effective and which clearly preserve employee and employer rights, the Task Force consulted further with the

witnesses who appeared, as well as others in the employer, employee and workplace civil rights commu-
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Quality Standards and Key Principles for

Effective Alternative Dispute Resolution

Systems for Rights Guaranteed by Public

Law and for Other Workplace Disputes2

• A neutral mediator or arbitrator who is

trained in and applies expertise in the

substantive area of law, and diversity and

balance in the pool of available neutrals.

• A fair and simple method by which the

employee can secure the necessary

 information to present his or her claim,

 including the right to discovery and

 deposition.

• A fair method of cost sharing between the

employer and employees to ensure

 affordable access to the system for all

 employees.

• The right to independent representation

• A range of remedies equal to those

 available through litigation

• A written opinion by the arbitrator

 explaining the rationale or the result,

demonstrating appropriate application of

relevant statutes.

• Sufficient judicial review to ensure that

the result is consistent with the governing

laws and that the process is consistent

with these standards.

• ADR available to all employees of

employer without preference or limitation

• Employee agreement to mediate or

arbitrate shall be voluntary and postdispute.

• Where an employer agrees to be party to

such an ADR system, litigation will only

be pursued should the employee refuse to

remain within the ADR system.

• If an employee opts for litigation, he or she

can only re-enter the system by mutual

agreement.

• Employees should receive clear notice,

including but not limited to right to counsel, to ensure that they are informed of

their rights and alternatives for pursuing

those rights.

• ADR should normally not be used in cases

that represent tests of significant legal

principles or class action.

• There should be an equitable arrangement

for compensating neutrals that does not

influence their role or rehire considerations.

• Arrangements should be made for suitable

reimbursement of employees’ representation fees that encourages access and

appropriate use of the system.

• There should be joint selection of the

mediators and arbitrators, or an agreed

upon procedure for their appointment.

• ADR systems not conforming with these

quality standards should be challengeable.

See Appendix H for further details.

2 Separate from the work of the Secretary's Task

Force, the agreed upon “Protocols of the Special Task

Force on Alternative Dispute Resolution,” co-chaired by

labor, management and neutral leaders has carefully studied these issues and has useful guidance on selection and

performance of arbitrators and mediators. These “Protocols” are reproduced in Appendix H of this report.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

nities who have followed these issues.

The result is a set of principles which the Task

Force recommends as necessary to a workable and fair

ADR system which it believes would have broad acceptability, and would not interfere in the exercise of

collective bargaining rights. In order to meet local conditions and be seen as fair, such systems would need to

be set up as a neutral forum by local parties.

The Task Force encourages the voluntary development of such systems and urges national employer,

labor and rights groups to assist local parties in developing such systems.

Included with this chapter is a table (p.82) that is

a general summary of the principles recommended by

this Task Force. The first seven are drawn from the

Dunlop report, the remainder are added from the work

of this Task Force, but appear consistent with the

Dunlop principles. Appendix G details these principles

and describes key administrative and other features.

Contract negotiations and administration

focus upon service purpose

Where present in a cooperative relationship, the

collective bargaining agreement offers an established

infrastructure to communicate, problem-solve and provide leadership. In some instances, the contracts are

changed to provide a greater focus upon service purposes. Where the contract is used as the foundation of

cooperation, it becomes a more flexible and serviceoriented instrument and less focused upon legalistic

resolutions of disputes.

Similarly, administration of collective bargaining

agreements becomes considerably more connected to

the service-improvement effort and the need to improve

the labor-management relationship. Contract administration is often explicitly or implicitly carried out, or at

least guided by, a senior-level joint labor-management

team. The joint committee is able to provide a broad

perspective on the relationship between service needs

and workplace needs, allowing resolution of contract

problems that are respectful both of the contract and of

customer service. The parallel need exists for resolving workplace conflicts in non-bargaining situations or

with exempt employees.

Most conflicts are resolved with reference to the

service and the cooperative philosophy, and not isolated. Grievances are sometimes handled in a separate

process, and sometimes part of the service effort, depending on how the parties choose to do it.

Quality Improvement Efforts and Bargaining

The Task Force saw two primary approaches to

the relationship between an organization’s “continuous

quality improvement” and its collective bargaining relationship: Some relationships purposefully separate

quality improvement procedures from the bargaining

relationship; Others integrate it with the bargaining relationship.

For instance, the state of Ohio, which has a comprehensive labor-management and service improvement

relationship, consciously separates bargaining from

quality improvement initiatives. The city of Portland,

Maine, chose a more explicitly integrated way.

Regardless of which approach, it is important that

the relationship between quality efforts and the bargaining process be clear so that issues can find their way to

the appropriate forum. Secondly, the decision whether

or not to combine the two should be decided by those

directly involved based upon their collective judgment

on what would work best for them.

However, the informal relationship of quality efforts to bargaining is always present: It is the same

people with the same skills. More fundamentally, service improvements require changes in the way work is

done, thus touching upon bargaining subjects. It is impossible to separate service quality discussion from

discussion of underlying work practices and systems.

Frequently, the level of trust gradually builds up so that

there is some informal integration of the two processes

even when kept formally separate. In non-bargaining

settings, the quality effort and the functioning and structure of the formal personnel system also have inevitable linkages for change.

Change in Emphasis for Union Leadership

Under a cooperative model, union leaders find the

focus of their roles shifting. As opposed to the old assumption that union leaders sometimes spend 90 per-
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

cent of their time settling grievances and other issues

of conflict for a minority of the workers, they now are

engaged in leading service improvement and cost effectiveness efforts -- things in which 90 percent of the

employees want to engage.

“My job used to be to go around and ask people

what grievances they had. My job is now to go around

asking people what ideas they have to improve this job,”

related Frank Borges, President of SEIU Local 285,

who gained first-hand experience with labor management cooperation in the Massachusetts Highway Department. (See “Snapshot: MassHighway.”)

Local union leaders in these partnerships now

spend a great deal of time educating their members on

how to participate and how to become involved in the

cooperative process without fear of downgrading or job

loss. Differences between labor and management are

settled on a more informal basis, closer to the source of

any conflicts.

As Steve Fantauzzo, executive director of Indiana Council 62, AFSCME, who has been intimately

involved with the City of Indianapolis’s move to labormanagement cooperation, put it: “My job is to get

people involved, one at a time, and the more of them I

get involved, the more excited they get about it.”

It is a matter of Task Force record that union leaders who testified spoke of the increased satisfaction from

the work they are doing in the cooperative, participatory environment. Also, contrary to another common

assumption, union leaders who were engaged in cooperative, service oriented efforts found themselves most

often re-elected.

Change in Emphasis for Labor Negotiators

Common to a cooperative relationship is that the

two parties become more focused on problem-solving

than winning and more focused on services than legal

issues. Thus, management spokespersons, too, report

enjoying greater job satisfaction as they become more

involved in resolving service issues.

Cooperative or Interest-Based Bargaining

Cooperative bargaining normally is a part of service improvement efforts. At the outset, participants

usually lack an understanding of how to make the shift

away from adversarial relations. Usually and most effectively, that can be overcome through the assistance

of neutral facilitators and training to create a more cooperative, service-oriented negotiating process. In instances of complete lack of trust between labor and management, the Task Force saw successful examples of a

neutral, third party coming in to jointly teach and later

help both sides use new skills and processes to cooperate and team problem-solve.

In Oregon, for instance, a representative of the

Oregon Nurses Association testified that she had developed an ulcer when the union and an employer had

been involved in traditional bargaining. When they finally turned to interest-based negotiations following

training by a state mediator, it was so successful that

now they “wouldn’t do it any other way.”

In Ulster County, New York, with a workforce of

about 1,600, a joint labor-management committee was

established 20 years ago in the collective bargaining

agreement with Civil Service Employees Association,

Local 856. According to testimony from the parties,

the relationship did not become a truly productive joint

problem-solving team until nearly 10 years later. In

1985-86, the county, union and state employment relations board received a grant from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service that included extensive

process and communications training and the hiring of

a full-time coordinator to facilitate the meetings and

the work of the group. The cooperative relationship is

now characterized by trust. As in many other successful relationships, the parties testified that now “you can’t

tell who is management and who is labor in meetings.”

There also has been a salutary effect on collective bargaining: In 1992, the agreement took 24 months toreach.

In 1995, agreement was reached in “only a few days.”

Cooperative bargaining does require both sides

to essentially “leave their credentials at the door.” They

then are able to concentrate on how to solve problems

rather than play traditional roles Again, this type of

approach generally involves significant use of smaller

subcommittees that come together often to solve current problems.

The following table illustrates a useful view of

the contrast between traditional and cooperative bargaining.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

TRADITIONAL BARGAINING

PREPARATION

Scrutinize the existing contract and survey constituencies to identify each and every provision that might

be improved.

Prepare formal demands and proposals, often in the

form of rewritten or new contract articles.

Keep demands and goals more or less “secret” from

the other side until they are revealed at the table.

Speculate about the other party’s demands and

strategy.

One View of the Contrast between Traditional Collective Bargaining and Problem-Solving or

Interest Based Bargaining3

COMMUNICATION

Maintain contact with both constituencies and public

through various media to promote positions on

issues.

After settlement, prepare press releases describing

gains.

 Continued

COMMUNICATION

Issue joint communications to constituencies and

public on progress of negotiations.

Prepare a joint press release describing mutual gains.

INTEREST BASED BARGAINING

PREPARATION

Consider whether there are compelling concerns

related to the existing contract. Discuss those issues

openly and widely, well prior to the start of bargaining.

Focus on major concerns that may require a contract

change to resolve. Do not draft contract language or

draw up demands, but do contemplate possible

solutions.

Enter high-level, joint, informal, preliminary meetings to discuss broad concerns and goals, identify and

limit the issues, and set the tone for negotiations.

3

 Submitted by Thomas Hustoles as part of his testimony to the Task Force on January 10, 1995. It was developed by Dinah Rink,

Director of Collective Bargaining and Contract Administration, Western Michigan University, and Professor Arnie Johnston, American

Association of University Professors, Western Michigan University.
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

TRADITIONAL BARGAINING

NEGOTIATIONS

Exchange demands in contract language. Try to

obtain all the other party’s demands before revealing

all of yours.

Prepare and exchange formal counter-proposals.

Obscure your “bottom line” by keeping many proposals on the table and modifying positions slowly.

Settle minor matters first, leaving “real” concerns for

later marathon sessions.

Maintain bargaining team discipline. Permit only

authorized team members to speak and, especially, to

make proposals.

Save sidebar meetings of chief negotiators and/or

subcommittees until late in negotiations.

Initial final written agreements. Management

prepares new contract for union to review.

INTEREST BASED BARGAINING

NEGOTIATIONS

Enter into a discussion of concerns and possible

solutions, keeping written exchanges minimal,

informal, and explanatory.

Approach each other’s concerns as joint problems for

mutual resolution.

Discuss your major goals immediately and openly.

Encourage the exchange of ideas by team members,

recognizing that such discussions can help solve

problems.

Use sidebar meetings whenever they appear useful,

early or late in the process.

Reach a “meeting of the minds,” then jointly draft

contract language in subcommittee for examination

and approval by teams. Discuss loose ends (with

prior commitment to deal reasonably with any

overlooked matters). Jointly prepare, review, and

proofread new contract.

POST-BARGAINING RELATIONS

Implement the new contract, with an eye to catching

problems early to facilitate informal resolution.

Maintain a problem-solving approach through regular

discussions between contract administrators, as well

as periodic, high-level, informal meetings. Try to

solve problems promptly and reduce agenda for

future negotiations.

Enforce the new contract.

Maintain record of contract problems with a view to

preparing demands for future negotiations

POST-BARGAINING RELATIONS
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Recognize Electoral and Union Politics

Both sides must recognize the importance and

impact of electoral and union politics upon labor-management relations. If they don’t, they generally have a

much harder time dealing with each other. By better

recognition of factors like the timing of elections and

each other’s respective constituencies, the parties can

better resolve service problems and other issues.

Don’t Hold the Relationship Hostage to Other

Issues

Many parties reported that it is important not to

hold the labor-management cooperative relationship

hostage to a particular issue, no matter how difficult.

In fact, those who refused to engage in such tactics as,

“No, we won’t talk until this issue is resolved,” but

rather kept up the dialogue, seem to have the most success with the more difficult issues. 

Starting Along the Road to Improvement

As this chapter describes, there are many key ingredients to establishing and sustaining a cooperative

labor-management relationship in pursuit of excellence

in the public workplace. The Task Force found that there

is no single route to follow when embarking upon this

new path. The challenge for labor and management

leaders is to find the right mix of ingredients that can

begin and sustain this better way of working together

in each service or community. This challenge also provides an unparalleled opportunity for creative leaders

to build upon the best practices, to experiment with

innovative approaches and to forge productive partnerships that fit the local circumstances. Managers, elected

officials, administrators, and citizens all benefit from

employee participation and involvement in determining how best to provide public services. 
CHAPTER . 4

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Improving the delivery of public

services through labor-management cooperation

“isn’t about hitting home runs,” says Steve

Wall, director of Ohio’s Office of Quality

Services. “This is about hitting single after

single after single after single. You score a lot

more runs that way.”1

Steve Wall and Paul Goldberg, executive director of the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA), an affiliate of the

American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees, made a presentation to

the Task Force of their comprehensive cooperative labor-management relationship. As they

explained, in the three years since Ohio

launched its Quality Services through Partnership (QStP) initiative, more than 100 improvement teams have scored numerous, tangible

results that are adding up to increased customer

satisfaction and cost savings through reduced

errors, elimination of delays and increased

employee productivity. (See below, “Highlights

of Improvement Teams” and Appendix D)

The purpose of QStP is to transform

state government into an organization where

employees work together to continuously

improve how work is done. Ohio Office of

Quality Services materials assert, “We must

unleash each employee’s creativity and identify

new ways to do our jobs more effectively. QStP

supplies us with the knowledge and tools that

will enable us to streamline the bureaucracy,

analyze problems and improve our ability to

respond to customer needs.”

Central to the success of QStP is the

real partnership between labor and management

to improve service delivery, says OCSEA’s

Goldberg. QStP evolved from an earlier Total

Quality Management Program after Governor

George Voinovich was persuaded that the real

key to quality improvement was cooperation

with the state’s five unions.

Today, Voinovich says that without

labor support, any total quality management

efforts will fail. “My feeling is that labor is key

to this whole thing.”2

 This is from a politician

who spent his first term battling with the Ohio

Civil Service Employees Association over a

new collective bargaining agreement and was

elected on a platform of privatizing services.

Goldberg is similarly startled by the

governor’s response. “If you had asked me on

January 7, 1991, whether we were going to

have this kind of relationship, I’d have said,

‘No way.’ “3

It is clear that both Goldberg and

Voinovich have worked hard to ease the traditional stances of labor and management.

Today, Voinovich does not try to sell

QStP as “a way to do more with less.” In fact,

contract language has been written to ensure

that QStP will not result in layoffs, and thus

employees feel free to make improvements

even if they result in fewer workers in that

particular agency or department.

And Goldberg, who admits that “some

of the older labor people might think that young

turks like me have been co-opted,” says he can

handle the accusation if that’s what it takes to

get his members some say in how they do their

jobs.

While the state and the unions have

agreed to keep the QStP initiative separate from

the collective bargaining process, it was noted

during the Task Force’s hearings that collective

bargaining and QStP are like parallel railroad

tracks that seem likely to converge at some

distant point. At the present time, the parties are

establishing trust, building a record of success

and learning to work together -- all skills that

are slowly creeping into their handling of a

range of issues. For instance, QStP has reduced

1 Jonathan Walters, “TQM, Surviving The

Cynics,” Governing, September 1994, 40-45. 3 Ibid.

2 Ibid.

Snapshot: . STATE . O F . OHIO
Snapshot: . STATE . O F . OHIO

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

union grievances even though that was not one

of its objectives.

The QStP State Steering Committee

consists of equal numbers of union and management leaders. In an arrangement typical to

successful cooperative relationships, each

department also has a steering committee to

guide its QStP efforts made up of equal numbers of management and union personnel. To

make the leadership structure work, more than

500 union and management members attended

partnership training, called “Building Effective

Steering Committees.” Thus, QStP is developing a network of facilitators and a capacity for

providing in-house training in joint quality

improvement processes. Both union and management employees provide training and

facilitate teams throughout departments,

frequently co-facilitating or co-training with

their counterparts.

Approximately 10,000 of the 59,500

state employees have completed a 3-day

training program on QStP, another 5,000

employees have completed a shorter QStP

overview and 120 employees have completed

advanced training as QStP facilitators. “Quality

forums” are held monthly and draw an average

of 350 people. Each two-hour session brings

state employees in contact with people and

teams who have successfully used the tools and

techniques of QStP.

Ohio QStP initiatives are in the beginning stages of implementation and are focused

primarily on the first three steps of the state’s

strategic plan. The plan outlines specific “Steps

to Quality” that will:

1. Build awareness and commitment

of QStP with management and union leadership

through extensive training. This process goes on

continuously.

2. Develop the plan and structure,

including vision and values, partnerships,

quality leader and networks, steering committees, agency assessments and strategic planning.

3. Ready organizations for cultural

change, including preparing managers for

quality leadership, employees to work as team

members, union and management to work in

partnership, pilot learning programs and celebrate efforts.

4. Empower problem-solving at all

levels: Establish quality improvement teams;

push decision-making down to the lowest

possible level; implement employee ideas;

inter-agency teams to align organization’s

processes, and strengthen partnerships and

increase communication with all employees.

5. Integrate quality in all systems as

government’s business philosophy: Measure

success and progress based upon customer

requirements, renovate systems to reward team

efforts and encourage leadership, move from

hierarchies to networks, all agencies missiondriven and customer-focused, and develop

customer/supplier relationships with all

branches of government and the private sector.

The ultimate goal is to reach the time

when the principles, process and tools will

simply become the normal, preferred way of

doing business. Experts say it will take five to

10 years to achieve the final step, and that

people who try to move up the steps too quickly

will fail. But with persistence, patience and

continuous learning -- underscored by the

fundamental belief that incremental change is

more long-lasting than home runs -- the state of

Ohio intends to successfully reach its goal. ■
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Highlights of Improvement Teams

In addition to millions of dollars in

savings thus far,4

 each month, new improvement teams are formed as QStP steadily makes

it away through Ohio state government. Following are a few highlights of some QStP team

action and results:

Streamlining a process from 28 to five

days

The Ohio Department of Transportation

purchase-order process had been taking 28 days

from start to finish -- a source of constant

customer dissatisfaction. A team of people from

Purchasing, Accounting, Finance, Data Processing and a District came together to simplify the

process. Eventually, they implemented a fully

automated process that did away with most

paperwork.

Results: The processing time now

averages just five days -- an 82 percent reduction! Now, 15 percent of all requisitions are

processed in one day. Additional savings are

coming in because the new system uses so little

paper. Customer satisfaction has been restored.

Adding four years to vehicle life

The effective “life” of a dump truck is

about 11 years. After analyzing the factors

contributing to dump truck demise, a Department of Transportation team developed a plan

for extending the “life” of the fleet at minimal

cost.

Results: The team foresees a one-third

increase in a dump truck’s life span -- from 11

to 15 years. Since there are 129 vehicles in the

fleet, at a replacement cost of $55,000 each, the

potential savings are enormous.

Saving 59,000 work hours per year

Two accounting systems had been

operating side by side in the Ohio Department

of Transportation, leading to duplicate entries

and data in keeping track of equipment costs. A

team put together a consolidation plan, discontinuing the old system and merging data into the

newer system. The team was a true crossfunctional effort, bringing together people from

Finance, Accounting, Maintenance and a

District office.

Results: The improvement is saving

59,000 work hours a year, plus an additional

$5,800 in eliminated printing expense.

Trimming process time from 12 to 5 1/

2

weeks

The process to fill requests for bids, for

both services and highway materials, had long

been a time-consuming undertaking. The

Department of Transportation’s Bureau of

Purchasing set up a team to streamline the

process, eventually developing and implementing five improvement strategies, including a

revised procedure for batching bids.

Results: The average time for moving

from requisition submission to purchase award

has been cut in half -- from 12 to 5 1/2 weeks.

Yearly savings of $11,000

Some 150,000 work hours a year had

been spent processing two notorious forms to

record vehicle mileage and equipment use. A

team took shape, bringing together people from

Payroll & Federal Billing, Operations and

District Offices. Team members identified

better recording methods and ended up discontinuing the old forms.

Results: The work already is paying

off, saving the Department of Transportation at

least $11,000 annually. ■

4

 See Appendix D, p. 165 for a further description of overall program features and savings.
Snapshot: . STATE . O F . OHIO

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

EVERYONE HAS A ROLE TO PLAY

ENSURING THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

CAN MEET THE CHALLENGE

CHAPTER

FIVE

Making cooperative labor-management relations

that support service improvement the norm in government instead of the exception will

require ongoing leadership and assistance from the extensive network of organizations

and institutions to which labor and management belong, or can turn to for guidance or

support.

This support network must be ready to provide

assistance, training, encouragement and expertise to those labor and management leaders
CHAPTER . 5

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

across the country who demonstrate a willingness to

engage in a cooperative approach to relarionships focused upon public service improvements

Taking the first step requires courage and leadership from local labor and management leaders. In fact,

the Task Force observed numerous examples where

local leaders were much more willing to take risks when

they had assistance and backing from their peers, their

professional associations or other supportive institutions

and professionals. In addition, the Task Force saw a

direct connection between the success of these pioneering efforts and the level of assistance and encouragement local leaders received at the regional and national

level. If service excellence, particularly through labormanagement cooperation, is to become a reality in state

and local government, these institutions will necessarily play a key role. The Task Force encourages the necessary expansions, new efforts and related investments

needed to further develop these support capacities.

Who is in this support network? It’s a diverse

mix that includes:

• national and international unions, their staffs

and their regions or districts;

• organizations of elected officials at all levels --

local, state and national,

• employer associations,

• professional associations of personnel officers,

labor negotiators, budget officers and other professions;

• the various quality network organizations;

• neutral” resource organizations, such as state

labor relations boards or the Federal Mediation and

Conciliation Service;

• independent neutrals.

• universities and other training institutions; and

• private consulting and training organizations;

Each and every one of these groups can have a

valuable role to play in promoting labor-management

cooperation to improve public services. They can educate parties and provide them with new skills. They

can be catalysts for change. They can expose people to

new ideas, processes and strategies that lead to mutual

gains. They can serve as “institutional” memories to

assure continuity of the best practices. In professions

that have a high turnover rate (such as elected or politically appointed officials), providing institutional

memory even while responding to new ideas would

serve a particularly important purpose.

The intent of this chapter is to discuss the ways in

which these institutions can assert the necessary leadership and support to become powerful locomotives on

the track toward labor-management cooperation in the

pursuit of service improvement. 

Becoming an Agent of Change

As Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, observed, “We have a number of quality, collaborative, cooperative or problem-solving experiments

taking place around the country. Not nearly enough,

and certainly fewer than there will be next year, but the

point is we have taken the leap and there is no turning

back.”

This chapter highlights needed activities as well

as some activities currently underway by specific members of this support network. They represent a useful

start, but clearly the expansion of these types of activities is essential to the growth of labor-management

cooperation in pursuit of service improvements. In the

following observations, the Task Force suggests specific ways that members of this network can adopt more

active and enhanced roles to expand these activities. It

is important to keep in mind that these organizations or

institutions have considerable overlap of members as

well as types of support. 

Encouraging Progressive

Leadership Behavior

 Labor-management cooperation requires change

in relationships and processes and therefore requires

change in leadership knowledge and behavior. Institutions that orient, support and train these leaders have

an obligation to help people understand and adjust to

their new roles in productive workplace arrangements

for service improvement. This includes union and management leaders at all levels.

Thus, the national and international unions and
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

lationships would be particularly valuable in instances

where officials came into office following campaigns

premised on negative views of public employees. Perhaps the avoidance of campaigns “against” public employees, and instead, campaigns based on possibilities

for reform would speed the advent of cooperative service initiatives.

The Task Force saw first-hand the importance of

the services and support rendered by these peer organizations in changing officials’ perspectives, in opening

them to new possibilities, in giving them information

and ideas, even in assisting them in considering the

internal politics of their own organizations or communities so that they would assume the risks, take the steps,

and have the confidence to begin or persevere in a cooperative, service-oriented relationship.

For example, the Council of State Governments,

which has followed closely the Task Force’s activities,

serves as the institutional memory of a wide variety of

professions. Their outreach includes elected legislators, personnel and human resource directors, and finance officers, through the means of conferences, technical assistance and publications. The National Conference of State Legislatures is a primary resource

group for state legislators, tracking policy developments

throughout the country and sharing information with

its thousands of members and their staffs around the

country. The National League of Cities also offers a

widespread training and publications program affecting the knowledge base of mayors and other municipal

officials.

In addition to its work on national policy issues

affecting the cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors

has long had an informational service related to labormanagement relations. Its staff has closely followed

Task Force activities. Additionally, the Conference recently inaugurated a “best practices” session at its annual conference to share service improvement accomplishments and strategies. The role of front-line workers and the manner in which their involvement is developed could be an important dimension of such a

useful session. With two cities (Indianapolis and Louisville) recently winning Harvard/Ford Foundation Innovation awards for workplace service improvements

through cooperation, the Conference has much to contribute.

professional associations where labor and management

leaders tend to turn for advice, support, resources, and

expertise, must keep up with the changing times. These

institutions need to be ready to serve their members on

these questions of service improvements and cooperative relations. When these institutions are current and

active in the area, then the local players will have better information and expertise available.

Further, if the message from these different national labor and management institutions and information services is reasonably consistent -- i.e., that cooperation and employee participation creates an opportunity for mutual success -- they will serve to reinforce

each other. Consequently, it then would be more likely

that local parties would be able to engage in service

improvements through cooperation rather than perpetuate conflict over questions that traditionally have separated them.

The Task Force observed that a foundation of such

support is beginning to be laid through a variety of initiatives.

Management Organizations

Relatively few officials come to public office with

the background needed to successfully initiate serviceoriented cooperative relationships, or related service

issues. However, there are peer organizations or a set

of associations to which they can turn for orientation

or advice in making the transition from political candidates to stewards of a broad range of public services

and issues. These groups provide orientation, training

and technical assistance and learning from peers. They

provide forums in which to share policy goals and receive feedback.

These organizations are in an excellent position

to use their materials, their training, their staff and other

resources, to share lessons like those the Task Force

has learned regarding the accomplishments of cooperative labor-management relations in achieving service excellence. This will allow newly elected leaders,

who demonstrate an intention to apply these innovative approaches, to do so for the benefit of their communities.

Information on cooperative, service-oriented re-
CHAPTER . 5

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Similarly, the National Governors’ Association,

which brings together the nation’s governors to debate

and influence policy, helps new governors and their key

staff to hit the ground running through a mentors program and many other activities affecting management

and administration. This association also works with

sitting governors and their staffs and has several members on the forefront of labor-management cooperation

at the state level. Much could be identified and shared

to highlight how workplace partnerships are supporting service improvement -- and how this is happening

without regard to political party, but rather for the sake

of effective government.

The International City/County Managers Association has many members with comprehensive

municipal service responsibilities, some of whom enjoy workplace partnerships that produce greatly improved service results. This association has examples

to share in addition to its well-known program of publications, professional training requirements and other

services to help professional city managers become

leaders in innovative workplace practices leading to

service excellence.

The National Association of Counties (NACo)

provides new officials with a full-day orientation session, including training and education on labor-management cooperation and other issues. Randy Franke,

immediate past-president of NACo and a 17-year

Marion County, Oregon, commissioner, said the session is available upon entering office, usually in March-

-“the earlier the better.” Franke pointed to the pressing

need to aggressively market cooperation among elected

officials and then to follow up with the education and

training to build the needed skills. NACo, he said, can

use several approaches to spread the word about labormanagement cooperation, including achievement award

programs, a data base of projects and key contact people

as well as by holding conferences and issuing publications.

Important to the area of education are the efforts

being made by the National Association of School

Boards, the American Association of School Administrators, and the National Parent-Teacher Association, an independent, community-oriented organization

for the betterment of schools. The two management

organizations educate, encourage and provide technical assistance to elected boards and appointed administrators engaging in labor-management cooperation as

a strategy for improving public schools. The PTA can

help play a leveling role on the parties when old, confrontational habits threaten to disrupt cooperative approaches at the local level.

Representing university administrators, Thomas

Hustoles, a partner in the Michigan based law firm of

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, cited experience

from many examples where “mutual gains” or collaborative bargaining were superior to traditional bargaining, and where sharing rather than withholding budget

and related information among the parties went a longer

way toward solving problems. His firm has had experience with these more productive kinds of bargaining

relationships, helping resolve financial and other problems universities face and making effective use of faculty input. He also described the use of arbitration and

other conflict resolution practices as useful alternatives

to litigation, solving the problem more quickly and with

less negative impact on trust in the relationship. Experiences like these by innovative professionals, perhaps,

could be shared effectively with peers in other states

under the auspices of the appropriate professional organizations.

Labor Organizations

Everywhere the Task Force went, it heard the same

thing: Employees yearn for a voice in decision-making

at the workplace. They crave the ability to help create a

more efficient public service and to be respected for

who they are and what they accomplish. Front-line

workers have something to contribute to how the job

can be done better and more cost-effectively. Unions

have a strong motivation to help their members have a

voice and a clear role to play. And, as the Task Force

has seen, all the major labor organizations in the public

sector are beginning to develop the resources and expertise they need to better serve their members in the

cooperative arena.

Additionally, many union leaders told the Task

Force how important it is to be able to hear how other

local leaders are able to enter workplace partnerships,
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

cation. Such conferences provide assistance to both

labor and management on how to apply research at the

local level to raise standards.

This program reflects the AFT’s position on the

importance of improving schools’ academic standards

and standards of conduct and behavior. Also, based on

this theme, the AFT has launched a nationwide campaign called “Responsibility, Respect, Results: Lessons for Life.” This campaign involved not only AFT

members, and school officials, but others in the local

community, including business, civic and neighborhood

groups in an effort to focus on changes leading to excellence in education.

In addition to professional development, the NEA

also has specific programs to help parties in adversarial

relationships gain a better understanding of how to work

together. Marilyn Monahan, testifying as National Education Association secretary-treasurer, pointed to Illinois as an example, where job satisfaction as well as

dollars is recognized as important and is achieved

through increased teacher involvement in professional

decisions. In Bellevue, Washington, she described a

relationship based on an acknowledgment of mutual

dependence, respect and shared interest that has led to

trust and cooperation. Other local NEA initiatives supported by the national association include forward-looking attempts to redefine bargaining relationships, and

others to directly work with management on educational

needs. These service-focused initiatives have reduced

workplace conflict and improved and speeded bargaining outcomes.

The American Association of University Professors, in an appearance before the Task Force by it’s

president and by it’s general secretary, described a number of efforts of value to cooperative labor-management

problem solving, with particular reference to the public sector. They referenced a number of helpful local

initiatives to resolve service and quality issues in colleges and universities, and described a number of national level activities, including publications, to support this type of cooperative problem solving activity.

Given the pressures on higher education, such efforts

are to be commended and encouraged for expansion.

The American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees conducts extensive staff trainparticularly those that follow such unpromising situations as negative political campaigns or difficult rounds

of bargaining. The details of how these relationships

occurred, including how the external and internal politics are managed, allows more local union leaders to

confidently enter a set of discussions and negotiations

over possible partnerships.

The Task Force found that it was union leaders

more often than managers who brought proven principles from union training or reports of other leaders

into their discussions with management prior to establishing a cooperative relationship. This phenomenon is

reflective of the very useful efforts begun in many of

the national and international unions to ensure that

members and leaders are part of the effort to improve

the quality of services.

The American Federation of Teachers and the

National Education Association have a number of

substantial institutional initiatives and field activities

to help members as well as state and local leaders acquire improved professional skills and knowledge.

These activities are focused upon improving our

nation’s educational system as well as efforts to develop cooperative relationships.

The AFT provided the Task Force with numerous

examples of creative local bargaining, participation and

cooperation including Cincinnati, Ohio, where a comprehensive labor-managment partnership affects a broad

range of educational improvement issues, and Albuquerque, New Mexico where a similar initiative is in

progress. (For more detail, see “Snapshot: Cincinnati.”)

Two national initiatives provide examples of promoting service-oriented professional behavior that can contribute to a shared vision of workplace purpose. AFT

funded an award-winning Educational Research and

Dissemination program in response to members’ desires for easier access to state-of the art classroom management and professional practice techniques. This

program has been so popular that it has now a “trainthe-trainers” component, so that more members can get

more information faster. The AFT also sponsors a national professional issues forum called “The Quest Conference” that brings together national education leaders from all sectors of the education community to share

experiences, research and models for improving edu-
CHAPTER . 5

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

ing and sponsors national and regional conferences in

order to re-orient union staff toward a more cooperative approach to labor-management relations. AFSCME

also funds field trips for union staff to see innovative

joint programs first hand and to view the positive attitude displayed by AFSCME members who have demonstrated their willingness to embark on cooperative

ventures. Steve Fantauzzo, executive director of Indiana AFSCME Council 62, in a typical comment, noted

how much he learned about the benefits of cooperation

and how to engage members, through exposure to the

subject during national union conferences.

The Service Employees International Union has

expert staff who report directly to the president with

responsibility for research and technical assistance on

workplace cooperation. This technical assistance often

proves critical to the ability of locals to compete with

the private sector and begin labor-management cooperative ventures. At MassHighway, for example, international SEIU staff assisted local members with knowledge and funding during the preparation of an effective

bid. In Los Angeles, sanitation department workers

received considerable information and consultation

from the international regarding effective techniques

for cooperation. A recent survey of 86 SEIU local

unions revealed 61 separate programs in labor-management cooperation and strong worker enthusiasm for

these efforts.

Alfred Whitehead, testifying as president of the

International Association of Fire Fighters, described

how the union has resources devoted to service improvements. He said that the most significant factor

contributing to service improvements is a cooperative

partnership between labor and management. Some of

the areas in which the IAFF has assisted local governments are: development of national performance standards for the profession, the design of functional systems and the conduct of training. For example, the union

provided hazardous materials training to Contra Costa,

California, at no cost to the county. He described an

excellent cooperative relationship with the City of Phoenix, resulting in low turnover, superior working conditions and the recognition of the department for excellence. In Portland, Oregon, the union partnered in designing the Emergency Medical Services system.

For the past decade, The Public Employee Department (PED) of the AFL-CIO has directed an active program of promoting labor-management cooperation as a strategy for problem-solving and service improvements. Through numerous publications and conferences, the Public Employee Department has offered

assistance in such areas as grievance mediation and

other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Among

the Department’s recently produced resources is a

widely distributed booklet, “Excellence in Public Service,” with three dozen examples of productive labormanagement cooperation leading to service improvement. The commitment of the public employee unions

comprising the PED to labor-management cooperation

is reflected in their 1995 unanimous resolution to advocate workplace cooperation.

The AFL-CIO’s George Meany Center for

Labor Studies, the Federation’s education center, began its work on labor-management cooperation after

the AFL-CIO’s Committee on the Evolution of Work

issued its February 1994 report on labor-management

partnerships. The center, together with four international

unions (United Auto Workers, United Steel Workers,

Communication Workers of America and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers) and the Department

of Labor’s Office of the American Workplace, created

the Labor Leadership Institute for Workplace Change,

which completed its first-year, private-sector program

in October 1995. This program will be offered to other

AFL-CIO affiliates beginning in 1996. The center is

developing a Labor Leadership Institute for Workplace

Change that gives particular attention to public sector

partnerships.

The center also is developing a pilot, public sector curriculum in cooperation with the AFSCME Education Department and AFSCME Local 11, the Ohio

Civil Service Employees Association. The center’s

training is targeted at full-time experienced staff and

the skills emphasized are primarily the development

and implementation of organizational change strategies.

This training supports the labor-management quality

initiative described in “Snapshot: State of Ohio.”

“I am persuaded that today’s workers are hungry

for a new way of dealing with their employers,” Thomas R. Donahue, president of the AFL-CIO at the time
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

of his testimony, told the Task Force. “I am likewise

persuaded that the labor movement has not kept up with

the changing work force and has not sufficiently adapted

to the new workplace. And I believe that it is the responsibility of the AFL-CIO to help this generation --

and to develop a new generation -- of labor leaders who

are prepared to function in a very different environment requiring expertise and skills quite different from

those required in the past.”

Develop New Management and Planning

Practices and Policies

Many of today’s practices and processes for managing and planning public services are insufficient to

respond to today’s climate of efficiency demands, fiscal pressures, impact of changing technology on the

work force, or to respond to the value of employee involvement. The institutions that develop and promote

effective management and administrative processes

need to adapt to this changed world and come up with

processes for planning and management that are effective in this climate.

The Task Force heard repeatedly how, with present

budgeting practices, it is impossible for most jurisdictions to say how much it costs to perform a specific

service, such as trash collection or street repair. Many

cost accounting practices make it hard to measure and

therefore compare and improve services.

One response is being developed by the Finance

Officers Association. It has organized a national task

force headed by Paul Soglin, the mayor of Madison,

Wisconsin. This group is charged with finding new

methods of budgeting and cost accounting that, among

other things, will allow workers, managers and elected

officials to identify cost and service improvements, and

allow labor and management to better cooperate in productivity efforts. Many existing budget systems implicitly discourage otherwise avoidable cost savings partly

because of the difficulty in trying to measure costs.

Some of the problems stem from systems which are

not timely in their reports; others because of incentives

for year-end spending, and because of other shortcomings.

Personnel departments have too often been focused upon the legal and regulatory dimensions of the

workplace relationship, often to the detriment of problem-solving and service. While everyone agrees that

civil service protections are important, many of the

current systems preclude flexibility in response to service needs. These systems require serious re-examination. Service has not been part of the mandate of many

systems. Instead, the mandate is regulatory control,

which generally leads to less-useful service improvement decisions. Where the system is administered

within the context of a service-oriented, cooperative

workplace relationship (e.g., a facilitative versus regulatory approach), the result and the capacity for reform

is greater.

The Task Force found that jurisdictions which

have been successful in promoting service improvement, retraining of people, providing job security and

responding to constant change also implemented major changes in the role of the human resource and labor

relations professionals. These same jurisdictions often

reported major changes in jobs classifications and in

hiring and disciplinary practices.

Progressive leadership by many of these professions has produced effective efforts in a variety of jurisdictions. The Task Force heard about many partnerships and reform activities underway in various states.

Much needs to be done to refocus and update personnel practices to reflect the service, team and partnerships required to deal with the kind of workplace

changes expected in the future. The International Personnel Management Association and the National

Association of State Personnel Executives have

shown a keen interest in Task Force work and are in a

key position to affect the progressive future of their

fields.

Unique among the management-oriented organizations, the International Association of Fire Chiefs

testified about, among other things, a set of joint conferences. One such conference was held in Massachusetts in cooperation with the International Association

of Fire Fighters. Attendees had to come in pairs -- chiefs

and local union leaders -- to learn skills for problemsolving, service improvement and better workplace re-
CHAPTER . 5

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

lationships. This joint conference may be an interesting model with which other professionals can experiment.

When organizations that oversee these administrative and management practices demonstrate their

innovative capacities and focus increasing attention on

service needs, then they can best help develop practices that actually support these better services. Through

their national conferences, literature and training programs, they can spread the word on what can be done

to improve management skills in this connection.

FMCS: A Catalyst for Change

The Task Force wishes to recognize the valuable

and influential role played by the Federal Mediation

and Conciliation Service in the promotion of labormanagement cooperation to improve public service. No

single institution has proven more capable of exerting

such a wide-ranging, positive influence than the FMCS,

particularly through its cooperative grants program. In

the examples studied by the Task Force, the FMCS frequently played an important financial or technical assistance role.

The agency provides five types of services in collective bargaining settings, all of which are focused

upon the ultimate goal of improving labor-management

relationships, job security and organizational effectiveness, said FMCS Director John Calhoun Wells in testimony to the Task Force:

• Mediation of collective bargaining contract negotiations (state and local governments account for 16

percent of the FMCS caseload);

• Preventive mediation and training to labor and

management in skills and processes to help transform

adversarial environments into more collaborative ones

(in 1994, at least 14 percent of the 2,200 preventive

mediation cases were in the non-federal public sector);

• Arbitration to resolve collective bargaining disputes (in 1994, about 6.5 percent of all panels of arbitrators sent to requesting parties were for public sector

disputes);

• Alternative dispute resolution, in which mediators assist agencies in institutionalizing mediation and

other forms of conflict resolution as an alternative to

costly litigation, and

• Labor-management cooperative grants programs

designed to improve relationships and workplace processes. Since 1991, nearly a third of the $10.9 million

in grants has gone to public sector applicants.

Wells noted that these grants have launched many

innovative projects. In the city of Miami, for example,

labor-management committees were developed in 16

departments represented by four unions to address issues of mutual interest such as health care cost containment and community concerns facing the police department. In the city of Burlington, Vermont, citywide labor-management committees developed an entire city budget. The Chicago Regional Transportation

Authority developed joint approaches to dealing with

accessibility to commuter rail service for persons with

disabilities. The Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council promoted joint efforts to control

health care costs.

Union leaders and employees in Seattle, Washington, representing thirty-three different unions, recently joined with the city's administration to provide

employees in various departments with the opportunity

to make decisions affecting their workplaces, aimed at

increasing the city's productivity, efficiency, quality control and customer service. FMCS mediators provided

skills training in joint problem-solving techniques, information sharing, communications and consensus decision-making to ten employee committees and twenty

committee facilitators.

The FMCS has a proven track record in effectiveness and clearly is deserving of support in order to continue these kinds of activities. These innovative projects

have multiplier effects that extend the benefits far beyond the original projects.

Labor Relations Professionals Moving Beyond

Tradition

Similar to human resource professionals, labor

relations professionals can be in a pivotal position to

promote labor-management cooperation. These professionals conduct negotiations at city, county and state

levels and normally serve as chief advisors to mayors,
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

governors, chief executives and others in positions of

leadership. Labor relations professionals often possess

well-developed skills in problem-solving. However,

these professionals are being called upon to adapt to

the demands of a service-oriented, partnership-style

workplace -- a situation different from the adversarial

relationship that often has prevailed and for which they

normally have been prepared.

The National Public Employer Labor Relations

Association has a growing following and program

agenda that can be of enormous influence. Its executive director, Roger Dahl, testified before the Task Force

about many of the issues facing the field, and the organization has shown a keen interest in the Task Force’s

findings. A similar, but smaller organization, the National Association of State Employee Relations Directors, is in a key position to provide helpful advice

to governors where opportunities exist to engage in

cooperative labor-management relationships.

Similarly, state labor relations boards exist in

states with collective bargaining laws to resolve conflicts and, as necessary, adjudicate conflicts in labormanagement relationships. Among their other responsibilities, these boards provide mediation services, and

thus have become a neutral source of problem-solving

assistance that both labor and management turn to and

trust. The ability of these professionals to assist labor

and management to initiate cooperative processes is

contingent upon their mandate and the extent to which

they know about practices and successful innovations.

When the Association of Labor Relations Agencies1

 (ALRA) conducted a detailed survey of its members’ activities 10 years ago, labor-management cooperative processes were not even mentioned. Similarly,

in a text ALRA publishes on public sector labor relations, the first two editions contained only a brief reference to cooperative processes.

“But now that is changing,” testified Shlomo

Sperka, director of Michigan Bureau of Employment

Relations/Employment Relations Commission and

immediate past-president of ALRA. He said state agencies hold an influential position because they are neutral, credible and committed to protecting the rights of

all parties. They are dedicated to assist the collective

bargaining process, have expertise in dispute resolution and are familiar with the parties and their issues.

They are used to working side by side with the FMCS,

both in “dual” mediation situations and working as a

resource to the labor-management cooperative grants

program.

“State labor agencies must now assert leadership

in helping their clients, the public sector employers,

labor organizations and employees, cooperate in achieving excellence in public services,” Sperka said. “Organizations such as ALRA can coordinate and reach a

large number of agencies. Staff members can be introduced to new ideas at conferences and through various

training activities. State and federal cooperation, as

demonstrated in Michigan, can quickly increase skills

levels and introduce new ideas... Use of cooperative

processes will grow either because parties ask the state

agency for help or the agency suggests new approaches

to parties. Therefore, we need to stimulate both. As parties become more aware, they will ask agencies to assist them. As the agencies become more aware, they

will propose new ideas.”

In some states, notably Oregon (see below) but in

others as well, some of these state agencies have developed expertise in training for cooperative collective

bargaining relationships. These training efforts and related facilitation efforts in early stages of cooperative

relationships have been cited with great enthusiasm by

numerous Task Force witnesses.

The Oregon Employment Relations Board’s State

Conciliation Service, which provides conflict resolution and other services for collective bargaining relationships in public agencies, has developed an innovative program which the Task Force found also employed

by the FMCS and, to some extent, by a handful of states.

Known as collaborative bargaining using interest-based

negotiations, it aims to change the parties’ historical

way of relating, covering grievance procedures as well

as collective bargaining negotiations. Oregon labor and

management officials from more than 69 jurisdictions

and state agencies have been trained in the various techniques including interest-based negotiations, consensus decision-making and problem-solving. Participants

1 ALRA is made up of U.S. and Canadian state, provincial and federal agencies. Of its approximately 55 member agencies,

more than 40 are U.S. agencies.
CHAPTER . 5

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

testified that while the training can be time-consuming

(2-3 days), the results are very gratifying and provide

the ability to frame new, cooperative relationships. Further, between 1990 and 1994, when interest-based negotiations were first introduced as pilots and then expanded, there was only one strike of public employees.

This is in marked contrast to the 31 strikes that occurred

between 1974 and 1990. This program is a model and

holds great promise for other state mediation agencies.

The Task Force believes that neutral agencies must

do more of this preventive kind of work in order to

foster development of the cooperative kinds of relationships that will be necessary in the future. This type

of neutral agency work is a worthy investment of public resources.

Labor relations agencies also could play a salutary role in sharing information about those states which

engage in cooperative labor-management training with

others. By shining the light on these progressive models, the Task Force and ALRA can help state labor relations boards assist their clients in breaking with the past.

Another important player is The State and Local Government Labor-Management Committee,

which brings together major national-level public employer and union organizations. Ever since its initial

meeting in December 1985, the committee has dedicated itself to the promotion of excellence in government through labor-management cooperation. At the

committee’s urging, the Council of State Governments

included in its 1994 volume of Suggested State Legislation the committee’s draft legislation to provide for

state-sponsored public sector labor-management cooperation.

The committee has produced “Working Together,”

a video that depicts examples of labor-management

cooperation in cities, counties, states and public school

districts across the country. The program has appeared

on 153 public television stations.

In 1992, the committee hosted a symposium that

brought together 16 top-level political and labor leaders, heads of management organizations and various

“think-tank” institutions to explore ways for labor and

management to work together more effectively. One of

the more important outcomes of an event such as this

is the unusual opportunity it provides participants to

share views and visions with others who wouldn’t normally have the opportunity for candid exchange.

In 1994, the committee brought together public

sector labor and management leaders in Ohio and separately in Wisconsin for in-depth discussions of cooperative activities. Using its membership from the major management and labor organizations (many of them

discussed in this chapter), the committee is in a unique

position to disseminate credible information, assistance

and encouragement and to sponsor training, pilot

projects and forums for discussion and problem-solving. A recent, additional grant from the Ford Foundation to the committee holds great promise for several

new initiatives that can be undertaken to build on the

work of this Task Force. Expected are a series of training programs and workshops for both labor and management in the practical aspects of beginning and sustaining a cooperative relationship as well as other kinds

of technical assistance for local parties.

The Task Force encourages all of the member labor and management organizations to take an active

part in assisting and responding to the work of this useful committee. (For listing of the institutional members, see Appendix F)

Re-energizing Academic Interest in Public

Sector Labor Relations

From the late 1960s through the 1970s, there was

a surge of scholarly interest in public sector labor relations, coinciding with many states enacting collective

bargaining laws for their pubic employees, according

to testimony by both David Lipsky, dean of Cornell

University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations

and Margaret Hallock of the Oregon Labor Education

and Research Center and the University and College

Labor Education Association (UCLEA).

This legislative activity was accompanied by considerable research as well as opportunities for training

and service as “neutral” parties in public sector negotiations. As the laws matured, conflict declined and the

challenges in the field diminished or held less interest

for academics. The pendulum swung toward more interest in private sector bargaining, which in the late

1970s was beginning to face the challenges of deregu-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

lation, international competition and globalization.

Then, the number of courses and students studying private sector relations, particularly in the field of international labor-management relations, increased relative

to those involved in the public sector.

Consequently, since the early 1980s, the number

of public sector courses being taught has dwindled.

There has been a virtual stoppage of books and articles

on this sector’s labor relations, reflecting an almost total lack of academic research -- despite the fact that

demands and pressures on the public workplace have

been increasing.

There is a critical need for both intensified research and revamped training/educational programs.

Just like the private sector, those leading and those employed in the public workplace need to learn how to

respond to the rapidly changing conditions and pressures they face. Only a handful of schools of labor relations, by their own admission, have begun to recognize the need to train union and management leaders

as well as workers on how best to participate in effective workplace partnerships.

Universities, community colleges and similar

training institutions should be natural places to which

local officials and leaders can turn for help and guidance when they seek worker-retraining programs, relationship training, critical research and other assistance.

Margaret Hallock, chair of the international

committe and former executive board member of

UCLEA, noted in her testimony that a key aspect of

achieving labor-management cooperation is learning

how to restructure jobs for both service and job quality. Hallock pointed out that universities and other training institutions are recognizing that two distinct types

of learning are needed for the successful introduction

of workplace change: training in the constellation of

technical skills implicit in how the work gets organized,

and training in skills for participation. In this latter area,

which she says is too often overlooked and needs better attention, she listed training for workers in communications, decision-making, planning, leadership, participation and problem-solving.

Hallock explained that UCLEA primarily consists

of public learning institutions throughout the U.S. and

Canada that offer both credit and non-credit courses

focusing upon managing change in today’s workplace,

such as introduction of new work systems, technology

and the development of labor-management partnerships.

The Industrial Relations Research Association

is another source of research. The IRRA frequently gathers together labor, management and neutral professionals, as well as academics for serious discussions of labor-management relations issues, including cooperative partnerships. For instance, a recent conference

sponsored by an IRRA chapter and the Governor’s office in Oregon brought together local, regional and national speakers on trends, examples and workshops

covering specific issues in achieving cooperative, service-oriented relationships in the public and private

sectors. This type of conference, which brings all sides

together, shows much promise for spreading thoughtful and practical information by practitioners and observers about participation and cooperative approaches.

Based upon its year of fact-finding, the Task Force

knows there is a rich research agenda and a need for

training services, including identification and confirmation of the best labor-management cooperative practices as well as the public policies and legal structures

to support these practices. Case studies should be produced for others to analyze and learn from and to serve

as objective sources of non-advocacy information.

Schools need to identify resources to allow them to be

sources of research, training and technical assistance

to their local communities. Hopefully, foundations interested in the future of our communities can devote

some resources to the necessary research and services.

Educational institutions, in their research function, should accept a leadership role in providing objective and thorough examination of issues affecting

service-oriented and cooperative workplace practices.

Often, the study of such issues is conducted by advocacy organizations. While these organizations normally

have good intentions, they also have their own particular agendas and perspectives. In addition, advocacy

groups often do their work during the early development stages of new practices, rather than later, when

more results are available. Research from such organizations often spawns new ideas and useful debate,

but there remains a need for later objective study and
CHAPTER . 5

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

research, which can be usefully performed by appropriately selected universities and research institutes.

Role of Quality Networks

The Task Force saw evidence of an emerging trend

among public employers and employees to form organizations similar to those in the private sector that are

dedicated to supporting local quality efforts and provide valuable training forums and information exchange. Oregon Quality Initiative, the Washington

State Service Quality Network, the Madison Area

Quality Improvement Network, the South Carolina

State Quality Network Association and the American Society of Quality Control are all illustrative of

networks that often include community, university and

private sector leaders, as well as those from the public

sector. They share a common philosophy that successful models are the best teachers and quality begins with

trust. These quality networks will become increasingly

valuable as word spreads that they are a source of information about what other places are doing. The

American Society for Quality Control, for example, recently began a public section similar to its private sector activities that is becoming a useful national clearinghouse for the exchange of ideas.

Role of Nonprofit and For-Profit

Organizations

Consulting firms, be they nonprofit or for-profit,

can have a constructive role to play in assisting the evolution from traditional or adversarial relations to more

productive labor-management partnerships.

For example, KPMG Peat Marwick, a national

accounting and consulting firm, used to run advertisements that basically promised to show jurisdictions how

to contract out services and fire employees. Today,

KPMG Peat Marwick advertises that it gets down into

the trenches with front-line employees to learn how

work is actually performed and seek improvements.

This knowledge helps to develop better cost accounting measures so jurisdictions can, in fact, make the measurements needed to know how much it costs to do

certain jobs. This capability allows cities like Indianapolis (where KPMG’s efforts to directly involve

employees and their unions first began), not only to

analyze but to measure, report and compare service

improvement initiatives. Such a data-driven approach

as part of a cooperative relationship is obviously much

more constructive and helpful in finding service improvements than pitting two sides against each other in

a conflictual relationship.

Also, many independent neutrals and consultants

have assisted parties in a wide range of jurisdictions to

learn the skills or create a process for service improvement in a labor-management partnership.

News Media

Although not generally considered a part of the

network of organizations and institutions to which labor and management turn for advice, the news media

wields enormous influence in the dissemination of information, and thus the forming of public opinion. The

Task Force believes that jurisdictions engaging in successful cooperative relationships that are producing

measurable, positive benefits for the public should take

the initiative to tell this story through the news media.

In so doing, local jurisdictions should keep in mind that

few news outlets, (the exception being those in large,

metropolitan areas) have reporters who cover the subjects of labor relations or workplace efficiencies on a

regular basis. Thus, just as labor and management must

educate themselves regarding cooperative relationships,

they must be willing to take the time to “educate” reporters as to the importance of this new approach to

the delivery of services in the public workplace.

Similarly, the Task Force encourages those media having reporters regularly assigned to labor relations or service quality issues to realize their responsibility to go beyond the negatives, the strikes, the discord, and to seek out and report upon the positive benefits being accrued from the cooperative partnership

approach. Labor-management cooperation that produces improved public services is “news.” 

Leading by Example

National professional and peer organizations can

have a positive impact upon the quality of government
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

service. In some cases, this will require an expansion

of their mission; for some, the addition of new services;

for others, a change in philosophy or interest toward

service or workplace issues.

Some organizations’ conference agendas are beginning to include more on labor-management cooperation, others focus more upon service delivery. These

areas can be merged to provide more “how to’s.” Rather

than training that focuses on “how to win” at bargaining or arbitration -- no matter which party offers it --

the American public would be better served if the emphasis is on joint problem-solving and service improvement. Conference and training sessions that focus on

legal and technical dimensions of the workplace relationship would be more useful if they focused instead

on the integration of service and workplace issues, or

at least give these topics their proper place. While recognizing and respecting differences, leaders in all of

these organizations can seek to lower the rhetoric at

the national and local level. They have the responsibility to demonstrate to their members the possible benefits from working with the other side on issues of common concern and responsibility -- namely, the provision of excellent public services in a cost-effective

manner. 
CHAPTER . 5

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Snapshot: . CHARLOTTE, . NORTH CAROLINA

Saddled with a pay system for some

2,000 police officers and fire fighters that had

become so complex no one really understood it,

the city of Charlotte decided to go directly to

those affected to find a better way.

Using an employee involvement

approach, the city assembled in 1993 two teams

of employees (police and fire) representing

different ranks and assignments, including

civilians. The task forces tackled the task of

developing a new performance management

process in addition to the compensation system

question. This effort took place against a

backdrop of larger organizational change being

instituted citywide in response to increased

service demands and rising costs, coupled with

a continuation of flat revenues and a City

Council mandate to hold the line on taxes.

While a trend toward employee involvement in developing programs, processes

and philosophies has been the norm in Charlotte

since the 1980s, the police and fire departments

had yet to successfully integrate a change in

focus from procedures and regulations to

customer service. These compensation task

forces also served to open up communication

and problem-solving on service improvement

workplace issues.

Thus, this bottom-up approach to

change in the police and fire departments

required a willingness by top department

management to let go of the process and give

the teams free rein. Fire Chief Luther Fincher

acknowledged he had to give away some power.

But he told the Task Force that the employee

committee process did a better job on the tasks

than the management staff would have done.

Management showed faith in the abilities of

both committees as they were empowered to

speak directly to the City Council. As Captain

Tim Rogers, a leader of the firefighters’ committee said, “The Chief never said, ‘No.’”

The role of the Human Resources

Department personnel also changed. The

department no longer tried to dictate the results

of the process. Instead, its role was to support

and facilitate the process, which was controlled

by the employees. In the case of the

firefighters, Human Resources staff rode along

on the trucks in order to better understand

firefighters’ service issues and to develop

mutual trust and understanding.

Human Resource officials, Bill Wylder

and Karen McCotter told the Secretary’s Task

Force this transition was not easy make. However, with department staff reduced from 32 to

18 as part of the larger organizational change,

the change in role from “doing everything” to

facilitating and consulting also had its attractions.

The Police Department task force used

the redesign process to:

• Evaluate the problems associated

with the old compensation plan;

• Identify the desired elements of a new

public safety pay plan;

• Determine the market value of the

various police ranks by collecting and reviewing salary data from other cities of comparable

size; and

• Develop recommended pay plan

changes that would address these concerns

while ensuring that salaries stayed competitive

with the market.

The plan that emerged for both the

Police and Fire Departments involved simplification of steps, elimination of across-the-board

increases and closer ties to performance. Each

department had a compensation budget for

implementation for the fiscal year. The only

constraint was to remain within the salary

budget. Thus, adjustments to salaries based on

market values had to be made within the

parameters of the budget. The people in the

departments made the required choices in salary

rates and schedule of adjustments, completing

the shift from centralized to decentralized

compensation management.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

The police task force also used the

process to shift the focus of its performance

management system from a procedures orientation to an outcome orientation, with particular

emphasis on customer service. This mirrors the

ongoing change from traditional policing to

community policing. (When theTask Force

visited Charlotte in April 1995, the Fire Department task force was in the process of developing its performance management process with

HR once again serving as consultant.)

The new police performance evaluation

systems attempts to build objectivity, uniformity and fairness by instituting a uniform

check-list and otherwise attempting to eliminate

the inconsistency in ratings that can come from

varying personalities of supervisors (for example, those who like to write lengthy appraisals versus those who don’t). Excessive paperwork, such as the six-month rating, was eliminated and individuals became responsible for

helping to flesh out their own appraisals by

reminding superiors of what they’ve done.

Police officers say they now are evaluated on actions which are more relevant to their

jobs. For example, they no longer just count

arrests. Now, they attempt to measure outcomes, the individual’s knowledge of the

district, communications, and whether the

response provided is appropriate to the nature of

the call (particularly in terms of time expended). All use of sick days used to be

counted in the performance evaluation; now it

only figures in if there is a problem.

As a result, the evaluation system is

more flexible to accommodate the changing

nature of the work. According to workers and

management, several factors contributed to the

success of the task forces’ efforts:

• Employees were involved in the

identification of the organizations surveyed for

market data, increasing confidence in the data

collected.

• Top managers were willing to delegate

the power and authority, while remaining

involved in a supportive capacity.

• The implementation decisions which

balanced preferred pay plan design characteristics with available funds were made by employees instead of Human Resource and Budget

Office staff, increasing acceptance and practicality of the new plan.

• Team members regularly shared

information and consulted constantly with the

rank-and-file, visiting all facilities and shifts,

testing ideas and taking input.

• Employees developed the criteria for

the performance appraisal, which increased

confidence in the applicability of measures.

• Task Force members from the Police

and Fire Departments worked separately to

develop systems to address their specific

concerns. However, the two periodically

discussed their progress and shared the basis for

concerns and proposed resolutions. This sharing

improved the products of both departments,

increased the understanding of the differences

and similarities between the police and fire

functions and resulted in an acceptable level of

plan consistency between the two departments.

• Members of the police task force

conducted the majority of the training needed in

their new system (initially, 75 sessions over a

six-week period), increasing the credibility and

acceptance of the new processes. This had the

added benefit of drawing out or enhancing skills

of task force members, most of whom had never

done any training before.

• The activity of Human Resources

personnel as facilitators was an important factor

and represented a useful change in role.

• Some committee members were

members or officers of local employee associations and made effective use of their leadership

skills, relationships and credibility to gain input

and acceptance.

• Members had a “can do” attitude and

were willing to give their time to the project.

• Members put aside rank and selfinterests to seek the best plan within the money

available. ■

Snapshot: CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

FOOD . FOR . THOUGHT

ISSUES . FOR . FURTHER . ATTENTION . AND . O B S E RVAT I O N

 During more than a year of careful research and examination, the Task Force observed numerous examples of service excellence within the

public sector achieved primarily through the efforts of labor and management working

together. At times, the results contradicted generally accepted beliefs.

Close analysis of the ingredients contributing to successes indicated the emergence

of many new and innovative approaches to public sector services that appear worthy of

CHAPTER

SIX
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

CHAPTER . 6

emulation. The Task Force also observed, however, that

there are some issues -- such as the impact of new pay

systems, the connection of a quality process to a bargaining process, how to sustain new work systems in

the face of leadership turnover -- where the data is less

clear or the results not yet sufficiently accessible or compelling.

By necessity, the history, traditions and needs of

each community require different approaches and

makes different degrees of cooperation possible. Thus,

labor-management cooperation for service improvement is an emerging and evolving trend -- one that

warrants further attention on a variety of issues and

one where closer examination of specific settings could

produce a greater understanding that could be applied

elsewhere.

The intent of this chapter is to highlight some of

these issues or trends that need to be tracked in order to

draw accurate and useful observations that can provide

guidance to others venturing into these areas.

The Task Force invites unions, management organizations, universities and others to research and

study these issues, to share their experiences and knowledge, and to discuss and debate these issues in forums,

conferences and other appropriate settings. Following

are a selection of issues:

1. How to spread cooperation and participation in service improvement on one issue to other

areas

Once a jurisdiction or agency has a successful

effort underway in one corner, how does the effort

spread beyond the initial project? This question was

posed by a number of jurisdictions looking for ways to

broaden and sustain the cooperative approach beyond

an initial project.

The state of Ohio, for example, has adopted a thorough and comprehensive approach that calls for, and

has shown success in, integrating labor-management

cooperation and quality efforts throughout all aspects

of state government over a multi-year time span.

The Task Force believes that this question deserves more in-depth study, particularly because it

seems to bedevil many public jurisdictions. Case studies need to be watched for longer periods than the Task

Force life span for careful, continued observation, work

and analysis. Possibly, a menu of useful tools can be

developed that will greatly assist jurisdictions in spreading initial successes.

Similarly, there is the need to discover how best

to sustain the cooperative, service-oriented relationship

in the face of leadership turnover.

2. How to gain and gauge leadership commitment

It would be useful to study the process of gaining

and utilizing top leadership commitment, as well as the

various means by which a top union or management

official becomes and remains engaged in the partnership concept. Questions to be further researched include: How and on what basis was the idea made interesting to the top leadership? How was their commitment carried through?

Some inventorying and analysis of these dynamics would seem valuable in identifying ways to bring

the cooperative, participative approach into more workplaces. It also would seem useful to know more about

the ways such commitment could be manifested.

Greater knowledge of the variations on leadership roles

might permit more leaders to find a comfortable means

to become involved.

Related to leadership involvement, given the

popular mythology that negativism wins campaigns in

unions or communities, some analysis might be instructive of labor or management election and campaign

results when there is a cooperative service-focused relationship.

3. How to reconcile different levels of interest

among elected and administrative officials

Splits in interest levels between elected or administrative officials in forging cooperative relations can

make it very difficult to pull together the necessary

commitment. The Task Force observed examples of

this: sometimes the mayor was interested, but the council wasn’t. Sometimes, the shop steward of the union

local was interested, but the president wasn’t -- or vice

versa. Or maybe the elected official (be it mayor, governor, etc.) was interested, but his or her top administrators -- the budget director, the personnel director and
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

so forth, were not. Some useful examination might be

made also of the ways in which elected leaders have

been successful -- or unsuccessful -- in convincing reluctant administrative staff such as department managers, division directors or others, to engage in the effort.

These divisions made it more difficult to initiate

new work systems, yet many succeeded as one person

or another persevered. It might be helpful to look at

such situations more closely and determine how to overcome the differences, and how the idea ultimately came

to be embraced by top leadership and by other key officials.

4. The connection between collective bargaining and quality efforts

The Task Force saw and heard of several different approaches regarding the connection between quality improvement efforts and the collective bargaining

relationship and process. Some say they must be integrated; others are very careful to keep them separate.

Still others suggest the approach should be determined

at the operating level.

Formal or not, there clearly is a connection: cooperative service-improvement relationships require

discussion of all issues that can affect betterment of

the service. Where there is a bargaining relationship,

some of these issues are appropriately the subject of

collective bargaining and can be resolved through that

process or deliberately moved to a separate and distinct second process.

More attention is needed to explore some effective ways to appropriately relate quality improvement

issues with the bargaining issues in ways that are respectful of local circumstances. What are the different

methods of linkage that are effective under varying circumstances? In non-bargaining settings, how are

changes in working conditions, the personnel system

or classification system determined in the move toward

quality improvement?

5. Bargainable issues

As noted throughout this report, it is very important that the parties be able to discuss and delve into

any issues that affect service improvement. In the examples noted, this has included scheduling, equipment

configurations, leave policies, classification systems,

cost allocations, technologies for delivering the service

and more. Where a cooperative relationship is in place,

the range of issues explored and the ability of the parties to responsibly handle the information is quite impressive.

Recognizing that the scope of bargaining is often

a controversial topic, this report has sought to point out

the importance of opening up the possibilities for discussion and not artificially restricting the ability of the

parties to address service improvement needs. At the

same time, this report has recognized the importance

of respecting the duties and responsibilities of elected

and appointed officials and mission mandates of an

agency.

But much of the typical debate focuses on prerogatives -- on the part of both parties -- with insufficient consideration of how to establish a range and depth

of discussion that will best promote service. Also, the

possibilities for discussion that neither advantage or

disadvantage either party seem different in a cooperative, participatory, collective bargaining relationship

than in a traditional relationship.

Beneath the legislative and legal arguments are

practical ways that parties are finding to engage in service-focused discussion. By studying those who have

been successful, perhaps ideas for a more effective, less

controversial balance could be advanced for more general use. With the criteria of service delivery as part of

the discussion of bargaining scope, and surrounded by

practices in which participation and service improvement are linked, perhaps some careful observation and

research can be fruitful. Service focus has allowed other

knotty problems, such as in civil service reform, to receive renewed, non-rhetorical attention.

6. Developing better financial measurement

instruments and budgeting practices to better support service improvement

In order to gauge service improvements, it is critical that a jurisdiction be able to measure their costs and

quality. If a city is trying to improve services, it needs

to know how much it costs and be able to measure improvements. Otherwise, it will be impossible to tell if

the actual changes really do save money, are better than
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

CHAPTER . 6

be productive and motivated employees over the long

term.

Serious study needs to be given to what kind of

training workers need in order to perform most effectively in a range of situations. Is there some training

that should be considered basic, regardless of task or

location? What are the forms of more advanced training? What is the most effective way to deliver this training and encourage workers to participate?

 8. Skills that managers and supervisors need

to participate effectively

Many organizations need to alter selection and

development policies, training and opportunities for

managers and supervisors in order to ensure their ability to face change and support participation in a cooperative setting. Identification of the necessary skills

could aid in training, selecting and developing managers who can effectively participate, just as parallel training helps the workers and their union leaders.

9. Overcoming resistance of mid-level managers and supervisors

The Task Force found that mid-level managers

and supervisors often are resistant to participative approaches. This mid-rank resistance often is paralleled

within the union ranks by mid-level leaders.

When organizational hierarchies become flattened

as a result of participative work arrangements, in many

cases middle managers and supervisors find threats to

their stature and security, confusion over their new roles

and a lack of input into the change process.

This is an area needing further understanding and

ideas for its resolution. It would be very useful to have

more facts regarding the attitudes of those affected so

that these issues can be handled more effectively and

incorporated into the overall approach.

10. Difficulties arising from serving front-line

workers and supervisors in the same bargaining unit

and other unit-related issues

This issue is related to the preceding one. In some

unionized situations, bargaining units include both

front-line workers, supervisors and managers in the

same unit. Where supervisory roles are being threatbefore or are more expensive to provide than the private sector. Some places are beginning to reform the

ways cost and quality data is collected.

More needs to be done in this area. More sophisticated cost and quality measurement methodology that

is integrated with budget systems probably needs to be

developed. This area requires attention by financial

professionals, such as accounting firms, professional

associations and others.

Many other issues in budget practices are being

examined by the Soglin Committee with the Government Finance Officers Association. This study and

other efforts like it should be encouraged and examined for results.

7. Skills that front-line workers need to participate effectively

To ensure successful cooperative relationships that

work over the long run, workers will need to acquire

training to become better able to make judgments about

ways to streamline work practices, improve customer

services and enhance job performance. It is clear that

the most effective training comes when workers and

their unions play a partnership role in identifying the

necessary skills and help plan for the development of

these skills. Where done in partnership, the results have

normally been gratifying and the more practical and

effective the partnership.

The better educated and trained workers and their

union leaders become, the more confident, willing and

able they will be participate in actions to modify or

change in work practices. This training extends into

numerous areas, such as how to engage in interest-based

negotiations, joint-problem-solving, process analysis,

general skills improvement, learning a new job or learning about important organizational systems that assist

their ability to participate in redesign or daily decisions.

Sometimes, training in very basic skills in communication, calculations, analysis or similar issues is a necessity. In other instances, it may be necessary that

workers be kept current on the latest technological or

knowledge advancements that serve to increase productivity in their area of responsibility.

In short, as jobs are redesigned, workers will need

a range of training options to allow them to continue to
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

ened, this situation may present an apparent dilemma

for bargaining unit representatives, especially when

front-line workers argue that certain supervisory or midlevel management positions are unnecessary and obstruct their ability to get the job done effectively. This

puts the union representatives in the difficult and uncomfortable position of not adequately representing one

group or the other.

The Task Force also observed that in unionized

settings, many cooperative relationships were between

management and a coalition of unions in the jurisdiction rather than through one-to-one dealings. This phenomenon merits examination in terms of its impact on

successful service-oriented partnerships. Additionally,

some careful observations of patterns in bargaining unit

construction or interaction which contribute to cooperation would be useful.

11. Impact of new pay systems and recognition programs

Many jurisdictions have pay systems that adapt

very well to labor-management cooperation. However,

the Task Force saw evidence of two new ways of compensating and motivating people stemming from several improvement projects. Both approaches are intriguing and deserve further study.

Gainsharing and team-based performance:

Gainsharing has the benefit of shifting people’s focus

from spending to saving and promotes greater common accountability to do things better. It also shifts the

focus from individual performance to team performance. Gainsharing and other team-based methods of

compensation deserve more research and observation

on such aspects as: what practices are working; how

are the systems best developed; what is the impact of

employee or union involvement in the efficacy and effectiveness of the system; what kinds of formulae are

working; what is the impact of gainsharing on individual and team motivation and performance; what is

the relationship between gainsharing and service quality; what is the impact on cost-effectiveness; and, what

are the impacts on pay or real wages?

Skill-based systems and individual pay-for-performance systems vs. team-based measures and incentives: The Task Force observed a handful of jurisdictions, such as Mercer Island, Washington, that have

developed a way to compensate individuals based less

upon traditional job classification methods and more

upon what the individual contributes to the work of the

organization through increased skills.

Those who have implemented this approach are

very enthusiastic. However, there is a long history in

the public -- and private -- sector of difficulties in trying to manage and administer individual compensation

measurements of performance and skills.

This approach implies sophisticated systems of

measurement, criteria and an ability to make assessments that are considered fair by workers as well as

management. In an era where team work is being increasingly emphasized, this is a system that rewards

individual performance and thus presents a potential

drawback. These new approaches nonetheless merit

examination. The Task Force urges caution when moving forward with implementation of such individualor skills-based systems to ensure that proposed changes

are based on a rigorous examination of results and the

implementation issues, and that existing systems working effectively are not sacrificed for pursuit of an interesting trend.

The Task Force also observed that non-monetary

recognition as well as financial rewards, most often on

a team basis, is being used to demonstrate appreciation

and improve the quality of worklife. An evaluation of

the various forms being used, and how individual and

team recognition figure respectively into the mix and

what measurements are being used, would help spread

the most effective practices.

12. Shifting role of human resource and labor

relations professionals

Traditionally, personnel experts or labor negotiators have primary responsibility for handling labor relations. Most successful workplace partnerships examined by the Task Force emphasized greater involvement

of line managers in employee relations and less focus

on formal systems. For cooperation to work, line or

program managers who influence resources and make
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

CHAPTER . 6

day-to-day decisions must be more involved in personnel and labor relations in order to help share that authority from the practical perspective of the workplace.

This has many implications for the role of labor relations and human resource managers in terms of their

new relationship with line managers.

Research and observation would be beneficial on

the most important aspects of these new roles as well

as how the transition to a new relationship can be made

successfully. A similar analysis would be valuable in

examining changes in the role of union stewards and

other officers and how those roles can best be carried

out and implemented in the context of cooperative, service-oriented partnerships.

13. Impacts of contracting out

The Task Force saw cooperative structures producing cost and quality results equivalent to and better

than results produced by competitive proposals from

private business. The Task Force also observed contracting out being used effectively as part of an overall

strategy of service improvement, usually in the context of a collective bargaining relationship. Along the

way, many questions and concerns were raised by observers. As experience develops with contracting out

and with using alternatives, such as the labor-management partnership, the longer term results could be compared and the ancillary affects examined.

It might be particularly interesting to examine two

types of experiences. First, in instances where labor

and management have developed a level playing field

and approach contracting out within the context of a

constructive relationship, what are the results and what

means were employed? How does the experience and

results compare to other settings? Second, what can

we learn about the differences between contracting situations outside of a working arrangement with employees about how it would be done, and those that are the

product of an understanding about the practice?

In either case, what are the cost and quality implications? What are the effects on the workforce, its

size, productivity, income and attitude? To what extent does cost shifting take place? What is the impact

of integrating contracted services with in-house services? What is the impact of different kinds of contracting out decisions on labor-management cooperation?

The research agenda in this arena is rich, and the

volume of the debate cries out for careful research, facts,

and evaluation.

14. Alternative Dispute Resolution

ADR has been a subject of research in recent

years, perhaps more so than many of the other topics in

this section. Nevertheless, its use in resolving grievances and other disputes merits further observation as

parties develop interesting means to address their local

circumstances. Also useful to examine is the effect of

improved dispute resolution practices on other parts of

the service improvement process and other dimensions

of the workplace relationship.

Finally, to the extent that mediation and arbitration systems are developed, as described in Chapter 4

and Appendix H in connection with rights under public law, these efforts should be carefully tracked and

compared.

15. Resources

The public record of Task Force activities includes

completed questionnaires from some 54 jurisdictions

as well as summarized testimony and full-hearing tapes

and volumes of materials submitted by participants regarding their particular partnerships. Contact names of

those who appeared before the Task Force and sites

visited are listed in Appendix D. The Task Force invites interested parties to utilize these resources.

It also is anticipated that the State and Local Government Labor-Management Committee, which brings

together major national-level public employer and union

organizations concerned with labor relations in state

and local government, will develop additional information and resources that will assist with further learning and inquiry. (For more information regarding the

work of this Committee, see Chapter 4, and for a list of

member institutions, see Appendix F.)

16. Laboratories

George Taylor, a pioneer in public labor-management relations, suggested many years ago that the states,

developing unique systems to match local circum-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

stances, could be “laboratories for experimentation.”

As different cooperative workplace relationships are

developed in state or local government, results should

be analyzed for lessons that can be replicated. The

agenda is much broader than suggested here. It is important for states not only to examine their own activities, but also that states, associations, unions, universities and other research institutions work to make comparisons and examine the range of activities going on.

The practice and improvement of state-by-state

bargaining practices and workplace activities supporting participation has suffered from insufficient sharing

and comparisons, as well as from insufficient activity

and interest in recent years. The Task Force hopes that

the examples it has uncovered will remind potential observers of the importance and promise of excellence in

the public sector. 
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

CHAPTER . 6
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Snapshot: . CINCINNATI, . OHIO. . PUBLIC . SCHOOLS

When Cincinnati voters failed to

renew a tax levy in 1994, the Cincinnati Public

Schools faced another round of budget cuts —

$31 million out of a $320 million budget. This

wave of cuts came on the heels of a $53 million

reduction made between 1992-94, when over 50

percent of the central office and 225 teaching

positions were cut. At that time, many ineffective, outdated or low priority programs were

eliminated; bureaucracy was slashed.

Thus, in 1995, it was no longer possible

to spare from cuts classroom and other important services to students. Secondary librarians,

guidance counselors, nearly all extracurricular

activities and popular magnet programs were

cut. Another 200 positions were eliminated,

and 150 teachers laid-off.

Hard times are a rigorous test of the

strength of labor-management cooperation.

Testifying in mid-1995 about a relationship that

began in 1985: “But the Cincinnati Federation

of Teachers (an AFT affiliate) and the administration of the Cincinnati Public Schools have

not allowed the cuts to pit us against each

other,” Monica Curtis, a senior representative of

the Superintendent’s office, told the Task Force.

“Instead, we have joined forces to seek additional revenue from state, city and county

government and to try to pass two tax levies in

November 1995.1

 This is possible because

union leadership knows the district’s budget,

knows there is no painless way to balance the

budget; nearly all CFT suggestions for cutting

waste or inefficient spending have been

adopted.”

The Cincinnati Public Schools have

50,000 pupils and 3,500 teachers, including

substitutes. The student body is 65 percent

African American, 35 percent Caucasian and 67

percent receive free or reduced cost lunches.

Property taxes provide 60 percent of the budget.

In Ohio, school systems have their own taxing

authority, but must seek voter approval for their

levies.

The partnership between the teachers

and the administration did not happen overnight. Teachers and their union, CFT Local

1520, and administrators have spent a decade

carefully building and solidifying their cooperative relationship. Today, that collaborative

approach is integrated into every aspect of their

relationship, from the collective bargaining

process to joint efforts in professionalism, from

shared decision-making at the district level to

managing resources and balancing the budget.

The process began in 1985 with development of a Peer Assistance and Evaluation

Program for beginning teachers and veterans

with teaching deficiencies, testified CFT

President Tom Mooney. Consulting teachers,

jointly selected by CFT and CPS administration, mentor both new teachers through an

internship program and also work with veteran

teachers who show serious deficiencies. The

joint CFT-CPS panel adopts program guidelines

and hears appeals from teachers rated unsatisfactory.

Demonstrating the value and objectivity

of peer evaluations, in the program’s first year,

1985-86, consulting teachers rated 10.5 percent

of their interns less than satisfactory compared

to 4 percent of new teachers evaluated by

administrators. Five percent of beginning

teachers under peer review were dismissed,

compared to 1.6 percent of those evaluated by

principals. Results for subsequent years have

been similar.

Results of the intervention program

during its first five years were encouraging,

Mooney said. One-third of teachers referred

have been found not to require intervention,

one-third have improved their performance to at

least a satisfactory level as a result of intervention. One-third have been removed from the 1 Subsequently, both levies passed, a renewal and

an increase.
Snapshot: . CINCINNATI, . OHIO . PUBLIC . SCHOOLS

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

classroom during intervention through termination, resignation or retirement.

Peer Assistance and Evaluation, first

proposed by CFT in 1983, was negotiated in the

1985 collective bargaining contract. It is now

offered to teachers in all fields, including

support service professionals. Results of both

internship, begun in September 1985, and

intervention, which started a year later, demonstrate that performance standards have been

raised. During its first five years, 61 percent of

teacher dismissals for performance reasons have

resulted from peer review; 39 percent from

evaluation by administrators.

This program was the first of several

major reforms jointly undertaken by the CFT

and CPS in teacher training, induction evaluation and career development in order to raise

professional standards in teaching. Today,

Mooney said, Cincinnati teachers are increasingly taking on leadership in instruction and

program improvement. Other examples include:

• Career in Teaching Program, started

in 1990, builds on peer review. Teachers can

advance through four levels based on advanced

education, experience and skill. Teachers

acquire more rights, professional status and pay

as they advance. At the top, lead teachers earn

about $5,000 beyond the regular salary schedule

in return for taking on more responsibility in a

variety of leadership roles.

• Professional Practice Schools in

which graduate student interns spend a year in

paid, clinical internship supported by a team of

lead and career teachers.

• High School for the Teaching Profession, which has 200 students enrolled in this

magnet program for future teachers. This effort

also is serving to boost recruitment of minority

teachers by “growing our own” teachers,

Mooney said.

• National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards is in the process of developing standards and devising assessments to

issues certificates of advanced proficiency in

approximately 36 teaching fields. Cincinnati

has served as a field test site for the NBPTS. A

CFT member has served on the National Board

since its inception.

• School-based staff selection was

negotiated in 1994 and implemented in the

spring of 1995, removing this function from the

central office. It empowers teachers and

principals to select candidates for teaching

vacancies whether the position is filled by

transfer or hiring. The principal and a panel of

four teachers from the department, team or unit

screen and interview applicants and make the

selection.

Another area in which labor-management cooperation is firmly established is shared

policy decision-making, Curtis said. She said

that district-level joint committees are empowered to deal with policy, resource allocation,

oversight of key programs and logistics. In

addition to the following specific examples,

Curtis emphasized that informal consultation on

policy and direction is an equally important

aspect of making shared decision-making

successful.

Examples include:

• Educational Initiatives Panel, which

oversees innovation and reform in instructional

areas, plans future innovations, approves

applications for state and federal funds. It is cochaired by the CPS superintendent and the CFT

president.

• Teacher Allocation Committee, which

oversees compliance with class size provisions

of the collective bargaining contract, monitors

allocation of teachers to schools (the district’s

largest expense) and has authority to allocate

additional teachers, instructor assistants or

overload pay (from a limited pool) when classes

exceed limits or to reduce a school’s allocation

and reassign teachers to other schools. This

arrangement allows the district to guarantee

teaching and learning conditions while managing its budget.

• Budget Commission, formed in 1994,
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

recommends the annual budget to the superintendent and analyzes the budget to determine

percentage spent on instruction and other direct

services to students versus amount spent on

administration, logistics and support services.

This group strives to increase the percentage

going to the front-line by monitoring district

revenue and identifying strategies to seek

additional revenue.

• Curriculum Councils, formed in 1993

in 11 major subject areas, consist of delegates

from each school where the subject is taught.

The Councils adopt their own by-laws, have

their own steering committees and a chair, who

is a lead teacher. The contract describes their

role: to work with the CPS Department of

Quality Improvement to develop and maintain

high quality curriculum, books and other

teaching materials and assessments.

• Peer Review Panel and Career in

Teaching Panel. (See above)

• The Employee Benefits Committee

monitors utilization of health benefits and

intervenes when there are problems with

insurance carriers. The Health and Safety

Committee monitors hazards, can conduct

inspections and recommend actions to prevent

or correct problems. The teachers and administrators have also developed a code of conduct

and discipline for students that has assisted the

learning environment by increasing safety and

order in the schools.

In testimony typical of cooperative

efforts in other community, CPS and CFT

representatives described how the strong labormanagement partnership has been extended into

the community to include top business leaders.

This three-way alliance has been particularly

effective in efforts to pass local school levies

and to downsize administrative bureaucracy. ■
Snapshot: . CINCINNATI, . OHIO . PUBLIC . SCHOOLS

WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

APPENDIX

THE . SECRETARY . O F . LABOR'S . TASK . FORCE . O N

EXCELLENCE . I N . STATE . AND . LOCAL . GOVERNMENT

THROUGH . LABOR-MANAGEMENT . COOPERATION

CHAPTER

ONE

T O . THE . REPORT . O F
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Appendix A

Task Force Mission Statement

The economic success of our Nation, as well as

the social well-being of its citizens, depend, in large

measure, on the essential services and infrastructure

provided by state and local government. The imperative to compete in an increasingly worldwide economy

and to respond to increasing societal demands requires

that governments at all levels perform in a timely and

cost-effective manner. It is essential that public management and organizations of their employees work

together in order to respond effectively to these fundamental needs.

To this end, the Secretary of Labor has established

a Task Force on Excellence in State and Local Government through Labor-Management Cooperation. The

task force will investigate the current state of labormanagement cooperation in government and report to

the Secretary in response to the following questions:

1. What, if any, new methods or institutions

should be encouraged to enhance the quality, productivity and cost-effectiveness of public sector services

through labor-management cooperation and employee

participation, recognizing the broad variety of functions performed by different levels of government and

various other agencies and public organizations?

2. What, if any, changes to legal frameworks

which impact on labor-management relations, including collective bargaining and civil service legislation

could be considered to enhance cooperative behaviors

that would improve the delivery of services by reducing conflict, duplication and delays?

3. What, if anything, should be done to increase

the extent to which workplace problems are resolved

directly by the parties themselves rather than through

recourse to administrative bodies and the courts?

4. What, if anything, can be done to improve the

coordination between appropriate executive and legislative bodies to enhance labor-management relations

in the public sector and to create a climate where productivity improvement, innovation and risk taking are

encouraged and rewarded?

5. What conditions are necessary to enable

elected political leaders, public managers, public employees and labor organizations to work together to

achieve excellence in state and local government?

What are the obstacles, and how can they be overcome?

6. What examples of successful cooperative efforts are appropriate to serve as public sector models?

Why have some initially successful efforts failed, and

what can be done to enhance prospects for success?
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Appendix B

Task Force Members Biographies

Task Force Co-Chairs

JIM FLORIO was governor of New Jersey. Under his leadership, New Jersey embarked on an agenda

of economic development, business creation, property

tax relief, health and welfare reforms, housing, environmental and education initiatives. He previously

served seven terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and three terms in the New Jersey General Assembly.

JERRY ABRAMSON has been mayor of Louisville, Kentucky since 1985 and is a past president of

the U.S. Conference of Mayors. His work to make

government more accessible to citizens and his formation of a variety of public-private partnerships has

brought him a number of honors, including being

named “Most Valuable Public Official in City Government,” “Municipal Leader of the Year” and “Special Award for Outstanding Personal Leadership.”

Under his leadership, Louisville received the 1995 Innovations in Government Award from the Ford Foundation and Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy

School of Government.

Task Force Members

ARVID ANDERSON is retired as chairman of the

New York City Office of Collective Bargaining, a post

he held since the New York City Collective Bargaining Law was passed in 1967. He is presently an active

arbitrator. He previously was associated with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission as Executive Secretary and as Commissioner for 19 years. He

is a past president of the Association of Labor Relations Agencies, and the National Academy of Arbitrators.

MARTHA BIBBS currently serves as Deputy State

Personnel Director for Workforce Planning & Innovation and is a key partner of Michigan’s statewide quality initiatives. Bibbs served as state personnel director

for the Michigan Civil Service Commission for seven

years and was president of the National Association of

State Personnel Executives for two years. She is also

a member of the International Personnel Management

Association.

AL BILIK was elected as president of the Public

Employee Department of the AFL-CIO in 1988. His

career in the labor movement spans some 40 years.

Bilik has been associated with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

(AFSCME) for more than 30 years in various staff

positions including deputy director of District Council

37 in New York, executive director of the Cincinnati

District Council, and assistant to the AFSCME president for organizing. He was president of the Cincinnati AFL-CIO labor Council for six years.

HEZEKIAH BROWN is director of labor-management programs at Cornell University, New York

School of Industrial and Labor Relations; project director for the minority arbitrators training program cosponsored by Cornell, Hofstra School of Law and the

American Arbitration Association; and an active labor

mediator and arbitrator. He previously was chairman

of the New York State Mediation Board and the State

Employment Relations Board. He was a commissioner

with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

for 12 years.

LUCILLE CHRISTENSON is director of the Office of Human Resources within the Department of

Labor and Industries in the State of Washington. This

office combines traditional human resources functions

with the agency’s Quality Initiative staff. She previously supervised the Governor’s Human Resource and

Labor Relations policy staff, and managed a consulting service within the Office of Financial Management

which provided management and operational assistance

to state agencies. She also served as executive director of the Governor’s Efficiency and Accountability

Commission which used teams made up of private and

public sector loaned executives to improve efficiency,

effectiveness, and resource utilization in state government.

MARY HATWOOD FUTRELL is the dean of The

Graduate School of Education and Human Development, associate professor in the Department of Education Leadership, and director of the Institute for Cur-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

riculum, Standards and Technology at The George

Washington University. She has served as President

of Education International since 1993. She previously

was president of the National Education Association

from 1983 to 1989.

ARTHUR HAMILTON is minority leader of the

Arizona House of Representatives, having served in

that capacity since 1981 and as Representative since

1973. He is a past president of the National Conference of State Legislatures. He is employed as a public

affairs representative for the Salt River Project, a Phoenix-based water and electric company.

MICHAEL LIPSKY is a program officer for governance and public policy at the Ford Foundation. Previously, he taught at the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, the University of Wisconsin, and Harvard

University. Lipsky is the author of Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service,

and co-author of Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State

in the Age of Contracting.

JAMES MASTRIANI is chairman of the New

Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission, currently serving his fifth term in this office. He is also a

part-time professor at the School of Management and

Labor Relations at Rutgers University. He is a member of the labor-management education committee for

the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and is on

the national panel of labor arbitrators of AAA and the

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. He was

president of the Association of Labor Relations Agencies in 1987.

BEVERLY STEIN was elected as Multnomah

County Chair (Portland, OR) in 1993, having served

in the Oregon legislature since 1988. Stein presides

over the 5-member Board of County Commissioners

and is the chief executive of 4,000 county employees.

In December 1994, Governing Magazine named Stein

“Public Official of the Year.” The flagship of Stein’s

government is the RESULTS Initiative (Reaching Excellent Service Using Leadership and Team Strategies),

a labor-management cooperative effort. RESULTS is

a team based initiative for increasing government productivity, employee morale, and taxpayer confidence.

She serves on the national board of the Alliance for

Redesigning Government.

KENNETH YOUNG is retired as executive assistant to the president of the AFL-CIO, having served in

that capacity since 1980. He previously was director

of AFL-CIO’s legislative department. He has worked

as an organizer, an editor, a researcher and a labor educator in a career in the labor movement that spans 40

years.

KENT WONG is director of the UCLA Center

for Labor Research and Education and president of the

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance. He teaches

labor and ethnic studies at UCLA. He previously

worked for six years as staff attorney for the Service

Employees International Union representing Los Angeles County employees.

Executive Director

Jonathan Brock is associate professor in the

Graduate School of Public Affairs, and chair of the

Cascade Center for Public Service, at the University

of Washington in Seattle. He serves frequently as a

neutral in labor-management relations and other conflicts. He is author of Managing People in Public Agencies and Bargaining Beyond Impasse. He has served

as a Special Assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Labor,

and as Executive Assistant to the Assistant Secretary

of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health

Designated Federal Official

Chuck Richards is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Labor-Management Programs at the U.S. Department of Labor. He worked in the labor movement

for 26 years; sixteen with the American Federation of

Teachers as a National Representative, Organizing

Director and Assistant to the President. He then spent

10 years as Director of Field Activities at the Public

Employee Department, AFL-CIO, where he developed

a strong interest in labor/management cooperation. For

the year immediately preceding his appointment at the

Department of Labor, he was an assistant campaign

manager and was the National Labor Coordinator for

the Clinton/Gore campaign.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Elaine Kamarck, Senior Policy Advisor to the

Vice President

Office of the Vice President

Gerald McEntee, President

American Federation of State, County and

Municipal

Employees

Robert Shapiro, Associate Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

John J. Sweeney, President

Service Employees International Union

Robert Tobias, President

National Treasury Employees Union

Steve Wall, Executive Director

Ohio Office of Quality Services

WASHINGTON, D.C.

JANUARY 10-11, 1995

Some Views on Excellence in Education

Through Labor-Management Cooperation

Educational Leaders --

K-12 Education and General Issues

Harlow Claggett, Labor Relations Director

Michigan Association of School Boards

Representing the National Association of

School Boards

Roland Haun, President

American Association of School Administrators

Ed McElroy, Secretary-Treasurer

American Federation of Teachers

Marilyn Monahan, Secretary-Treasurer

National Education Association

Kathryn Whitfill, President

National Parent Teachers Association

Focus on Higher Education

Mary Burgan, General Secretary

American Association of University Professors

Appendix C

Hearing Agendas and Witnesses*

Identifying information is correct as of the hearing date.Within each hearing, witness names are listed

alphabetically by issue.

WASHINGTON, D.C.

OCTOBER 19-20, 1994

Opening Remarks

Robert B. Reich, Secretary of Labor

U.S. Department of Labor

Jerry Abramson

Mayor of Louisville, Kentucky

Task Force Co-Chair

Jim Florio

Former Governor of New Jersey

Task Force Co-Chair

Witnesses

Roger Dahl, Executive Director

National Public Employer Labor Relations

Association

John T. Dunlop, Chairman

Commission on the Future of Worker

Management Relations

Lamont University Professor, Harvard University

Barbara Dwyer, Executive Director

Alliance for Redesigning Government

Paul Goldberg, Executive Director

Ohio Civil Service Employees Association,

AFSCME

Local 111

Thomas Glynn, Deputy Secretary of Labor

U.S. Department of Labor

* Because of the numerous employees, managers and union

leaders who spoke to the Task Force in field visits, some individuals were not on the manifest or not fully recorded for those

events. The Task Force, nevertheless, appreciates all of the input

received.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Statistics

Bureau of Labor Statistics

U.S. Department of Labor

Kimberly Zieschang, Associate Commissioner

Office of Compensation and Working Conditions

Bureau of Labor Statistics

U.S. Department of Labor

NORTHWEST REGIONAL MEETING

FEBRUARY 7-8, 1995

SEATTLE and OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

FEBRUARY 7, 1995

City of Seattle, Washington

Lizanne Lyons, Director of Labor Relations

Tony Vivenzio

Seattle Firefighters Union Local 27

City of Mercer Island, Washington

Rich Conrad, Assistant City Manager

David Hart, Maintenance Team Technician

AFSCME Local President

Marcy Olson, Maintenance Team Member

AFSCME Local Vice-President

Lindsay Andreotti, Manager of Organizational

Effectiveness

Diane White, Director of Development Services

Janet Gocken, Public Team, Development

Services

Susan Davidson, Private Team, Development

Services

King County Metro Transit

Evelyn Ahrens, Administrative Staff Assistant

WPCD Team

Judith Boitenott, Custodian

John Campagnaro, Electrician, Tunnel Team

Elaine Chapman, Chief of Training

Public Safety Partnership

Lottie Cross, Chief, RISP Team

Thomas Hustoles

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone

Representing Institutions of Higher Education

James Perley, President

American Association of University Professors

Example of Collaborative ProblemSolving in Higher Educaton

Jerry Furniss, Past President and Former Chief

Negotiator

University Teachers Union, University of

Montana

Alternative Means of Workplace Problem

Solving

Alternative Dispute Resolution and

Collaborative Bargaining as Means to

Cooperation, Problem Solving and High

Performance State and Local Government Workplaces

Stephen Goldberg, President

Mediation Research and Education Project, and

Professor of Law, Northwestern University

William Hobgood, Vice President,

Mediation Research and Education Project

Example of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Workplace

John Higgins, Senior Vice President

Boston Edison Company

Donald Wightman, Vice President

Utility Workers Union of America

Overview of the Demographics of the State

and Local Public Workforce

Ronald Kutscher, Associate Commissioner

Office of Employment Projections

Bureau of Labor Statistics

U.S. Department of Labor

Thomas Plewes, Associate Commissioner

Office of Employment and Unemployment
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Chris Daniels, Information Operator

RISP Team

Darrell Dudgeon, Base Chief, Trolley Team

Jim Ellis, Supervisor, Tunnel Team

Michael Freund, Transit Operator

Trolley Team

Gordon Guhl, Transit Operator, Trolley Team

Don Honeycutt, Senior Information Operator

RISP Team

John Kruse, Senior Operator, WPCD Team

Dan Linville, President

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587

Mark McKeown, Line Crew Chief, Tunnel Team

Paul Muirhead, Technical Trainer, WPCD Team

Gloria Overgaard, Manager of Transit

Operations

Peggy Renfrow, Project Administrator in

Operations

Curtis Robinson, Base Supervisor

Security Task Force

Mattie Robinson, Operator of the Year

Dick Rowe, Chief, Tunnel Team

Linda Smith, Manager of Sales and Customer

Service

Paul Toliver, Director of Transit

Barry Uchida, Manager of Power and Facilities

Rick Walsh, General Manager

Terry White, Assistant Chief, RISP Team

Sherman Willis, Technical Assistant, Tunnel

Team

Metro Renton Water Treatment Plant

Bill Burwell, Operations Manager, WPCD Team

Barney Cain, Facilities Constructor

WPCD Team

Irene Eldridge, WPCD Team

SEIU Local 6

Daryl Grigsby, Director of Water Pollution

Control

Gary Locke, County Executive

King County

David Piper, Maintenance Electrician

Washington State Department

of Labor and Industries

Overview of Quality Initiative and

Reorganization

Mark Brown, Director

Washington Department of Labor and Industries

Lucille Christenson, Assistant Director for

Human Resources

Washington Department of Labor and Industries

Diane Lutz, Chief Negotiator

Washington State Federation of Employees

Tina Peterson, Director of Personnel Board

Activities

Washington Federation of State Employees

Mike Watson, Deputy Director for Policy

Washington Department of Labor and Industries

Theresa Whitmarsh, Division Director

Washington Department of Labor and Industries

Mike Zenk, Business Agent

IBEW Local 76

Imaging Project

Doug Connel, Program Manager for Claims

Sara Spiering, Industrial Insurance

Compensation Supervisor

Theresa Whitmarsh, Division Director

Washington Department of Labor and Industries

PORTLAND, OREGON

FEBRUARY 8, 1995

Portland Water Bureau

Larry Attinger, Executive Director

AFSCME Local 189

Randy Holly, Supervising Engineer

Michael Rosenberger, Administrator
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Northeast Health Clinic (Multnomah

County)

Kathy Blosser, Gresham Division

Oregon Nurses Association

Mike Gittens, Facilitator, Gresham Division

AFSCME

April Kramer, Facilitator, Gresham Division

AFSCME

Teresa Williams, Manager

Quality Initiatives

Carolyn Mark, Director

Oregon Quality Initiative

Michael McCoy, Vice President

Northwest Natural Gas

Richard Oare, Labor Relations Specialist

IUOPE Local 11

Multnomah County

Deanna Cicotti, Librarian and Shop Steward

AFSCME Local 88

Barry Crook, Budget and Quality Manager

Multnomah County

Joe Devlaeminck, President

AFSCME Local 88

Cindy Gibbon, Director of Community Services

Multnomah County Library

Bunny Harrold, Representative, Multnomah

County

Oregon Nurses Association

Beverly Stein, County Chair

Multnomah County

Phil Sund, President

Multnomah County Corrections Officers

Association

State of Oregon

Nancy Brown, Conciliator

Oregon Employment Relations Board

Oregon Health Care Sciences University/

AFSCME Local 328 Labor Management

Committee

Linda Bachman, Steward

AFSCME Local 328

David Blair, Director of Labor Relations

Pete Seidel, Manager

Keith Tintle, Associate Hospital Director

of Professional Services

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MARCH 14-15, 1995

Police

Gilbert Gallegos, National Vice President

National Fraternal Order of Police

Gil Kerlikowske, Police

Commissioner, Buffalo, NY

Police Executive Research Forum

Robert Kliesmet, President

International Union of Police Associations

Robert Scully, Executive Director

National Association of Police Organizations

Fire Fighting

Tom Siegfried, President

International Association of Fire Chiefs

Alfred K. Whitehead, President

International Association of Fire Fighters

Corrections

Joseph Puma, Executive Director

AFSCME Council 82

Worker Attitudes Survey Results

Joel Rogers

The University of Wisconsin-Madison
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Public/Private Comparison of Union

Organizing and Elections

Kate Bronfenbrenner

Cornell University

Tom Juravich

University of Massachusetts

Organizing and Service of Professionals

Lovely Billups, Director of Field Service

Educational Issues Department

American Federation of Teachers

Nancy Mills, Coordinator of Worker

Participation Programs

Service Employees International Union

Jacques Nacson, Senior Policy Analyst

National Center for Innovation

National Education Association

Larry Spivack, Collective Bargaining

Supervisor

AFSCME Council 31

Briefing on Workplace Regulatory Issues

and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Donna Lenhoff, General Counsel

Women’s Legal Defense Fund

Lawrence Z. Lorber

Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand

R. Gaull Silberman, Commissioner

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Citizen Attitudes and Expectations of

State and Local Government

Geoff Garin

Garin-Hart Strategic Research

NORTHEAST REGIONAL MEETING

APRIL 11-12, 1995

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

APRIL 11, 1995

Massachusetts Highway Department/

SEIU Local 285

Frank Borges, Secretary-Treasurer

SEIU Local 285

Lee Deveraux, Heavy Equipment Mechanic

and Maintenance Liaison

SEIU Local 285

Charles Kostro, Chief Policy Analyst

Massachusetts Executive Office of

Transportation and

Construction

Steve Lowry, Heavy Equipment Mechanic

and Maintenance Liaison

SEIU Local 285

Anthony Salamanca, Deputy Chief Engineer for

Privatization

Massachusetts Highway Department

Kevin Sullivan, Deputy Commissioner

Massachusetts Highway Department

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

Joint Labor-Management Committee for

Municipal Police and Fire

James Costello, Labor Senior Staff

Donald Hawkes, Management Senior Staff

Morris Horowitz, Vice-Chair

Robert McCarthy, Alternate Fire Member

President, Professional Fire Fighters of

Massachusetts

Raymond McGrath, Police Chairman

International Brotherhood of Police Officers

David Owen, Management Member

Town Administrator, Burlington

Roger Turdeon, Management Chair

PORTLAND, MAINE

APRIL 11, 1995

City of Portland and AFSCME Local 481

Hadlock Field, Districting Program, and

Construction Company
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY

APRIL 12, 1995

State of Connecticut - District 1199/New

England Health Care Employees Union

(SEIU) Quality of Worklife Program

Tom Heads, Supervising Clinical Psychologist

Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation

Christopher Lassen, Coordinator

Quality of Worklife Program

Del Pelletier, Assistant Regional Director

Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation

Lou Weisenbacher, Mental Retardation

Program Supervisor

Department of Mental Retardation Local 1199

Bridgeport, Connecticut Labor-Management Cooperative Program

Charlene Hosticka, Labor-Management

Coordinator

City of Bridgeport

Dennis Murphy, Chief Administrative Officer

City of Bridgeport

Mardi Schroer Mattei, Field Representative

Connecticut Education Association

Ulster County, New York/Civil Service

Employees Association Labor Management Committee

Thomas Costello, Personnel Officer

Deborah DeCicco, Tax Map Technician

CSEA Local 856

Karen MacIntosh-Frering, Labor-Management

Coordinator

Ulster County

Karen Lucas, Management Analyst

Russ Brown, District Leader

AFSCME Local 481

Nadeen Daniels, Assistant City Manager

City of Portland

Ken Dietrich, Main State Field Representative

AFSCME

Steve Early, District Coordinator

Robert Ganley, City Manager

City of Portland

Larry Goodson, District Leader

AFSCME Local 481

Rich Meserve, District 4

AFSCME

Roy Mulkern, District Leader

AFSCME 481

Kevin Noys, Foreman

Jim Pritchard, President

AFSCME Local 481

Craig Pyy, Construction Foreman

Mark Spiller, District Leader

AFSCME

Maine Employee Health Commission

Insurance Program

Jo Gill, Executive Director

Maine State Employee Health Insurance Program

Bill McPeck

Maine State Employees Association, SEIU

Massabesic Teachers Association and the

Maine Labor Relations Board

Preventive Mediation Initiatives

John Alfano, Mediator

Maine Labor Relations Board

Millard Gethner, Chairman

Massabesic School Board

Priscilla Wood, President

Massabesic Teachers Association
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Local Union Leadership, Quality and

Cooperation Efforts

Jeffrey Keefe, Associate Professor of Labor &

Employment Relations

Rutgers University, School of Management &

Labor Relations

New Jersey State Judiciary and The

Judicial Employees Labor Alliance

John Loos, Legislative and Political Liaison

Communications Workers of America

Representing the Judicial Employees Labor

Alliance

Mark Rosenbaum, Administrator of Labor and

Employee Relations

New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL MEETING

APRIL 20-21, 1995

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

APRIL 20, 1995

O. Wendall White, City Manager

City of Charlotte

Public Safety Pay Plan / Performance

Evaluation - Charlotte Police

Department

Jack Boger, Chief

Mary Broderick, Administration

Larry Blydenberg, Captain

Dale Green, Sergeant

Dave Grose, Captain

Freda Lester, Officer

Jackie Maxwell, Sergeant

Karen McCotter, Human Resources Department

Ken Miller, Sergeant

Pat Tynan, Officer

Stephanie Whitsides, Budget Office

Pay Plan / Performance Evaluation -

Charlotte Fire Department

Jay Adams, Fire Fighter I

Tommy Bolinger, Captain

Rob Bowline, Captain

Rob Brisely, Engineer

Art Brown, Administrative Officer

Kelly Brown, Fire Fighter II

Kent Davis, Fire Fighter II

Luther Fincher, Chief

Glen Garris, Engineer

Steve Goggio, Fire Fighter II

Keith Helms, Captain

Sam Jones, Fire Fighter I

Pete Lambeck, Fire Fighter II

Karen McCotter, Human Resources Department

David Morre, Fire Fighter II

Kenny Nantz, Battalion Chief

Tim Rogers, Captain

David Taylor, Assistant Chief

Implementation of a Broadbanding

Pay System

Karen McCotter

Charlotte Human Resources Department

Joanne Perez

Charlotte Human Resources Department

Pamela Syfert, Deputy City Manager

City of Charlotte

Issues of Competition

Wayman Pearson, Director

Charlotte Solid Waste Services

David Cooke, Director

Charlotte Business Support Services

City of Hampton, Virginia

Self-Directed Work Teams

Kevin Gallagher, Recycling Manager

Tharon Greene, Director of Human Resources

Christine Snead, Budget Manager
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Latrelle McAllister, Personnel Supervisor

Calvin McCullough, Horticulturist

SOUTHWEST REGIONAL MEETING

MAY 3-4, 1995

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

MAY 3, 1995

City of Los Angeles, California

Jackie Goldberg, Council Member

Los Angeles City Council

Joint Labor-Management Benefits

Committee

Ray Allen, Assistant General Manager

Los Angeles Personnel Department

Michelle Buehler, Administrative Assistant

SEIU Local 347

Henry Hurd, Employee Benefits Manager

Jeannette Ross, Chairperson of Joint LaborManagement Benefits Committee

Engineers and Architects Association

California Joint Labor-Management

Child Care Committee

Linda Morrison, Statewide Affirmative

Action Coordinator

California State Employees Association

Patricia Pavone, Chief, Benefits and Training

Division

California Department of Personnel

Administration

Foshay Middle School

Howard Lappin, Principal

Foshay Middle School

Wayne Stevens, Chapter Chair

United Teachers of Los Angeles

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

APRIL 21, 1995

South Carolina Department of Revenue

& TaxationDivision of Motor Vehicles

Quality Service Team

Terry Bozell, Branch Specialist

Gregorie Frampton, Executive Administrator

Ike McFarlan

Leslie Spratlin

South Carolina Quality Network

Gregorie Frampton, Board Member

City of Charleston, South Carolina

Joseph Riley, Mayor

Charleston Parks Department

Danny Burbage, Assistant Superintendent

Franklin Freelow, Foreman

Ben Green, Custodial Supervisor

Connie Hires, Inspector

Cynthia Wright, Assistant

Charleston Police Department

Gregory Batts, Sergeant, Team 2

Anita Craven, Investigator 4

Nancy Fanning, Lieutenant, Team 3 Commander

Ron Hamilton, Captain

Anthony Januszkiewicz, Lieutenant, Team 4

Rovert Kemp, Corporal, Team 4

Roger Reagor, Lieutenant, Team 2

South Carolina Executive Institute

Philip Grose, Director

City of Rock Hill, South Carolina

Michael Kropp, Supervisor

Grounds Maintenance
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

MAY 4, 1995

Jefferson Middle School

Julie Ambrogi, Principal

Jefferson Middle School

Michael Houser, Director, Employee Relations

Albuquerque Public Schools

Don Whatley, President

Albuquerque Teachers Federation

City of Phoenix, Arizona

Robert Cantwell, Assistant Fire Chief

Phoenix Fire Department

Gary Pykare, Business Manager

IAFF Local 493

City of Hobbs, New Mexico

Andy Graham, Captain

Hobbs Fire Department

Michael Gray, Fire Chief

Hobbs Fire Department

Fran Mosher, Personnel Director

City of Hobbs

Michael Ravanelle, Captain

Hobbs Fire Department

Larry Wood, Driver Engineer

Hobbs Fire Departmen

City of Salt Lake City, Utah

Roger Black, Director of Public Services

Salt Lake City Corporation

Gordon Ottley, President

AFSCME Local 1004

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MAY 16-17, 1995

Comparing Viewpoints in the Debate on

Contracting Out: Implications for

Labor-Management Cooperation

Marshall Barry, Director

Labor Research Center of Miami and Boston

Diana Ceresi, Associate General Counsel

Service Employees International Union

Laurence Clements, Director

University of Iowa Labor Center

Richard Loomis, Senior Vice President

COMARCO

James Mercer, President

Mercer Group

Elliott Sclar, Professor

Columbia University

Ronald Utt, Visiting Fellow

Heritage Foundation

Role of Labor-Management Cooperation

in Service Improvement and Efficiency

City of Los Angeles (Bureau of Sanitation

and Department of General Services)

and SEIU Local 347

Craig Bierlein, Refuse Truck Operator

Bureau of Sanitation

SEIU Local 347

Sharon Delugach, Chief of Staff

Office of Council Member Jackie Goldberg,

13th District

James Keehne, Automotive Supervisor

Fleet Services Division

Department of General Services

Rayfield Lewis, Refuse Truck Operator

Bureau of Sanitation

SEIU Local 347

Marilyn McGuire, Manager

Refuse Collection Division

Art Sanchez, Refuse Truck Operator

Bureau of Sanitation

SEIU Local 347

Drew Sones, Assistant Director

Bureau of Sanitation

Sandy Spencer, Senior Personnel Analyst

Bureau of Management/Employee Services
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Dmitri Tatum, Field Representative

SEIU Local 347

Jesse Taylor, Refuse Truck Operator

Bureau of Sanitation

SEIU Local 347

Dave Trowbridge, General Manager

SEIU Local 347

Massachusetts Highway Department and

SEIU Local 285

Frank Borges, Secretary-Treasurer

SEIU Local 285

Lee Deveraux, Heavy Equipment Mechanic and

Maintenance Liaison

SEIU Local 285

Charles Kostro, Chief Policy Analyst

Executive Office of Transportation &

Construction

Steve Lowrey, Heavy Equipment Mechanic and

Maintenance Liaison

SEIU Local 285

MIDWEST REGIONAL MEETING

JUNE 5-6, 1995

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

JUNE 5, 1995

City of Indianapolis, Indiana

Steve Fantauzzo, Executive Director

AFSCME Council 62

Mike Stayton, Director

Department of Public Works

Ray Wallace, Special Assistant to Mayor

Goldsmith on Costing

Indianapolis Fleet Service

Stephen James, Assistant Administrator

Dominic Mangine, President

AFSCME Local 3131

John McCorkhill, Administrator

Oliver Webb

AFSCME Council 62

Indiana State Employee LaborManagement Project

Lee Balliet, Project Director

Steve Fantauzzo, Executive Director

AFSCME Council 62

Karl Frederiksen

Unity Team (UAW/AFT Local 9212)

Tom Iles

Marion County Office of Family and Children

City of Peoria, Illinois

Joint Labor-Management Committee to

Control Health Care Costs

Jerry Belcher, Vice President

Peoria Municipal Employee’s Association/

AFSCME Local 3464

Tom Jackson, Treasurer

IAFF Local 50

Dave Koehler, Executive Director

Peoria Area Labor-Management Committee

Member of Peoria City Council

Pat Parsons, Director

Peoria Office of Personnel and Labor Relations

City of Cincinnati, Ohio

Cincinnati Federation of Teachers/

Cincinnati Public Schools

Monica Curtis, Director of Public Affairs

Cincinnati Public Schools

Tom Mooney, President

Cincinnati Federation of Teachers

MADISON, WISCONSIN

JUNE 6, 1995

City of Madison, Wisconsin

Tom Mosgaller, Quality Coordinator

Mike Murphy,

AFSCME Local 60

Paul Soglin, Mayor
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Madison Metro/Teamsters Local 695

John Annen, Operator

Teamsters Local 695

David Hoeft, Operator

Teamsters Local 695

Paul Larrouse, General Manager

Madison Metro

Ryan Larson, Manager

Metro Plus

James Remsik, Steward

Teamsters Local 695

Frances Walls, Steward

Teamsters Local 695

Madison Department of Planning

and Development, Building Inspection

Unit

George Austin, Director

Department of Planning and Development

Thorston Horton, Customer

Rolland Kiel, Inspector

AFSCME Local 60

William Neitzel, Inspector

AFSCME Local 60

Harry Sulzer, Supervisor

Department of Planning and Development

Mike Van Erem

Department of Planning and Development

Madison Police Department

Joseph Durkin, Sergeant

Madison Professional Police Offices Association

Michael Masterson, Captain

Richard Williams, Chief

Madison Streets and Sanitation Division

Roger Goodwin, Superintendent

Christopher Kelly

Laborers International Union Local 236

University and City Partnership: In

Pursuit of Quality

Soren Biscard

Center for Quality and Productivity

Francois Sainfort, Professor of Industrial

Engineering

John Wylie, Provost

University of Wisconsin at Madison

Wisconsin Department of Industry,

Labor and Human Relations LaborManagement Advisory Council

Eric Baker, Deputy Administrator

Wisconsin Department for Unemployment

Compensation

Shirley Baumann, Internal Communications

Coordinator

Greg Krohm, Administrator

Wisconsin Workers Compensation Division

Jean MacCubbin

State Engineers Association

Sandy Oemichen

Wisconsin Professional Employees Council

Pat Pagel

Wisconsin State Employees Union/AFSCME

WASHINGTON, D.C.

JUNE 22-23, 1995

Effects of Finance, Budget, and Pension

Trends on Labor-Management

Cooperation

Bridget Anderson, Partner

KPMG Peat Marwick

Steven Kreklow, Budget and Management

Special Assistant

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Ian Lanoff, Partner

Bredhoff & Kaiser
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Harold Schaitberger, Legislative Counsel

National Conference on Public Employee

Retirement Systems

Albert Shanker, President

American Federation of Teachers

Christopher Zimmerman, Chief Economist

National Conference of State Legislatures

Experiences of State or Local Elected

Officials in Implementing Workplace

Changes

Philip John Dawson, City Councilor

Portland, Maine

Charles Quincy Troupe, State Representative

Missouri, 62nd Legislative District

WASHINGTON, D.C.

JULY 10-11, 1995

Role of Neutral Agencies in Promoting

Workplace Cooperation

Daniel Ellis, Chairman

Oregon Employment Relations Board

Shlomo Sperka, Director

Michigan Employment Relations Commission

Immediate Past-President, Association of Labor

Relations Agencies

John Calhoun Wells, Director

Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service

Legal Issues

Peter Paschler, Former Member

Iowa Public Employment Relations Board

Herman Torosian, Commissioner

Wisconsin Employment Relations Commisson

Schlomo Sperka, Director

Michigan Employment Relations Commission

High-Performance Work Environments

Jerome Rosow, President

Work In America Institute

Magma Metals

John Champagne, President

Magma Metals

Robert Gadiana, Director

United Steelworkers, Sub-District 8

AT&T

Pam Hanchett, Government Finance Manager

AT&T Credit

Daphne Harris, Credit Manager

AT&T Credit

Ann Henry, Head of Organizational Design &

Development

AT&T Capital

Mark Hoffman, Unit Facilitator

AT&T Credit

Becky Snyder, Portfolio Asset Manager

AT&T Credit

Bob Weingardner, Sales Support Manager &

Reseller Account Manager

AT&T Credit

Effects of Civil Service

National Association of State Personnel

Executives (NASPE)

Robert Dumont, President-Elect (NASPE)

Administrator, Massachusetts Department of

PersonnelAdministration

Linda Hanson, Executive Committee Member

(NASPE)

Director, Iowa Department of Personnel

Oscar Jackson, Jr., President (NASPE)

Administrator & Secretary of Human Resources

Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management

Stephen Osborne (NASPE)

Director, South Carolina Office of Human

Resources
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

International Personnel Management

Association (IPMA)

Steve Marincel

Business Representative, AFSCME Council 14

Hennepin County, Minnesota

Charles Sprafka (IPMA)

Associate County Administrator for Human

Resources

Hennepin County, Minnesota

WASHINGTON, D.C.

SEPTEMBER 13-14, 1995

Thomas Donahue, President

AFL-CIO

The View from Counties

Randy Franke

Vice Chair, Commissioners’ Office, Marion

County Oregon

Immediate Past President, National Association

of Counties

The Role of Schools of Labor Relations

and Labor Studies

Margaret Hallock, Director

Labor Education and Research Center

University of Oregon

David Lipsky, Dean

New York State School of Industrial and

Labor Relations

Cornell University

Robert Pleasure

Chair, Labor Studies, The McGregor School,

Antioch University

Executive Director, The George Meany Center

Perspectives of Elected Officials

Paul Soglin, Mayor

Madison, Wisconsin

Michael Stayton, Director of Public Works

Representing Mayor Stephen Goldsmith

Indianapolis, Indiana
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Appendix D

Summaries from Site Visits and Examples,

Including Contact Persons

The analysis and discussion in the Task Force

report draws substantially on first hand observation and

analysis of service improvements and cost savings from

successful use of workplace cooperation and participation in state and local government. These Task Force

interactions took place with hundreds of labor and management leaders, front line workers, elected officials,

and often with community members. All of the examples are summarized briefly in this Appendix and

contact persons at each site are noted.

The Task Force held ten days of field hearings

and site visits in five regions of the country. All examples are arranged in the Appendix by region, whether

they were part of these field hearings or received in

Washington, DC hearings. In cases where the example

is referred to in the report text or in the “Snapshots”

following each chapter, the reader is referred there for

more detail.

Many of the sites visited or heard from had more

substantial programs than could be examined during a

brief visit, and space limitations preclude comprehensive descriptions. Those limitations are reflected in

the scope of these summaries. The purpose is to provide an indication of the range of settings and services

we visited in which useful improvements were taking

place, and the different ways in which they were approached.

Such a listing is necessarily incomplete. There

are many other communities and government institutions that have cooperative service improvement partnerships and other successful participation programs.

The Task Force tried to get a sample of them across

regions of the country, at different levels of government, and in a range of services offered by state and

local government. These and the many others that the

Task Force was unable to visit, provide inspiring and

informative examples from which others can learn.

NORTHWEST REGION SUMMARIES

King County, Washington

Note: For additional detail on the following, see

Chapter 1 of this report.

Department of Metropolitan Services (METRO)

Issues: COLLABORATIVE BARGAINING,

WORK TEAMS, JOB REDESIGN

Management: Paul Toliver, Director of Transit,

King County METRO (206)684-1441)

Labor: Dan Linville, President, Local 587,

Amalgamated Transit Union (206)448-8588)

Metro employees represented by ATU and the

IBEW drive buses, provide power to the trolley buses

and perform work in station and vehicle maintenance,

rider information, safety and shelter design. Labormanagement relations had been contentious for years,

but the use of collaborative bargaining now produces

quicker and more satisfactory settlements. Greater involvement of operations personnel in bargaining led

to a change in emphasis from “problem avoidance” to

“problem-solving.” Through labor-management cooperation, Metro and its unions restructured and redesigned jobs, including the creation of work teams.

Resulting cost savings and improved customer service

include: fewer power interruptions to the electric trolleys, tunnel cleaning costs reduced by more than

$100,000 over previously contracted out services as

well as other savings; bus shelters free of graffiti because of the community’s “buy-in” to a refurbishment

project; ridership increased by 50 percent over the projected goal on specific routes as a result of a joint

labor-management “drive for excellence.” Phone information employees worked in teams to deal with the

5 million calls received per year. They left the office

to learn how customers actually experience the services

Metro delivers. Working with route planners and

schedulers they developed a system map and a phone

menu system, among other system improvements. The

percentage of calls handled jumped from 50 percent to

90 percent, accuracy increased, and the average wait

fell from 157 seconds to 65 seconds.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

METRO Water Treatment Facilities

Issues: WORK TEAMS, GAINSHARING,

INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATIONS

Management: William Burwell, Operations

Manager, METRO East Division Reclamation Plant

(206)684-2408

Labor: Irene Eldridge, Union Representative, SEIU

Local 6 (206)448-7348

Seattle’s water treatment facilities are also part

of Metro. The Renton plant has won awards for technical excellence and has also dealt creatively with

changes in the workforce through a “Participative

Workplace Program” (PWP) covering both union and

nonunion employees. Out of 550 total employees,

about 200 are in SEIU Local 6. A design committee of

union, staff and management developed a plan for

employee participation through “business teams” (natural work teams) and cross-functional project teams.

Employees are empowered to “run their own part of

the business” through enhanced communications and

information sharing and exercising decision-making

powers in many key areas, such as scheduling and

maintenance. Supervisors are now “coaches, teachers, leaders.” The change process also involved the development of a labor-management partnership based

on collaboration and mutual goals. A joint labor-management policy committee addresses issues and helps

to interpret the contract and deal with or prevent conflicts. In effect, this committee serves as the bridge

between collective bargaining and workplace collaboration.

Gainsharing is provided for all workers -- union,

non-union, and managers -- who have an impact on

costs. The program is a performance-based, team-incentive plan that links employee compensation with

improvement at the plants and off-site facilities through

employee involvement. Specific performance measures are targeted and a baseline has been established.

Workers receive half the cost savings achieved: a recent quarterly net gain amounted to $133,332, of which

half was returned to Metro and half went to employees. A description of the program is available. The

joint labor-management committee is also working to

develop a job and pay progression system in which

advancement takes place through acquisition of skills,

not just seniority. The goals are to apply the same

measurable criteria to all employees and to encourage

employee initiative and career advancement.

Mercer Island, Washington

City of Mercer Island

Issues: TEAMWORK, CHANGE PROCESS,

PUBLIC WORKS, MORE FLEXIBLE

CONTRACT, REGULATORY REFORM,

EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME SECURITY

Management: Rich Conrad, Assistant City

Manager, City of Mercer Island (206)236-3570

Labor: Dave Hart, President, Washington State

Council of County and City Employees Local 21-M,

AFSCME (206)236-3656

The task force heard from union and management

representatives from Mercer Island, a small island/city

in Lake Washington, just east of Seattle, which underwent restructuring and job redesign in 1991 to remedy

service problems. First, in a non-union situation, the

city improved its development services, such as issuance of building permits and conduct of inspections,

by adopting a team approach and by “flattening” the

department through elimination of some management

positions. Then, members of the Public Works Department, represented by AFSCME, requested that their

department undergo a similar process.

Key to the success of these efforts was early and

constant employee and union involvement and a continuing recognition of the need to maintain employment security and pay security. A flattened organization replaced traditional hierarchies, and now almost

50% of employees work in a team structure. For example, maintenance employees work in construction,

mechanical, environmental and support teams with no

intervening supervisory level between them and the

city manager. In the team structure, team leaders (not

in the bargaining unit) facilitate work assignments,

while team generalists act as field foremen. The parties developed a labor-management compact and an

employee bill of rights in which parties strive to identify joint interests and not concentrate on pay and rules.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

There has been a natural impact on the collective bargaining agreement. The contract was described as more

flexible and primarily focused on customer service and

related objectives. Its length and complexity were also

substantially reduced. There is deliberate inclusion of

viewpoints of elected officials (through involvement

of the mayor, council members, budget staff) in the

cooperative relationship focused on service.

Seattle, Washington

City of Seattle

Issues: RESPONSES TO CONTRACTING OUT,

JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES,

INCLUSION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS

Management: Lizanne Lyons, Director of Labor

Relations, City of Seattle (206)684-4000

Labor: Tony Vivenzio, Executive Director, Seattle

Fire Fighters Union Local 27 (206)285-1271

In the City of Seattle, a beginning effort at service focused cooperation developed between management and a coalition of about 30 unions in 50 bargaining units in response to a prolonged period of difficult

relations. The situation had come to a stalemate -- with

some in management seeking a contracting-out ordinance and unions planning a public campaign -- when,

instead, labor and management crafted a “Statement

of Joint Commitment.” This statement set forth a shared

cost-savings approach as an alternative to possible contracting out, and a structure of joint problem-solving

committees whose membership includes city council

members and staff. The process had just gotten under

way with the selection of projects to work on. Bargaining issues may be discussed in the process, but

they are pushed to the bargaining committee for consideration of actual changes. Both sides acknowledge,

however, that the trust and candor built up in the committee process have improved the collective bargaining relationship. In the most recent round of talks, the

parties settled COLA and medical issues for the nonsafety services before the agreements expired, which

is apparently unusual in that jurisdiction.

Some of the results thus far include efficiencies

from equipment sharing and scheduling adjustments,

and saving from a redefinition of overtime, with 50%

of the latter savings earmarked for employee training

and development. Unlike earlier attempts at “TQM,”

which were “top-down” and more staff driven, this effort was agreed to by both labor and management principals. The inclusion of council members and council

staff brought in another key stakeholder, cited as important for success in view of the council’s important

role in the budget.

Washington State

Note: For additional information, see Chapter 4 of

this report.

Department of Labor and Industries

Issues: TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT,

JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENTCOMMITTEES,

TRAINING, INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY,

CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TEAMS, CONTRACT

CONTAINING QUALITY PROCESS

Management: Lucille Christenson, Assistant

Director for Human Resources (360)902-4226

Labor: Dianne Lutz, Director of UnionManagement Relations, AFSCME Council 28

(360)352-7603; Mike Zenk, Business

Representative, IBEW Local 76 (206)475-1192; Al

Gilmore, Business Manager, United Association of

Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and

Pipefitting Industry Local 32 (206)728-1832

The Washington Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) headquartered in Olympia has collaborated

with AFSCME, IBEW and PPF representing its approximately 2,600 employees to implement quality

initiatives, reorganize the Department and the workers’ compensation office, and revolutionize claims processing through the adoption of imaging technology.

AFSCME represents about 2,400 L&I workers, the

IBEW about 150, and there are 25 plumbers and

pipefitters. Restructuring of L&I was undertaken to

improve customer service, access and satisfaction. The

effort, accomplished between March 1993 and 1994,

followed the principles of a Total Quality Management

initiative embarked upon two years prior: customer
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

focused, employee involvement and data driven.

The reorganization plan sought to eliminate “turf”

issues that got in the way of customer service by organizing around common customers as opposed to statutes or funding source, and to eliminate or combine

duplicate services. The effort was driven by data from

over 3,200 customer contacts (internal and external).

The number of supervisors was reduced from 500 to

300, number of divisions reduced from eight to four

and fully empowered regional service delivery organizations were created. Many managerial and supervisory positions were eliminated and their incumbents

redeployed to provide direct customer service and/or

to field service locations. According to witnesses, the

reorganization worked because there was a successful

labor-management relationship, employee involvement, customer focus, and good involvement of stakeholders and a supportive administration.

Cross-functional teams redesigned the five major service areas of the department. Managers were

urged to serve on the teams. Unions either assigned a

liaison to the team or had members on the team; part

of their role was to identify issues on which formal

collective bargaining had to take place. A significant

effort was made to protect the basic employment security of the workers. Notably, the cooperation was so

effective that no grievances were filed over the reorganization, even though hundreds of jobs were affected.

(A hiring freeze resulted in more than 300 jobs being

offered to the 110 managers losing their positions.

There were only two bumps.) Witnesses noted some

spill-over from the teams’ efforts to later collective

bargaining negotiations, since relationships of trust had

been built between labor and management.

As an example of ongoing quality efforts, the new

technology of “claims imaging” has transformed case

processing in the workers’ compensation area. It was

implemented as a result of labor-management quality

efforts. Under the old microfiche technology, it took

two or three weeks for a claims manager to get updated files once key information was received. Now,

they can have the file almost instantaneously when they

receive an inquiry. Timeliness and accuracy of case

handling have improved vastly and customers are being served in much less time. Labor-management cooperation was instrumental in getting retraining for

workers (e.g., in keyboard and other computer skills)

so that layoffs were avoided. An ad hoc labor-management committee addressed issues such as ergonomics, selection of equipment, and design of new jobs.

The new technology is projected to save the state $10

million a year.

Portland, Oregon

Portland Water Bureau

Issues: PARTNERSHIP, INVOLVEMENT OF

ELECTED OFFICIALS, QUALITY,

CONTRACTING OUT, REDEPLOYMENT,

GAINSHARING

Management: Michael Rosenberger, Administrator,

Portland Water Bureau (503)823-7555

Labor: Thomas O’Dea, Council Representative,

AFSCME Council 75 (503)239-9858

The Portland Water Bureau’s 500 employees are

represented by AFSCME and five other unions. The

Bureau’s quality improvement process began in 1989

with an effort initiated from the top down by union

and management leadership and that focused on work

groups and an overall culture change. In 1991, the

city completed installation of a new consolidated water control system that cut in half the number of operators needed, and brought about a 10 percent reduction

in energy costs needed to run the pumps. The control

center and laboratory were redesigned through labormanagement collaboration. Working together to address the need to reduce positions overall in the bureau, the parties were able to bring about redeployment without layoffs. Joint planning in the earliest

stages let employees cycle into vacancies; thus a key

element of the success of the cooperation was that

people knew they wouldn’t lose their jobs.

Political leaders (i.e. city commissioners) are included in the overall planning process along with managers and union leaders. Moreover, the role of labor

has changed: it is more than a stakeholder, it is an

“equal sponsor” of change. Collective bargaining issues are not part of the partnership (though the parties

do use a collaborative approach to bargaining). A sig-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

nificant area for cooperation is in the broad area of

assessing how to provide the best services economically. Although pressed to consider privatization, the

Water Bureau does not assume that privatization is automatically the right idea, rather, the question is posed:

“What is most economic and effective?” Parties are

collaborating in addressing the development of sophisticated measurement tools for making cost comparisons, as well as the careful listing and consideration of

other criteria for such decisions: e.g., customer service, long- run human resource development, how best

to serve the ongoing needs of maintaining the system.

A booklet has been produced by the parties on this subject.

Multnomah County, Oregon

Note: For additional detail on the following

summary, see Chapter 1 of this report.

Multnomah County

Issues: TEAMWORK, PARTNERSHIPS,

QUALITY FOCUS, INCREASED PUBLIC

SERVICE, CULTURAL CHANGE

Management: Beverly Stein, Chair, Multnomah

County (503)248-3308; Barry Crook, Manager,

Budget and Quality Manager, Multnomah County

(503)248-3575; Ginnie Cooper, Director of

Libraries, Multnomah County (503)248-5403

Labor: Joe Devlaeminck, President, AFSCME

Local 88 (503)248-3749; Bunny Harrold,

Representative, Multnomah County, Oregon Nurses

Association (503)248-6168

Multnomah County government has engaged in

a comprehensive labor-management cooperative approach to improve delivery of public services in which

the wall between labor and management is crumbling.

Chapter One describes their comprehensive quality and cooperation efforts, “RESULTS: Reaching Excellent Service Using Leadership and Team Strategies.”

As an example, a panel from the library system described changes that occurred as the system moved

from private to publicly run. Separate unions cooperated, and the work began to be done in teams. They

addressed issues such as scheduling and the development of performance standards -- very different from

the traditional areas in which employees had input. As

in other government functions, the customer determines

what is good service. The bottom line for this group

was that their survival depends on their ability to cooperate. A noteworthy result of their efforts is that libraries are now open one more day a week with no

staff increase and an increasing number of cost savings are emerging.

Northeast Health Clinic

Issues: TEAMWORK, BECOMING

COMPETITIVE, RESPONDING TO MARKET

Management: Teresa Williams, Clinic Manager

(503)248-5183

Labor: Michael Alexander, Labor Representative,

Oregon Nurses Association (503)293-0011; Jim

Younger, Business Representative, AFSCME Local

88 (503)239-9858

The Northeast Health Clinic is a large, primary

care facility run by Multnomah County. Employees

are represented by the Oregon Nurses Association and

AFSCME Local 88. Relationships were formerly

adversarial, with a bitter nurses’ strike in 1980. Although attempts to establish quality programs were

initiated subsequently by management, it was the institution of the Oregon Health Plan in early 1994 --

putting the Clinic into competition with other providers -- that has brought about the most significant developments in union and employee involvement, a focus on customer satisfaction, and joint problem-solving. Tmhe process has involved creation of a quality

improvement steering committee and a customer service/professionalism committee. A vision statement

and standards for excellence were developed, and there

is increased emphasis on teamwork, problem-solving,

joint information-gathering, and a change in attitude

toward the clientele. Customers benefit from a multilingual staff, better information signs in the clinic, and

other service improvements.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

State of Oregon

Oregon Health Sciences University

Issues: COLLABORATIVE BARGAINING,

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT,

PROCUREMENT, GRIEVANCE REDUCTION

Management: Keith Tintle, Associate Hospital

Director, Oregon Health Sciences University

(503)494-4035

Labor: Dianne Lovell, Council Representative,

AFSCME Council 75 (503)239-9858; Randi Post,

Labor Relations Representative, Oregon Nurses

Association (503)293-0011

The adoption of interest based negotiations, improvements in grievance handling, and joint projects

to streamline procurement were described by a panel

of labor and management from the State of Oregon

Health Sciences University. Employees are represented

by AFSCME and the Oregon Nurses Association. After individuals attended an FMCS-sponsored labormanagement conference in Washington D.C. about five

years ago, the parties began to initiate collaborative

bargaining and TQM. With regard to the negotiations

process, training in problem-solving has been provided

by a state conciliator. Facilitators who were generalists learned how to teach the parties how to solve problems themselves. The quality process helped to smooth

contract negotiations, and when the negotiations got

in trouble, the parties had the foresight to look beyond

those problems. Changes in grievance-handling pushed

the process lower down the hierarchy and eliminated

two of the five steps. Grievances have been reduced

by 40 percent, and a grievance adjustment board made

up of two each from labor and management has reduced reliance on arbitration.

An example of where teamwork has produced

substantial savings, and is likely to produce much more,

is procurement. Fourteen different departments at the

university engaged in procurement; customers and

suppliers were not satisfied, either with the process or

the costs. A labor-management steering group from

the various units initiated a study of the procurement

process with the help of a consultant. From flow charts,

the team saw what the old process looked like, saw the

opportunities for savings, designed a new process, and

decided how to implement it. It is expected that savings resulting from the team’s efforts in this area will

be substantial. Although there has been no guarantee

of continued employment, attrition and retraining have

been relied on to ensure that the smallest possible number of workers are affected.

State of Montana

Note: This testimony was received during the Task

Force’s January 10-11, 1995 Washington, DC

hearing.

University of Montana

Issues: HIGHER EDUCATION

Management: James Lopach, Associate Provost,

University of Montana (406)243-4829

Labor: Jerry Furniss, Associate Professor,

University of Montana Business School and Past

President, University Teachers Union (406)243-2062

Testimony was presented on how the employeremployee relationship was turned around at the University of Montana, where labor-management relations

had traditionally been adversarial and narrowly focused: all issues other than money were ignored. In

1993, a new approach was attempted that involved the

sharing of information and exploration of a wide range

of issues, including workload and student access to

classes. A strategic plan for bargaining was developed

with the involvement of a neutral mediator and trainer.

Training of parties in the process was done jointly, the

process was broadened to include those who could

implement the decisions, and other stakeholders, such

as students, the board of regents, and the governor’s

office, were included. Parties acknowledged they were

taking a risk because the outcome of such a process

was uncertain, and union members received assurances

that they could go back to traditional bargaining at any

time. This seemed to give them needed security to

engage in the process, which included more emphasis

on problem-solving, joint problem-definition, and datagathering.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

NORTHEAST REGION SUMMARIES

State of Massachusetts

Note: For additional detail on the following

summary, see Snapshot: MassHighway.

Massachusetts Highway Department

Issues: TEAMWORK, COMPETITION,

SCHEDULE CHANGES, REDUCTION IN

OVERTIME, SICK TIME AND TIME LOST;

IMPROVED SKILLS, TRUST, BETTER

COMMUNICATION

Management: Charles Kostro, Chief Policy

Analyst, Executive Office of Transportation and

Construction (617) 973-7255

Labor: Frank Borges, Secretary-Treasurer, SEIU

Local 285 (617) 426-0410 ext 113; AFSCME

Council 93 (617)367-6000 ; NAGE (617)376-0220

In 1992, Governor Weld’s administration proposed to turn over all highway maintenance to one private contractor. In meetings with employees, the possibility of an in-house bid was discussed. Under the

initial program, seven contracts were put out for bid in

Essex County: four went to private contractors, three

to a union consortium (NAGE and AFSCME were part

of the group).

According to the parties the results have been

excellent. Drawbridge operators have produced a 70

percent reduction in overtime, and substantial decreases

in sick time. For the entire workforce that won contracts, there has been a 60 percent reduction in workers’ compensation claims, and workers are credited with

being directly responsible for the improvements in

highway maintenance. Workers’ ideas produced savings from such changes as flexible scheduling, putting

maintenance personnel in the field, adding night shifts,

or identifying where preventive maintenance could usefully be done. Much of the success has been due to

teamwork and planning, as well as skills enhancement

that has enabled internal, upward mobility. Virtually

all the changes have been made within the scope of the

current collective bargaining agreement, its wage and

benefit provisions, and the personnel system, although

the degree of trust and focus on service and customer

satisfaction allows the parties to use those systems more

flexibly. Nearly $8 million have been saved through a

variety of cost saving improvements undertaken including the benefits of this effective cooperative relationship. Union and management are looking for ways to

extend similar cooperation and cost savings to other

parts of the state.

Massachusetts Joint Labor-Management

Committee for Municipal Police and Fire

Issues: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION,

JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE,

CONTRACT DISPUTES, IMPROVING TIME TO

SETTLEMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY

Management: Don Hawkes, Management Senior

Staff (617)727-9690

Labor: James Costello, Labor Senior Staff

(617)727-9690

The Joint Labor-Management Committee, established by legislation in 1977, has six members representing labor, six representing management, and two

neutrals all appointed by the governor for three-year

terms. It exercises broad oversight responsibility for

collective bargaining negotiations involving municipal police officers and fire fighters. It assists the parties in resolving contract disputes without going to arbitration by invoking mediation and other voluntary

forms of dispute resolution and problem-solving; serves

as a forum for the discussion of current issues in public safety labor-management relations, and strives to

foster an environment conducive to productive and responsible collective bargaining.

The committee may invoke a specified form of

limited arbitration in cases that “have remained unresolved for an unreasonable period of time” and that

“constitute a potential threat to public welfare.” In such

cases, the decision shall be binding on the union and

the employer “subject to the approval of a funding request by the municipal legislative body” (city council

or town meeting). The committee process also permits the voluntary use of arbitration by agreement of

the parties. The committee each year issues a report

detailing its activities in settling disputes.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

This approach is an example of innovative uses

of alternative dispute resolution in a labor-management

context, keeping parties focused on problem solving.

Boston Edison Company

Note: This testimony was received during the Task

Force’s January 10-11, 1995 Washington, DC

hearing.

Boston Edison Co.

Features: GRIEVANCE MEDIATION, CROSSFUNCTIONAL TEAMS, CONTRACT

SETTLEMENT, LONG-TERM CONTRACTS,

SAFETY NET, IMPROVED BARGAINING

RELATIONSHIP, LONG TERM BUSINESS

PLANNING

Management: John Higgins, Senior Vice President,

Boston Edison (202)273-1960

Labor: Don Wightman, Vice President, Utility

Workers Union of America (202)347-8105

In this example, the Task Force heard testimony

about labor relationships in a privately owned utility

company because of the similarities between such regulated utilities and the public sector.

Boston Edison had a history of unproductive labor-management relations, including bitter strikes and

thousands of grievances, since at least the 1960s. In

the mid 1980s, competition forced the company to

change how it did business internally. It brought in a

neutral expert to develop systems for mediation and

expedited handling of the grievance backlog. The goal

-- and result -- was to shift from a perspective of winlose and scoring points to one of problem-solving. The

witnesses provided figures to indicate a much higher

settlement rate under the new system, with greatly reduced costs. No cases have even been mediated in the

past two years -- the issues are being resolved at lower

levels. Total per-case mediation costs average $200

versus $3,000 for arbitrator fees alone.

The parties indicated that the improved skills,

trust and relationships from the process have also affected contract talks, prompting easier settlements.

They created cross-functional teams to deal with customers, and used problem-solving techniques to consolidate job classifications, moving in one area from

70 to 35 workers without layoff (retraining was provided, along with a higher rate of pay for remaining

workers). Open discussions led to operating changes.

The labor agreement is for six years and remaining issues are being addressed in problem-solving groups.

Management selection and development practices

are changing to develop leaders who work more effectively in problem-solving with employees and union

leaders.

The parties noted that commitment of top leadership on both sides is crucial to success of such efforts.

Further, the union emphasized the importance of job

security to encourage creativity, risk taking and acceptance of dramatic change.

Portland, Maine

Portland, Maine has a comprehensive labor-management program producing service and cost improvements. For a detailed account of the following summary, see Snapshot: Portland, Maine.

Hadlock Field

Issues: JOINT COMMITTEES, TEAMWORK,

SELF-MANAGED TEAMS, CROSSTRAINING, GAINSHARING, GRIEVANCES,

CONTRACTING-IN

Management: Robert Ganley, City Manager, City of

Portland (207)874-8689; Nadeen Daniels, Assistant

City Manager, City of Portland (207)874-8779

Labor: Jim Pritchard, President, AFSCME Local

481 (207)874-8300 ext 8821

The task force heard testimony from city officials

and employees of Portland, Maine on three major cooperative efforts: construction of a baseball stadium,

the public works districting program, and the city construction company. The city had fairly adversarial labor relations in the 1980’s, and over a third of the city’s

public works employees (represented by AFSCME local 481) were laid off in 1981. When a financial crunch

again faced the city in 1990, management joined with

union leaders and employees in a labor-management
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

committee that prioritized issues, studied them in subcommittees, and brainstormed innovations that led to

cost savings and increased efficiencies.

In 1993, the city decided to build a baseball stadium to attract a minor league team, but realized that

the cost of using outside contractors would be prohibitive. The city manager challenged city workers to build

it themselves. Begun in August 1993, it was ready for

opening day 1994, despite the severity of the intervening winter. The stadium cost the city $2.5 million (minor league ballparks in other cities have cost $8 million to $10 million). The stadium was built through

cooperation and teamwork. The stadium project also

inspired other new ways of work organization producing excellence in city government. (See Snapshot:

Portland, Maine)

State of Maine

Employee Health Commission

Issues: JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE, HEALTH CARE COST SAVINGS

Management: Jo Gill, Executive Director, Maine

State Employee Health Insurance Program (207)287-

6780

Labor: Bill McPeck, Health Commission Member,

Maine State Employees Association, SEIU (207)622-

3151

The Maine Employee Health Commission was

created to deal with health care issues when traditional

collective bargaining failed to deal with a strict funding cap imposed by the legislature. (The size of the

premium paid by workers is still subject to bargaining.) The commission has created the first, statewide

managed care program in Maine. The commission

operates by consensus and has succeeded in bringing

labor-management cooperation to bear on the costs and

complexities of health care in the face of typical political and fiscal pressures facing state governments.

Massabesic, Maine

Massabesic Public Schools

Issues: COLLABORATIVE BARGAINING,

IMPROVING BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP,

IMPROVING TIME TO SETTLEMENT

Management: Millard Gethner, School Board

Chairman, Maine School Administration District 57

(207)247-3221

Labor: Priscilla Wood, President, Massabesic

Teachers Association (207)247-6126

Neutral: John Alfano, Mediator, Maine Labor

Relations Board (207)282-3992

In this example, the parties had a very unsatisfying and contentious relationship: bargaining was positional and confrontational, and there was no binding

resolution of economic items. Both sides were willing

to take the risk of trying something new, and agreed to

try preventive mediation. They employed major elements of collaborative bargaining, including jointness

in problem solving, developing standards for solutions

through brainstorming, and bringing more peoples’

ideas to the table. The traditional caucus method of

developing positions and demands was not used.

People -- union reps and board members alike -- came

to the table with problems, not answers, and they focused on problem-solving instead of trade-offs. The

contract was settled in much less time than before. Both

parties agreed it was a better agreement, with more

mutually satisfactory solutions.

State of Connecticut

Note: For additional detail on the following

summary, see Chapter 1 of this report.

Department of Mental Retardation

Issues: SAFETY, TEAMS, COST SAVINGS,

REDUCTION OF TIME-LOSS INJURIES

Management: Christopher Lassen, Coordinator,

Quality of Worklife Program (203)566-3249; Del

Pelletier, Assistant Regional Director, Department of

Mental Retardation (860)579-6030

Labor: Lou Weisenbacher, Member, New England

Health Care Employees Union, SEIU District 1199

(203)262-9623

The statewide Quality of Work Life program has
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

been funded through the collective bargaining agreement at the rate of $350,000 per year. Pilot programs

have been established, by consensus between labor and

management, in areas such as child care, training, absenteeism, and safety. One pilot program focused upon

a statewide safety improvement program in living units

of the state’s custodial mental health facilities. The

program approached the issue by empowering the

caregivers with the ability to improve safety in the individual work site. It was noted that only direct care

staff can reduce injuries so a team approach was needed

that included the active involvement of facility leadership. Labor-management teams were then established

one-by-one in several facilities. Significant decreases

in injuries and time loss, including nearly $5 million

savings in the first year, were identified. (See Chapter

1).

Bridgeport, Connecticut

Labor-Management Cooperative Program

Features: JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE, HEALTH CARE COST

CONTAINMENT, RESPONSES TO FINANCIAL

PROBLEMS, TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT,

EFFECT ON BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP

Management: Dennis Murphy, Chief

Administrative Officer, City of Bridgeport (203)576-

7119; Charlene Hosticka, Labor-Management

Coordinator, City of Bridgeport (203)576-8358

Labor: Mardi Schroer Mattie, Field Representative,

Connecticut Education Association (203)378-2101

Bridgeport, with a population of 142,000, was

described as “the biggest and poorest [city] in the state,

with the highest taxes.” It filed for bankruptcy in 1991

and has experienced significant layoffs. The FMCS

funded a position to coordinate labor-management cooperation among 15 bargaining units. The city has

4,000 employees, 40 of whom are not unionized.

When the city’s health care plan was canceled,

the labor-management group was used to help solve

the crisis. The joint approach led to a single-provider

plan, with equalized benefits among unions. The revamped program was reported to have saved the city

more than $8 million. Annual costs of the new program have stayed level for the last few years.

Building on the success of its involvement in

health care, Bridgeport’s cooperative program has been

broadened to focus on other areas, using TQM principles. A labor-management steering committee has

selected five project areas out of 40 initially identified

as possible areas of focus. Teams of employees are

currently working on such projects as reducing illegal

dumping, reducing costs and improving purchasing of

office products and services, increasing use of existing computer equipment and output, and improving the

telephone system to improve customer satisfaction and

effective use of resources. The cooperative behaviors

learned in these efforts have affected the collective

bargaining relationships positively, as trust and problem-solving skills have been found to be useful in bargaining as well.

Ulster County, New York

Labor- Management Committee

Issues: JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE, EFFECT ON BARGAINING

RELATIONSHIP

Management: Karen MacIntosh-Frering, LaborManagement Coordinator, Ulster County (914)340-

3542

Labor: Deborah DeCicco, Ulster County Local

Government Representative to the Board of

Directors, CSEA Local 856 (914)340-3491

A joint labor-management committee was established 20 years ago in the collective bargaining agreement between Ulster County, New York (with a work

force of about 1,600) and CSEA Local 856, but the

relationship did not become a truly productive problem-solving team effort until nearly 10 years later. In

1985-86, the county, union and the New York State

PERB jointly received a grant from the FMCS to develop and improve the effectiveness of the existing

committee through process training, full-time facilitation, and adoption of consensus decision-making. The

county-wide committee has joint co-chairs and 10

members each from labor and management. There are
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

also four departmental committees at the county’s largest agencies: mental health services, social services,

the residential health care facility, and Ulster County

Community College. Over the last 10 years, the committees have addressed many issues of mutual concern,

including cost containment, training needs, scheduling of work (including implementation of flexitime),

fair administration of a furlough program, safety and

security concerns of employees.

The cooperative relationship has had a salutary

effect on collective bargaining: While the 1992 agreement took 24 months to reach, the 1995 contract took

only “a few days.” The parties attributed this to the

trust, communications, and problem-solving skills that

had developed in the cooperative process.

State of New Jersey

State Judiciary

Issues: JOINT COMMITTEE, CONSOLIDATING

UNITS, APPROACHING LEGISLATIVE BODIES

Management: Mark Rosenbaum, Administrator of

Labor and Employee Relations, New Jersey

Administrative Office of the Courts (609)633-6540

Labor: John Loos, Legislative and Political Liaison,

Communications Workers of America (609)392-2771

This example describes a joint labor and management response to a sweeping reorganization of the

judiciary in New Jersey. Over a five year period (1992-

97), a workforce of 6,500 employees were to be shifted

from county to state employment and approximately

75 bargaining units across 21 counties represented by

different unions would be drastically reduced. The

restructuring was complicated by the fact that the judiciary had historically not considered itself to be bound

by civil service and collective bargaining laws. A joint

labor-management committee was formed under the

sponsorship of the Chief Justice to work on the personnel and labor relations implications of the consolidation. Members received substantial process training. A basic guideline was that no employee should be

significantly harmed or experience a significant “windfall” from the reorganization. It was recognized that

commitment from top leadership was crucial, as well

as vesting decision-making authority in the people who

participate in the process.

The results of the committee process were significant: The parties agreed on a proposed statute and

a side letter of agreement to establish the framework

for labor relations in the judiciary (which became subject to PERC jurisdiction without a statutory amendment that might have raised questions about the separation of powers). The parties presented the proposed

act and letter of agreement to the legislature together,

and the legislature adopted the bill “without a comma

changed.” The letter of agreement also protects employees’ compensation and benefits, and provides for

their fair treatment, upon conversion to state service.

Five joint committees continue to address issues

such as work force planning and job design, rationalization of health care coverage (including cost containment) and salary disparities. Testimony provided

to the Task Force noted the creative power available

when labor and management come together in a problem-solving mode.

AT&T Credit

Issues: TEAMWORK, COMPETENCY-BASED

PAY

Contact: Ann Henry, Vice President, Organizational

Design & Development, AT&T Capital Corporation

(201)397-4114

Note: This program was described to the Task Force

at it’s July 10-11, 1995 Washington, DC hearing,

arranged with the assistance of the Work in America

Institute to examine significant private sector

examples.

A panel of team members and leaders described

employee involvement at AT&T Credit, a clerical and

professional group of employees specializing in leasing at the AT&T Capital Corporation, a nonunion company. The company, which won the NJ Quality

Achievement Award in 1993, provides customer financing to support the sales and leasing of AT&T products.

It is 86 percent owned by AT&T after a public stock

offering, in which employees (called “members”) received stock options equivalent to 10 percent of sal-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

ary.

Credit work once done outside by a bank was

brought in-house because the company had found that

they couldn’t serve their customers adequately. It was

determined that in-house workers would provide more

personalized service and more accountability to customers. This improvement was due to the members

themselves, who felt they should be empowered because they are closest to the customer. They also

wanted “end-to-end accountability” for the life of the

lease. Likewise, customers wanted faster turnaround

on decisions.

There are presently 13 self-managed teams of 20

to 25 members each. The team culture is embedded in

the company, although individuals are given recognition in addition to team incentives. Team members

are selected through a team interview process, and performance evaluation involves peer appraisal. The company has competency-based pay and training.

SOUTHEAST REGION SUMMARIES

Charlotte, North Carolina

Note: For additional detail on the following

summary, see Snapshot: Charlotte, N.C.

New Pay System: Broad-Banding

Issues: PAY FOR PERFORMANCE, BROADBANDING CLASSIFICATION, EMPLOYEE

TEAMS, EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT, ROLE OF

PERSONNEL PROFESSIONALS

Contact: Karen McCotter, Performance

Management Manager, Department of Human

Resources (704)336-4508; Joan Perez, Consulting

Services Manager, Department of Human Resources

(704)336-6005

Charlotte’s implementation of a broad-banding

pay system was designed and implemented in 1993,

with active input by an employee advisory committee

representing all major departments (other than police

and fire). The employee advisory committee served

as the link to others by providing progress updates and

sharing suggestions from those not on the committee.

Employees now are grouped into six, broad pay bands,

replacing five separate pay plans (including up to 25

pay ranges and nine steps each). The effort involved a

cultural shift from pay entitlement to pay for performance and for adding value to the organization. Tools

for managing pay were placed in the hands of departmental managers, thereby enhancing decentralized

decision-making and resulting in a 25 percent decrease

in the size of the HR department without a reduction

in service levels.

Managers now have flexibility to reward performance without substantially increased resources. Salary costs are controlled because the projected cost of

previous step increases and a possible across-the-board

increase have been replaced with an overall merit increase based on a percent target for the year. In terms

of improved management, performance-based pay has

increased communications between supervisors and

workers, strengthened performance measures and more

closely linked employee performance and the goals of

government. Efficiencies resulted because layers of

management, which had been put in place to reward

employees, could be eliminated in favor of more direct, performance-based rewards. Employees learn

new skills and can assume broader or more complex

duties.

Police and Fire Departments

Issues: PAY AND PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS,

EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT, TEAM

INVOLVEMENT IN TRAINING,

CLASSIFICATION, PUBLIC SAFETY,

EVALUATION SYSTEMS, ROLE OF

PERSONNEL PROFESSIONALS

Management: Chief Jack Boger, Charlotte Police

Department (704)336-2971; Chief Luther Fincher,

Charlotte Fire Department (704)336-2492

Employees: Sergeant Jackie Maxwell, Charlotte

Police Department (704) 336-3691; Art Brown,

Administrative Officer, Charlotte Fire Department

(704)336-3852

Teams comprising members of the City of Charlotte Police and Fire Departments, with human resources staff serving as consultants, have been devel-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

oping new pay and performance systems and measures.

Police and fire employees had been exempted from the

broad-banding pay reforms made applicable to other

jobs in the city in 1993 (see following summary). Recent merger of the city and county police forces also

drove the restructuring of police compensation. The

change process involved formation of a team of employees for each service representing different ranks

and assignments, including civilians. Selection was

by the respective chief, and included those knowledgeable about the pay system and other volunteers. The

departments cooperated in market analysis (e.g., comparisons with salary data from other cities of comparable size), and periodically discussed progress and

shared proposed solutions. The pay plans that emerged

involved simplification of steps, elimination of acrossthe-board increases and closer ties to performance.

The police performance management system

shifted from a “procedures orientation” to an “outcome

orientation,” with particular emphasis on customer service. The evaluation system attempts to build objectivity and eliminate inconsistencies while also measuring outcomes such as whether the response provided

was appropriate to the nature of the call. The police

appraisal system is more flexible to accommodate the

changing nature of the work and the increasing move

to community policing. The fire department has increased liaison with community groups, schools and

churches about fire prevention and safety issues.

Team members shared information and consulted

frequently with rank and file, and conducted needed

training in the new systems. They provide orientation

on the new systems to new employees, taking on a function previously performed by the human resources department. The process had direct ties to the community. For example, the committees were empowered

to speak directly to the City Council. Both workers

and the public have benefitted from the increased morale, competence, and empowerment of employees and

the shifting focus to customer service.

Solid Waste Collection

Issues: COST INFORMATION,

BENCHMARKING

Contact: Wayman Pearson, Director, Solid Waste

Services (704)336-3410; David Cooke, Director,

Business Support Services (704)336-6252

This example described how solid waste services

were considered for bid. Initially, it was realized that

a change needed to be made in the way garbage was

collected: economics forced a change from a backyard pickup to curb-side. When cost savings by city

personnel were demonstrated, the work was kept inhouse. The projected savings from employee input is

more than $1 million.

Hampton, Virginia

Note: For additional detail on the following

summary, see Chapter 1 of this report.

Issues: SELF-DIRECTED WORK TEAMS,

TRAINING, MARKET-BASED COMPENSATION,

GAIN-SHARING, COST MEASURES, QUALITY

MEASURES

Contact: Tharon Greene, Director, Department of

Human Resources (804)727-6437

About a decade ago this small city, with 1,300

full-time positions, faced dwindling resources and competition from neighboring cities. Hampton responded

to these competitive pressures by developing a mission and a statement of organizational values that stress

responsiveness to citizens, quality, integrity, teamwork,

professionalism and innovation. Assistant city managers were re-focused from line tasks to strategic issues. Training in business techniques, such as benchmarking, was provided to enable employees to make

comparisons with other jurisdictions. Employees were

regrouped into self-directed work teams and taught

teaming skills. Sound performance goals were developed, concentrating on “results, not activities.” Ad hoc

problem-solving teams supplement the permanent work

team structure; employees even built the golf course

after private bids proved too high.

Hampton noted that it shares with Charlotte a

focus on customer service, a changed role for human

resources, considerable decentralization of management, and revamped compensation, performance and

incentive systems. (Also, the Charlotte city manager
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

started the program in Hampton at an earlier stage.)

Pay is market driven. Under an incentive program for

innovation and productivity improvements departments

share 10 percent of their annual savings with employees who make cost-saving suggestions.

State of South Carolina

Note: For additional detail on the following

summary, see Chapter 1 of this report.

Department of Motor Vehicles

Issues: TEAMWORK, TOTAL QUALITY

MANAGEMENT, CUSTOMER SERVICE,

APPROACH TO LEGISLATIVE BODY, POLICY

IMPACT

Management: Gregorie Frampton, Executive

Administrator, Department of Revenue and Taxation

(803)737-9830

Employees: Terry Brazell, Leslie Spratlin, Ike

McFarlan (803)737-1782

Members of the quality service team of the Division of Motor Vehicles, state Department of Revenue

and Taxation in Columbia, S.C., described how they

addressed customer service problems in response to

concerns expressed by the legislature. After receiving

training in the quality process, a team of rank-and-file

workers, district managers, and two facilitators gathered data on customer complaints, wants and needs.

The most frequent customer complaints concerned long

lines, the frequent need to make repeat visits because

of inadequatedocumentation and unclear letters received by customers. The team made approximately

90 recommendations for improving service to the public; 10 required legislative action, and as of June 1995,

eight had been enacted.

About nine quality teams are functioning now.

They are managed by a special management team

where the project is located. The DMV quality team

was the first employee group to make a presentation to

the Ways and Means subcommittee of the legislature.

In addition to statutory changes to remove a number

of service improvements, one result was a $600,000

appropriation for total quality management and training.

State Quality Network Association

Issues: QUALITY, BENCHMARKING

Contact: Phyllis Mayes, Assistant Executive

Director, South Carolina Budget and Control Board

(803)737-9389

The South Carolina State Quality Network Association is a group of about 40 agency leaders responsible for some 40,000 employees. The network meets

regularly and shares resources regarding quality improvements. This is part of an effort by the ASQC to

promote information sharing on service quality improvements. When the state legislature moved to mandate a program, the network was able to tell the legislature what was already going on, producing publications that set forth progress reports on member agency

initiatives, a strategic plan for future efforts, and encouragement of further involvement of employees at

all levels. (Currently, suggestions for improvement

average 69 per employee per year.) There is a continuing effort to encourage innovations from the bottom up in order to deal with the problem presented by

frequent political changes in top leadership. Future

efforts intended include examining the efficacy of entire systems, such as tax collection; eliminating duplication of efforts, and bolstering recognition and rewards.

South Carolina Executive Institute

Issues: MANAGEMENT TRAINING

Contact: Phil Grose, Director, South Carolina

Executive Institute (803)737-0844

The South Carolina Executive Institute is administered under the state Budget and Control Board in

Columbia as a “virtual organization.” It has no buildings and little bureaucracy. Instead, it draws upon the

talents of faculties and the physical facilities of educational organizations within the state to provide leadership development programs. In operation since 1991,

it has trained some 145 executives from 46 state agencies, two non-state governmental units, and 11 nongovernmental and corporate organizations. It is based

on the premise that training senior leaders fosters a

productive and positive work climate that promotes

service improvements.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Charleston, South Carolina

Department of Parks

Issues: TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT,

BUDGETING, SELF-MANAGED TEAMS

Contact: Danny Burbage, Superintendent,

Department of Parks (803)724-7416

Five employees described how TQM has become

a way of life in this 176-worker department. Restructuring of the work, along with training, has given individuals more responsibility. For example, an 18-year

employee, the operations coordinator of the janitorial

crew, not only handles the budget in his area but has

also acquired the ability to judge the political sensitivity of complaints. As another example, opportunities

have opened up for a former $4.50-an-hour day laborer

and former waitress, who has advanced by dint of initiative and training to the post of environmental inspector: showing an eye for design, she has planted

trees and done landscaping. Given other opportunities to learn, she acquired a commercial driver’s license

and now can operate equipment, and has moved up in

pay.

There has been a deliberate reduction in supervisory positions as workers have been given more and

more responsibility. Workers show flexibility in their

skills and utilization. They make suggestions and get

involved in all processes including budget and equipment purchases, such as writing specifications for lawn

mowers.

Note: For additional detail on the following two

summaries, see Chapter 1 of this report.

Police Department

Issues: TEAMWORK, COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT

Contact: Captain Rod Hamilton, Charleston Police

Department (803)720-2459

When the current mayor was elected in 1975, the

city work force in general was underpaid and police

were the lowest paid in the area. They had low educational standards, poor training, and no affirmative action. Now, more than 15 members of the force have

advanced degrees, the majority are college educated,

and the 330-member force is now the highest paid in

state. They believe strongly in the team concept, and

everyone is considered part of the solution to the problems of the community. They have a very low turnover, which reflects the level of pay, benefits, morale,

job satisfaction, and the sense of teamwork and family. Education is encouraged for all city workers, who

received released time for classes and extra pay for

degrees. Like other parts of the city, police work in

teams and participate in decision-making on the job.

Four geographic teams of six officers each hold weekly

meetings, anticipate scheduling problems and trade

manpower. They work together on matters such as

special plans for epidemics of purse snatching and other

crimes, and use quality circles for tactical planning.

Ideas are solicited from the bottom up. With increased

autonomy and initiative, squads are given freedom and

power to solve problems as they see fit. Problems are

moved to lower levels, using the skills of individuals

on the teams. A system of meaningful rewards has

been developed, such as days off for “good” arrests

(i.e., performed in a quality manner).

In terms of service to the community, the force

holds meetings in the community to help develop plans.

They have assigned officers to work with the public

housing agency to reduce crime by screening applications and assisting with evictions. Their liaison with

homeless shelters has reduced panhandling and increased resources available for daily meals. In cooperation with neighborhoods, they have selected certain

problem locations and effectively designated them an

entire beat as required.

In sum, they gauge success not by the bare number of arrests but by assessing the feeling of security in

the community.

Rock Hill, South Carolina

Horticulture Department

Issues: TEAMWORK, SHARING OF FINANCIAL

INFORMATION, TRAINING

Management: Latrelle McAllister, Personnel

Supervisor, City of Rock Hill (803)329-5575
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Employees: Michael Kropp, Grounds Maintenance

Superintendent (803)329-5336; Calvin McCullough,

Horticulturist (803)329-5540

Rock Hill is a South Carolina city of some 42,000

located about 20 miles south of Charlotte, N.C. Like

others, it has found itself in competition with surrounding communities for population. Landscaping is one

tool by which the city instills pride in citizens. All city

employees have had customer service training, including teaming. In a significant restructuring of work to

give employees ownership of their jobs, the Horticulture Department moved to a site- specific rather than

functional division of labor. Previously the workers

were divided into four crews: litter, mowing, mowing

the ballpark, and shrubs and flowers. They would move

from site to site and not have a particular attachment

to any park or area. By giving teams of two workers, a

crew leader and a crew worker, responsibility for the

full range of jobs at particular sites (there are about

100 sites), productivity has been enhanced. Workers

have a collective interest in getting the work done because they can leave for the day when all of the teams

have finished their tasks. Savings come also from decreased travel time between sites, better communications among teams and between employees and management. Teams can swap equipment if needed to fill

in for equipment that is out of service, and can combine on certain jobs if there is too much work for one

group to finish. Quality control is also in workers’

hands.

Armed with financial information from supervisors, employees determine operating and capital budgets, how to work more cost-effectively and make better procurement decisions. An employee-inspired preventive maintenance program, for example, resulted

in savings of $40,000. Other savings resulted when

group leaders developed a plan to “disincentivize” the

use of sick leave, and typical sick day usage dropped

from 20 to about three annually. Training is a key factor in the success of the system. New workers receive

50 hours of horticultural training, 32 hours in customer

service; crew leaders get three hours in performance

management training.

SOUTHWEST REGION SUMMARIES

Los Angeles, California

Note: For additional detail on the following

summary, see Chapter 1 of this report.

Bureau of Sanitation and Department of General

Services

Issues: JOINT TEAMS, COST REDUCTION,

CROSS-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION,

RESPONSES TO PROSPECTS OF

PRIVATIZATION, PREVENTIVE

MAINTENANCE

Management: Marilyn McGuire, Division Head,

Solid Resources Collection Division (213)485-

4902

Labor: Dave Trowbridge, General Manager, SEIU

Local 347 (213)482-6660

This is a story of service improvements and efficiencies brought about by labor-management cooperation as well as department-to-department and workerto-worker cooperation. The city has 720,000 customers whose trash is collected twice a week. Since 1983,

the city had been working with the union to reduce

costs and develop plans for conversion to a more automated system. In November 1993, the mayor began

to implement a competitiveness process in six areas in

the city. Pursuant to a city council resolution, a task

force of employees and managers was created to assess service costs so that cost improvements could be

found in solid waste. This “joint team for work standards” (JTWS) developed a mission statement, targeted

goals, set standards for the new “automated” method

of collection, and began to analyze how to control overtime. It soon became clear that a major point of attack

to reduce overtime would be through vehicle maintenance. However, this approach was problematic because the work is performed by another department,

the Bureau of Fleet Services.

The team’s work, and subsequent employee involvement through district-based process action teams

(PATs), brought worker input into areas that traditionally have been reserved to management, and has
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

brought about true shared decision-making. It also was

decided to develop closer working relationships with

the public through the creation of customer focus

groups. The team committed to a 25 percent cost reduction over three years, reducing overtime and nonproductive time. Working with the mechanics, they

actually improved reliable availability from 74 percent

to 93 percent after about a year, far exceeding the goal

of 85 percent. They hope, and expect, to reach 100

percent through additional training, as mechanics now

train drivers in avoiding mechanical problems. With

respect to another stated goal, the overtime hours have

declined over the period 1993-1995 from 17,000 to

9,100. Key elements in the success of the process were

the development of trust between workers and management and among workers; and the memoranda of

understanding negotiated in 1994 providing for job

security: no one was laid off or terminated or suffered

loss of pay as result of contracting out or efficiencies

achieved through cooperation. (Some supervisors were

reassigned -- for example, by being placed out in the

field. Some reduction in management through attrition is expected.) The PATs will be addressing the issue of bonuses or other section or team-based incentives, and a related team concept for goal measurement.

Joint Labor-Management Benefit Committee

Issues: JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE, HEALTH CARE BENEFIT COST

CONTAINMENT

Management: Ray Allen, Assistant General

Manager, Department of Personnel (213)847-9746;

Henry Hurd, Director, Employee Benefits (213)485-

2048

Labor: Michelle Buehler, Administrative

Assistance, SEIU Local 347 (213)482-6660; Jeanette

Ross, Chairperson of Joint Labor-Management

Benefits Committee, Engineers and Architects

Association (213)620-6920

Los Angeles’ Joint Labor-Management Benefit

Committee was created in 1989 and formally authorized by City Council legislation in 1990 for the purpose of attempting to reduce the cost of benefits. The

10 members are evenly divided between union and

management representatives. A jointly selected consultant assists the committee, and joint labor-management teams have been used to examine certain issues.

Development of a flexible benefit plan was the first

labor-management committee effort. While health insurance benefits were difficult to address as any

changes were viewed as a take-away, employees’’ pay

checks were not affected by any of the changes: a 7

percent to 8 percent savings in health care costs was

achieved by changing the health care delivery system.

The committee gained significant assistance from human resource professionals serving as neutral advisers

and facilitators.

Foshay Middle School

Note: For additional detail on the following

summary, see Chapter 1 of this report.

Issue: LABOR-MANAGEMENT-COMMUNITY

PARTNERSHIP, SITE-BASED MANAGEMENT

Management: Howard Lappin, Principal, Foshay

Middle School (213)735-0241

Labor: Wayne Stevens, Chapter Chair, United

Teachers of Los Angeles (213)735-0241

Foshay is a middle school with 2,900 students,

two-thirds Hispanic and one-third African-American.

There is an 80 percent student turnover rate, and 95

percent of the children are in the Chapter One program.

With a history of low student test scores and the threat

of loss of funds, a school-based management program

was instituted to improve the performance of the students and the school. Through the cooperative program, teachers and parents developed ownership of the

change process, including the hiring of teachers. (Similarly, it was noted, when the time comes to select a

new principal, teachers will be involved in the selection process with the support of the union and the community.) The principal helped by obtaining the grants

that provided the necessary funds to improve the technology of the school and supplement the learning process.

The school-based management program and a labor-management partnership helped to change the cul-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

ture of the school. Witnesses noted that for this process to work, union and management leaders must be

partners and trust each other. The collective bargaining agreement allowed teachers to waive parts of the

contract so that the school-based management program

could be implemented. In addition, to a now-effective

learning environment through a program to maintain

order and enhance the classroom experience, test scores

are now near the state average, rising from near the

bottom dropouts and suspensions are drastically reduced.

State of California

Joint Labor-Management Child Care Committee

Issues: JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE

Management: Patricia Pavone, Chief of Benefits

and Training Division, Department of Personnel

Administration and Chair of Child Care Committee

(916)324-9371

Labor: Linda Morrison, Statewide Affirmative

Action Coordinator, California State Employees

Association (916)326-4271

The Child Care Committee was established in

1984 and had 22 members. The CSEA and two other

unions approached management with the proposal to

establish child care centers in government office buildings. The three unions spent a year researching the

issue and developing the proposal. There was strong

support for child care centers as a CSEA survey found

that the lack of chid care was one of the top concerns

of its members. Initially, $1 million was provided, and

21 child care centers were established serving approximately 1,000 children of state employees. Benefits of

the child care centers included reduced use of leave to

care for children, improved employee morale, and less

personnel turnover. The Committee went out of business in 1993 when its funding was not continued. The

established day care centers continue to operate on a

break even basis. There is concern they are not being

widely used by lower-wage employees because they

can’t afford the fees.

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Jefferson Middle School

Issues: WIN-WIN BARGAINING, SITE-BASED

MANAGEMENT, JOINT LEADERSHIP TEAMS,

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Management: Julie Ambrogi, Principal, Jefferson

Middle School (505)268-2334; Michael Houser,

Director, Employee Relations, Albuquerque Public

Schools (505)842-3524

Labor: Don Whatley, President, Albuquerque

Teachers Federation (505)262-2657

Labor-management cooperation activity started

at this 55-year old school in 1986. The parties received

training from FMCS on win-win bargaining principles,

which also helped them resolve grievances. In their

partnership agreement, the parties focused on common

interests and used contract negotiations to address restructuring issues and to establish a Joint Restructuring Leadership Team (JRLT) at the district level. (The

union had received and shared information on restructuring through the use of labor-management cooperation from AFT headquarters staff.) The contract also

established the role of parents in the school-based management process. A School Restructuring Council, with

broad-based representation of parents, teachers and administrators, addresses the needs of students, considering issues that impact the instructional program. The

Council has authority over the discretionary accounts

of the budget ($2.1 million) and can move funds around.

It provides a means for dialogue between parents and

teachers. Task forces are used to address certain issues, perform outreach work to constituent groups, and

conduct surveys. Keeping constituent groups informed,

especially parents, about the issues discussed by the

Council is critical to its success.

Phoenix, Arizona

Note: For additional detail on the following

summary, see Chapter 1 of this report.

Fire Department

Issues: TEAMS, GRIEVANCE REDUCTION,

IMPROVED BARGAINING, JOINT PLANNING
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Management: Assistant Chief Robert Cantwell,

Phoenix Fire Department (602)262-1645

Labor: Pat Cantelme, President, IAFF Local 493

(602)997-1231

IAFF Local 493, formed in 1936, represents about

1,400 members who provide fire and emergency medical services for Phoenix residents. Until 1978, the relationship between the union and management was very

contentious and adversarial. At that time, a new fire

chief and union president took office and focused their

relationship on improving customer service. Their relationship was a key ingredient to the success of this

cooperative effort and was critical to getting it started.

Arbitration has not been used in 10 years.

In 1984, the parties received “Relationships By

Objectives” training from FMCS. RBO is separate

from the collective bargaining process. It creates a

way to place issues on the agenda and provides a focal

point from which to start discussions and may indirectly influence the collective bargaining process.

Since 1978, the parties have used the departmentfunded annual retreats at Flagstaff, Arizona, to develop

their annual plan. Labor-management teams focus on

carrying out the action plan issues of the annual plan

and receive training, if needed. Quarterly labor-management meetings are held to track the progress of the

action plans. The process of developing annual plans

has become institutionalized and would continue if

there was a personnel turnover. The focus of the parties has been on improving the delivery of services to

its customers both external (citizens) and internal.

Hobbs, New Mexico

Fire Department

Issues: EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION

Management: Chief Michael Gray, Hobbs Fire

Department; Fran Mosher, Personnel Director, City

of Hobbs (505)397-9228

Employees: Larry Wood, Emergency Medical

Service Specialist, Hobbs Fire Department (505)397-

9308; Captain Michael Ravenelle, Hobbs Fire

Department (505)397-9308

The city manager requires that department heads

set goals and develop action plans. A participatory

approach is used to accomplish this, and a culture has

been developed that encourages employees to raise

ideas and to accept responsibility for finding solutions.

For example, employees were given responsibility for

developing a fire hydrant maintenance plan. Accountability is pushed to the lowest organizational level.

Among the complications encountered to these developments have been resistance by middle management

and the difficulty of compensating employees for accepting more responsibility.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Public Services

Issues: QUALITY FOCUS, TEAMWORK, JOINT

LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE,

IMPROVED BARGAINING, REDUCTION IN

GRIEVANCES

Management: Roger Black, Director of Public

Services, City of Salt Lake City (801)535-6426

Labor: Gordon Ottley, President, AFSCME Local

1004 (801)532-1009

When Mayor Coridini came into office, she initiated a Quality Service Plan to improve the delivery of

city services. The program is city-wide and has been

in existence for three years. Its goals are to know who

the customers are, educate employees to work in teams,

and develop accurate data to justify why services are

done in-house. Despite early skepticism, AFSCME

was involved in the development of the plan, and union

officials received training from AFSCME headquarters staff. Private consultants also advised on the program. Top management and union leadership supported

it, while, as is sometimes the case, middle- and lowerlevel managers were a source of resistance. Witnesses

credited the labor-management partnership aspects of

the program with managing the elimination of 120

positions wherein only two employees were let go.

Working together in the development of the quality

program helped develop trust and understanding which,

in turn, facilitated more harmonious collective bargaining negotiations. Fewer grievances have been pro-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

cessed. A labor-management committee was established as a result of contract provision.

The quality program has made city services more

competitive, and as a result few have been privatized.

Custodial services for the airport and city buildings

are privatized, but shuttle transportation at the airport,

and general sanitation services for the city, both of

which had been privatized, are now done by city workers.

MAGMA METALS

Note: This program was described to the Task Force

at it’s July 10-11, 1995 Washington, DC hearing,

arranged with the assistance of the Work in America

Institute to examine instructive private sector

examples.

High-Performance Work Environment

Issues: JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEES, GAIN-SHARING, TEAMS,

TRAINING, IMPROVED BARGAINING,

Management: John Champagne, President, Magma

Metals (520)385-3593

Labor: Robert Gadiana, Director, United Steel

Workers of America, Subdistrict 8 (520)888-8440

The Task Force received testimony on this private sector illustration of a relationship that changed

dramatically from confrontation to cooperation. The

witnesses pointed out that at Magma, cooperation was

possible in mines and smelters where the physical

working conditions are extremely arduous. They observed, “Don’t say this isn’t possible in government,

where good working conditions usually prevail.”

Magma is the third largest producer of copper in

the U.S. The industry has seen a substantial economic

recovery in recent years, but both parties realized in

1989 that the company’s survival was at stake and depended on the adoption of a new, more cooperative

labor-management relationship. A true partnership has

supplanted the frequent strikes, high labor costs and

low productivity that characterized the parties previous relationship. Ten unions represent workers at

Magma, with the USWA being the largest. The sense

of crisis contributed to all 10 unions to work together,

since all wanted to have a voice in affecting their future. The parties decided to look at what their industry

would be like in 1997, and attempted to reach agreement on a creative and innovative way to help the industry and company survive. A joint committee was

created to work on building a new relationship, with a

commitment to develop trust, integrity and a sense of

mutual interdependence. Following that, teams of

workers have redesigned work processes, levels of

management were reduced, and supervisors now function as team leaders.

A gain-sharing program was initiated in 1991

which split the gains from productivity, cost and safety

improvements 60-40 between the company and the

workforce. From 1988-1994, labor productivity increased by 86%, production cost have declined by 20¢

per pound, production has increased by 70%, safety

has improved, and absenteeism and grievances have

gone down dramatically -- a figure cited was 1,000

grievances in 1991, reduced to 19 in 1992. The company has paid out over $40 million in gain-sharing since

1992. Also in 1991, the parties signed an unprecedented, 15-year contract with a seven-year, no-strike

clause. The union is represented on the company’s

board of directors. A group of 140 employees, called

“the voice of Magma” and representing all constituencies throughout the 5,000 person workforce, developed

the company’s initial “charter” or vision for the future

in 1993 and meets quarterly to provide leadership to

the company. The company has heavily invested in

leadership training, which all managers and employees receive.

MIDWEST REGION SUMMARIES

Indianapolis, Indiana

Issues: LABOR-MANAGEMENT

PARTNERSHIPS, TECHNOLOGY, COST

ANALYSIS, GAINSHARING, COMPETITION,

PUBLIC WORKS FLEET SERVICES, TRAINING

SAFETY-NET
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Management: David Lips, Special Assistant to the

Mayor for Policy Development, City of Indianapolis

(317)327-5806; Mike Stayton, Director, Department

of Public Works (317)327-3725; John McCorkle,

Administrator, Fleet Services (317) 327-2741

Labor: Steve Fantauzzo, Executive Director,

AFSCME Council 62 (317)632-1432; Dominic

Mangine, President, AFSCME Local 3131 (317)327-

2756

Note: Indianapolis has a comprehensive city-wide

service improvement program underway through

labor-management cooperation. For a more detailed

account as well as other features of the Indianapolis

program, see Snapshot: Indianapolis.

Indianapolis has a comprehensive service improvement and cost savings program. A substantial

dimension of this program is a partnership with bargaining units representing city employees. Mayor

Goldsmith was elected on a platform of “privatization,”

but the policy later turned to one of working with employees and their representatives at the same time as

the city developed what it terms a process of

“marketization” under which some services are put out

for bid, with the goal of providing the best cost services, regardless of source. City employees have demonstrated that they are very competitive, as labor and

management have learned to work together more cooperatively and cost-effectively. The union initially

feared the loss of members’ jobs, although it also saw

the competition effort as an opportunity to show that

the private sector is not inherently more efficient than

the public sector. Both labor and management recognized that decisions on competition require a level playing field and costing analyses that are fair to both sides:

Without clear measures of comparison, bids by public

sector operations may be disadvantaged by such things

as assigned overhead costs and bureaucratic requirements. With the assistance of KPMG Peat Marwick,

activity-based costing was developed, and employees

received training (some city-provided) in financial issues, including how to make bids. No rank and file

employees have lost their jobs, yet costs have decreased

and services have improved, and some services have

been brought in-house.

Union workers won a substantial proportion of

the services they bid on, and it was not unusual for

union-performed work to come in at 25 percent beneath that bid when the work was actually performed.

(Part of the savings are shared with employees. For

example, waste collectors recently received a $1,700

payout from this gainsharing.) There have been no layoffs in the unionized force, but there were significant

cuts in mid-management jobs. (See Snapshot: Indianapolis for details of the program.)

State of Indiana

State Employee Labor-Management Project

Issues: JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE, TRAINING, EFFECT OF CIVIL

SERVICE

Joint Committee: Lee Balliet, Director, State

Employee Labor-Management Project (812) 232-

6524

Labor: Steve Fantauzzo, AFSCME Council 62

(317)632-1432; Karl Frederickson, Unity Team

(AFT-UAW) (317)632-1432

The Indiana State Employee Labor-Management

Project was funded initially by an 18-month grant of

about $100,000 from FMCS. A state-level, joint labor-management committee wrote the grant proposal

that was submitted to FMCS. Thus far, six local committees have been set up: two in prisons, two in mental health facilities, and two departments of family and

children services. The local committees have union

and management members. Teams meet monthly, with

formal bylaws and specific rules to ensure high commitment from members. This process has resulted in

changes in how people deal with each other, including

the replacement of voting by consensus decision-making.

A needs assessment survey was done at all sites,

receiving a better than 50 percent response rate, to assess matters such as employee views of labor-management issues, workplace problems, and training needs.

The intent was to first address local problems, but many

issues surfacing in the needs assessment are related to
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

state personnel policies, and parties recognized the need

to deal with potential conflicts between the collaborative process and civil service rules.

The project has held a two-day training retreat

for 90 committee members, with initial training focused

upon process and viewing the project as a new opportunity for dialogue and problem-solving outside the

collective bargaining process. It was noted the labormanagement cooperative process was not a substitute

for collective bargaining and is supportive of it. This

was intended to make sure that the joint labor-management committee did not get involved with such issues as individual grievances, but stayed focused on

those issues of concern to the majority of persons in

the affected unit. Examples of issues discussed including career ladders and the need to heal the traditional

rifts between clericals and case workers, and the desirability of providing EMS training to prison guards.

Peoria, Illinois

Note: For details on the following summary, please

see Chapter 1 of this report.

Joint Labor-Management Committee to Control

Health Care Costs

Issues: HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT,

GAINSHARING (OF COST SAVINGS),

INVOLVEMENT OF ELECTED OFFICIALS,

JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Management: Dave Koehler, Executive Director,

Peoria Area Labor-Management Committee and

Member of Peoria City Council (309)674-7256; Pat

Parsons, Director of Personnel and Labor Relations,

City of Peoria (309)672-8575

Labor: Jerry Belcher, Vice President, City of Peoria

Municipal Employees Association, AFSCME Local

3464 (309)672-8537; Tom Jackson, Treasurer, IAFF

Local 50 (309)693-0522

In an attempt to control spiraling health care costs

without cutting employee benefits or raising employee

costs, the issue of health care benefits was removed

from the bargaining table and placed in a joint-labor

management committee with representatives from

management and the city’s eight unions. The program

was developed by a planning process involving all

stakeholders: covered individuals (workers, retirees,

and family members); taxpayers, the city and city officials, the claims payer and the vendors providing services. Unrepresented employees were also consulted,

and a professional health care consultant assisted with

the process. A primary result of the cooperative effort

has been a shift away from adversarial decision-making about health care to one based on cooperatively

and jointly owned decisions.

The Committee is composed of 16 members with

equal numbers from union and management. The committee sunsets after three years unless renewed. As a

result of this cooperative approach, the benefit package was improved and the revised health care plan

saved $1.2 million in 1994, its first full year of operation.

Cincinnati, Ohio

Note: For additional detail on the following

summary, see Snapshot: Cincinnati, Ohio.

Cincinnati Public Schools

Issues: SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT,

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH

CARE COST CONTAINMENT, JOINT

COMMITTEES, PEER EVALUATION AND

COACHING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Management: Monica Curtis, Public Affairs

Director, Cincinnati School Board (513)475-7023

Labor: Tom Mooney, President, Cincinnati

Federation of Teachers (513)961-2272

This example described how the parties have

worked together cooperatively both inside and outside

of the collective bargaining process. Issues addressed

include the importance of ensuring order in the schools,

professionalization of teaching (one of the issues considered most time-consuming) and health care cost

containment. The union is deeply involved in matters

such as screening, training and removal of teachers, as

well as in shaping curriculum. The collaborative process began in 1985 with a program of peer assistance
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

and evaluation in which master or consulting teachers

help new or struggling teachers. Other joint efforts in

the professionalization area include a negotiated career ladder, a school-based teacher transfer process and

a master or lead teacher plan. The Cincinnati experience also involves a three-pronged alliance between

unions, area businesses and the school district, dealing

with issues such as structural reform of school financing (in Ohio property taxes provide 60 percent of the

budget and school systems have their own taxing authority) and sometimes producing joint business-labor

support for school board candidacies.

Additional changes came about after the school

system reached a crisis point in 1991, when a commission issued a very critical report. “Social promotion”

of students was effectively halted and new discipline

standards were adopted. In an effort to put needed

structures in place, a joint educational initiatives panel,

chaired by the local union president and the superintendent, sets policy, while another joint committee addresses issues of teacher supply. The school board since

has had three consecutive balanced budgets. Parties

are committed to making sure resources stay focused

in the classroom. The 1991 report launched other reform initiatives which cut 50 percent-60 percent of

central office bureaucracy, and set up curriculum councils in 11 subject areas. Teacher positions also were

trimmed, with a heavy reliance on an early retirement

plan and provision of out-placement services to ease

the displacement. Joint committees address issues such

as quality improvement, employee benefits, and health

care. In this latter area, eight unions, including teachers, are covered by the city plan and participate in the

discussions. A move to a managed care health plan

has saved $7 million per year over three years.

Madison, Wisconsin

Note: The following examples come from a citywide

program.

City Quality and Productivity Programs

Issues: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT,

INVOLVEMENT OF ELECTED OFFICIALS,

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, COST

SAVINGS, INTEGRATION OF SERVICES, JOINT

DECISION-MAKING

Management: Paul Soglin, Mayor, City of Madison

(608)266-4611; Tom Mosgaller, Director of

Organizational Development/Training, City of

Madison (608) 266-9037

Labor: Mike Murphy, Steward, AFSCME Local 60

(608)266-4956

Madison’s quality improvement efforts began after then-Mayor James F. Sensenbrenner and his staff

were exposed to the teaching of W. Edwards Deming

in 1983. A pilot project at the motor equipment division made substantial improvements in prioritizing repairs, improving communications with customers, reducing steps in the inventory purchasing process and,

ultimately, reducing vehicle down time, all of which

saved money and improved service at the same time.

Based on the success of the pilot, it was decided to

expand the philosophy throughout city government. A

range of quality improvement projects, with active involvement by union members, saved the city between

$1.1 million to $1.4 million over a four-year period,

agency heads estimated. In another example, community neighborhood teams in 10 neighborhoods bring

together city workers such as building inspectors, police, health care and community social workers to share

information and more effectively meet community

needs. The city recently expanded stakeholder involvement in the quality process to include city council

members and unions. Next steps include plans to develop an external citizen/taxpayer feedback process and

a more sophisticated benchmarking and measurement

system. Top union officials now usually attend Mayor’s

cabinet meetings.

Madison METRO Transit System

Issues: TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT,

TEAMWORK, CONFLICT RESOLUTION,

ROUTE AND SCHEDULE DESIGN, SAFETY

Management: Paul Larrouse, General Manager,

Madison METRO (608)267-8777

Labor: James Remsik, Steward; Frances Wall,

Steward; John Annen, Driver; David Hoeft, Driver;

Teamsters Local 695 (608)266-4904
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Mechanics, operators, and other workers described quality initiatives, cost savings and teamwork

being employed within the transit system. The system

was privately owned until 1970 and employees were

not considered city employees until 1984. A 1988 grant

from the Federal Transit Administration set in motion

the development of cooperative labor-management processes. Today, these initiatives include a leadership

team, a coordinating committee and functional teams

in maintenance, drivers, operations supervisors, and

buildings and grounds. These processes have shown

impressive results. For example, the drivers’ TQM

team designed a project to cut down on garage vehicle

accidents. Using data-based decision-making -- a key

element of the city of Madison’s quality process --the

team took pictures of problem areas and produced computerized charts identifying numbers, types, timing and

locations of accidents between 1993-94, along with the

cost per incident and average costs. Contrary to expectations, the team found that the basic cause of accidents was not speed, but the construction of the building and the way it is used. The team came up with

three sets of recommendations regarding lighting and

painting, training and dispatch. In another example

Metro&Plus, the handicap access service provided

pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, has

received substantial driver and community input on the

design and implementation of routes and timing which

has improved service quality.

Collective bargaining at Metro was described as

fairly traditional, though it was noted that workers are

covered by different rules to some extent than other

city workers by virtue of the federal employee protections in section 13(c) of the FTA. The parties were

about to undergo collaborative bargaining training provided by the Wisconsin Employee Relations Commission, as recommended by the city. Grievance handling

under their contract differs from other traditional systems in that the only time requirement is that the grievance be filed within 10 days. It is then sent to a large

joint labor-management group that meets once or twice

a month to attempt to reach consensus decisions on

grievances. The parties have gone to arbitration only

once in eight years.

Department of Planning and Development

Building Inspection

Note: For additional detail on the following

summary, see Chapter 1 of this report.

Issues: TEAMWORK, CUSTOMER FOCUS,

REGULATORY REFORM

Management: George Austin, Director, Department

of Planning and Development (608)266-

4635

Labor: Rolland Kiel, Member (608)266-4554;

William Neitzel, Member (608)266-4520; AFSCME

Local 60

The Building Inspection unit is part of the Department of Planning and Development. It has 150

employees, most of whom are represented by AFSCME

Local 60. Like other city agencies, this department

has decided to focus its efforts on the quality of service provided by recognizing the importance of the

customer. The department has enhanced the quality

and cost effectiveness of the services it provides by

developing a clear understanding of the purpose of the

service being provided, seeking out and recognizing

the range of talents among employees and working hard

to try to match talents to the task, while always attempting to achieve “the biggest result” with the least resources.

Concrete results in terms of increased customer

service and lowered costs were achieved, for example,

in an electrical contractor training project. The original goal of the project was not to save money (although

savings did result), but to improve the relationship between contractors and inspectors. Driven by the need

to ease adversarial tensions between contractors and

inspectors and to accommodate an increasingly diverse

workforce and technological changes, inspectors began to work more as teams, not only in the field but in

planning their work. The timing of inspections became customer-driven with many adjustments made

in scope, content and targets of the contractors’ training programs. The department sought significant customer input into the process. Since training is more

effective, the contractors reap savings from knowing
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

what to do in the first place, thereby saving on rework.

City costs have also decreased since the team process

has reduced from four to three the number of inspections needed to complete a project, saving about

$30,000 a year. Because the process now emphasizes

education, the compliance effort enhances electrical

safety, conserves resources, and improves relations with

contractors. In addition, the quality of working life

for the inspectors has improved in many ways: They

now work in a safer environment and thrive on being

able to give positive reinforcement to customers (contractors).

City of Madison Police Department

Issues: PUBLIC SAFETY, COST DATA, PRICING

SERVICES

Management: Chief Richard Williams, Madison

Police Department (608)266-4022

Labor: Sergeant Joe Durkin, President

(608)2664003; Captain Mike Masterson, Training

Team(608)266-6234; Madison Professional Police

Officers Association

Witnesses testified that the changing nature of

police work, from paramilitary structures to community policing techniques and philosophy, requires both

increased employee input into the work and changes

in how people are led. As is often the case in public

safety unions, Madison police up to and including the

rank of sergeant are in the MPPOA. Higher ranks belong to organizations of supervisors. The president of

the union is part of the management team. The department attempts to follow principles of quality leadership: improve work systems, listen to those who do

the work, focus on problem-solving, foster risk-taking

and teamwork, and, in furtherance of all these objectives, gather good information. Witnesses cited savings achieved for the community through the development of cost data. For example, the department now

accurately figures the extra police costs special events

entail and requires event organizers to reimburse the

city for those costs.

Other joint efforts have examined training and

selection, overtime, and staffing. The staffing committee consists of three members designated by the

union, three by management, and three “Alder-persons.” This group benchmarked with cities inside and

outside the state and recommended that the size of the

force be increased, given the geographical spread of

the community, while not exceeding the average statewide staffing ratio.

Streets and Sanitation Division

Issues: TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT,

TEAMS, SAFETY, INFORMATION AND COST

DATA

Management: Roger Goodwin, Superintendent,

Streets and Sanitation Division (608)266-4680

Labor: Christopher Kelly, President, Laborers

International Union Local 236 (608)246-4532

Witnesses noted that the division’s operations in

the past were characterized as largely top-down management, little data collection, little communications

and little intra-governmental cooperation on matters

such as equipment sharing. Labor-management relations were described as “respectful, but not overly productive,” with most of the communicating occurring

during bargaining or through grievances. Under the

impetus of the city’s overall quality efforts, however,

workers and managers during the past eight years have

formed teams and conducted 15 major projects. Examples include addressing safety issues to determine

why so many back and shoulder injuries occurred during in refuse collection; career development and training; snow removal (a team of employees wrote snow

and ice booklets for the public); the drop-off system,

and large-item removal. Witnesses pointed out that

development of projects requires good information and

implementation can produce significant cost savings.

For example, a citizen survey regarding brush removal

revealed that the public would accept less frequent collection if the date of the monthly pickup was firm and

known in advance. Parties testified that issues yet to

be addressed include further identifying customer

needs, building trust, and changing not only the structure but the culture of the workplace.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

University of Wisconsin/City of Madison

Partnership

Issues: QUALITY IMPROVEMENT NETWORK

Contacts: John Wiley, Provost, University of

Wisconsin at Madison (608)262-1304; Soren

Biscard, Director, University’s Center of Quality and

Productivity (608)263-2654

Task force members had the opportunity to meet

informally with members of the Madison Area Quality Improvement Network, a nonprofit organization

founded about 10 years ago by a cross-section of community leadership from the city of Madison and Wisconsin state government, the University of WisconsinMadison, and the private sector. MAQUIN supports

local quality efforts and provide a forum for the exchange of information.

The task force was told that the university/city

relationship has been very productive in bringing consciousness of quality to local government. At present,

the university’s Center for Quality and Productivity is

involved with a study of city employees’ perceptions

of the use of quality management tools in daily work,

as well as a needs assessment for external customers.

The university also assists private companies in the

community; for example, it helped foundry workers to

be more effective and assisted another local company

in a better design of their product.

The process of developing TQM at the university also was described. There has been an improvement in the time required to process admissions applications: 90 days to two, saving some $60,000 a year.

One of the preliminary findings is that it is desirable to

combine the quality function with other functions, such

as planning and training. This allows more main direct engagement with line functions. If quality efforts

permeate the workforce, they are more likely to survive changes at the top.

State of Wisconsin

Department of Industry, Labor, and Human

Relations Labor-Management Advisory Council

Issues: EFFECTS ON BARGAINING, SAFETY

NET, TECHNOLOGY, POLICY CHANGE, TOP

LEADERSHIP COMMITMENT

Management: Eric Baker, Deputy Administrator,

Department of Unemployment Compensation

(608)266-2284

Labor: Pat Pagel, President, Wisconsin State

Employees Union, AFSCME (608)255-9435

The DILHR Labor-Management Advisory Council was established in May 1992 in response to a

recommendation by a group of DILHR employees who

were asked by the governor how labor relations could

be improved within the department. The council,

headed by the secretary of the department, has six

union-selected and six management representatives

who serve one-, two- or three-year terms. The council

is charged with recommending policies to foster cooperation and trust in the department. Although its recommendations are advisory, they are adopted

byconsensus, and the secretary has implemented all of

them to date. The administrator of the workers’ compensation division noted that DILHR has been able to

establish better service to customers through improved

working relationships with employees: Electronic filing for workers’ compensation claims has been established, and these costs are dropping. With the introduction of voice mail in the UI offices and the change

to weekly claims filing over the phone, the jobs of an

estimated 360 employees were at risk (at least 25 local

offices were no longer needed). Yet only one worker

was laid off as an “at-risk” system, developed by the

LMAC and later adopted for every state agency, made

it possible to assign workers to needed jobs elsewhere

in state government without any modification to civil

service laws.

The trust developed in the council process has

affected collective bargaining as well. The number of

grievances has declined substantially in the last two

years, and only two cases have gone to arbitration, all

due to the willingness of union and management to

“talk out” and settle potential grievances. A member

of the negotiating team is on the council and brings to

the bargaining process the experience of working together.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Note: This testimony was received during the Task

Force’s June 22-23, 1995 Washington, DC hearing.

Budgeting and Accounting

Issues: TOTAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT,

BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING PRACTICES,

BENCHMARKS

Contact: Steve Kreklow, Budget and Management

Special Assistant, Department of Administration

(414)286-8523

Milwaukee has adopted a performance budget

involving economic analysis and fiscal forecasting,

strategic planning, performance measurement, and

evaluation. Management has been improved through

a total quality initiative, wherein management focus

has shifted from an internal, short-term perspective to

a long-term one with a service goal orientation. Departments are becoming more data conscious. The city

has consulted with the University of Wisconsin to develop measurements of impacts. Efforts are being made

to get more employee involvement and community involvement in the process, more consistent and widespread participation by the departments, and better assessment of outcomes.

Milwaukee benchmarks with other jurisdictions,

such as Multnomah County, Oregon, and the City of

Indianapolis, and the states of Oregon and Minnesota,

to gauge their successes. The city has privatized some

functions, but some have been returned to city operation (e.g., towing). The city holds meetings with union

officials at the beginning of the budget process to begin the discussion of operational changes early in the

process.

Hennepin County, Minnesota

Note: This testimony was received during the Task

Force’s July 10-11, 1995 Washington, DC hearing.

Hennepin County

Issues: JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE, HEALTH CARE COST SAVINGS,

CIVIL SERVICE, CLASSIFICATION CHANGE

Management: Charles Sprafka, Associate County

Administrator for Human Resources, Hennepin

County (612)348-5009

Labor: Steve Marincel, Business Representative,

AFSCME Council 14 (612)455-0773

The first major joint problem-solving effort by

the parties was a joint committee to deal with rising

health care costs and other frustrations with the system. Labor and management set up a process to communicate outside collective bargaining, involving at

first 11 of 19 bargaining units. Parties engaged in selfeducation and committed to share information, brought

in health experts to talk with both sides, and agreed to

use shared decision-making (consensus) in the choice

of health care providers.

In terms of results, health care costs dropped 9%

between 1986-1990 and there have been no premium

increases in the last two years. The quality partnership grew out of this initial success, and less adversarial

ways of relating have been reflected in increased trust

at the collective bargaining table, and more value for

taxpayers. For example, parties have agreed on a voluntary, not mandated basis, to keep courts open longer

hours as employees recognized that the public is better

served by such a change. Job classifications have been

consolidated and the number reduced by 20%. Parties

strive for continuous improvement, focus on quality

service to the customer, and work together in the design and implementation of the program. Labor and

management both agree on the importance of training.

The parties said they have just begun to track efforts

regarding the specific cost savings of quality partnership

Labor-management cooperation has played a

major role in more flexibly administering the personnel system and achieving important changes in traditional areas like classification. The partnership between

labor and management has helped Hennepin County

resolve workplace issues with focus on effective service delivery.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

State of Ohio

Note: For a more detailed account of the following

summary, see Snapshot: State of Ohio. Ohio has a

very comprehensive statewide program. This

testimony was received during the Task Force’s

October 19-20, 1995, Washington, D.C. hearing.

Issues: TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT,

JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES,

LEADERSHIP AND QUALITY TRAINING

Management: Steve Wall, Executive Director, Ohio

Office of Quality Services (614)644-5154

Labor: Paul Goldberg, Executive Director, Ohio

Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME

Local 11 (614)487-9191 ext 6704

When a new Governor of Ohio was elected on a

platform of privatization, the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, an affiliate of AFSCME, sought

to assure employment security and gain input into strategic decision-making. The result was a joint program

called Quality Services Through Partnership (QStP).

QStP operates through a joint statewide steering committee and department level labor-management steering committees in each agency. Communication among

participants is accomplished through handouts, agency

newsletters and monthly meetings of the Ohio Quality

Network, composed of a labor and management official from each State agency. The result has been one

of the most recognized and fully structured quality

partnerships in state and local government.

QStP is developing a network of facilitators and

a capacity for providing training in joint quality improvement processes. It has expanded beyond its original seven pilots to all components of State government,

with high commitment from both labor and management. More than 10,000 employees have been jointly

trained in problem solving, analysis and team approaches, in classes taught jointly by labor and management officials. More than 100 improvement teams

have been created, each starting with an initial charter

to make specific changes. The program recognizes that

most quality problems are caused by systemic defects

and it attempts to confront control and power issues so

that the parties do not slip back into old habits.

The quality program has been kept formally separate from collective bargaining, but the processes

complement each other as many of the same people

participate. Tangible measures of QStP’s success included a reduction in the number of client telephone

hang-ups in the workers’ compensation department

from 14,000 per year to none, and consolidation of 73

job training programs into 13, with savings of $13 million. The program has also reduced grievances, although that was not one of its specific objectives.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

* The Task Force solicited responses to a detailed survey on

service and cost improvement activities that have come about

through labor-management cooperation. These jurisdictions

responded and their respnses are on file in the Task Force

records.

INDEX of SURVEYS RECEIVED*

NORTHWEST

Coalition Labor Agreement

The parties achieved a consolidation of six union

contracts into one and “cleaned-up” their employeremployee relationships.

Clark County, WA

360-699-2456

Steve Foster

Human Resources Director

Clark County

P.O. Box 5000

Vancouver, WA 98666-5000

Consensus Decisions & Collaborative

Bargaining

A significant decrease in adversarial positioning

resulted from moving to a process of consensus decision making.

Rainier, OR

503-556-3777

Gene Carlson

Rainier School District

P.O. Box 160

Rainier, OR 97048

Development of and Training in InterestBased Problem Solving

Salem, OR

503-378-3807

Daniel Ellis

Chairman

Oregon Employment Relations Board

528 Cottage Street, NE; Suite 400

Salem, OR 97310

NORTHEAST

Challenge to Change and Time to Cooperate

The parties achieved a substantial improvement

in the handling of biosolids.

Philadelphia, PA

215-686-2150

Michael Nadol

Special Assistant to the Mayor

Mayor’s Office of Management & Productivity

Municipal Services Building

1401 JFK Boulevard, 14th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102-1684

Compressed Salary Schedule

School employees eliminated six steps in their

pay schedule and received a substantial pay increase.

 Manassas, VA

703-791-7451

Zuill Bailey

Director of Information Services

Department of Information Services

Prince William County Public Schools

P.O. Box 389

Manassas, VA 22110

Court Unification through Labor

Management Cooperation

Process developed to aid in the transition from a

county-funded trial court system to state-funded system.

Trenton, NJ

609-633-6540

Mark Rosenbaum

Administrator of Labor and Employee Relations

Administrative Office of the Courts

Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, CN 966

25 Market Street

Trenton, NJ 08625

Appendix E
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Labor Management Committee

This joint committee in the Rochester school district examines and resolves problems that the contract

does not address.

Rochester, NY

716-546-2681

Martha Keating

Labor Management Committee

Rochester Teachers Association

30 North Union Street

Rochester, NY 14607

Loan Interchange Law (RIGL 42-40)

A cooperative project that permits state government agencies, in times of austerity, to share (loan) staff.

Providence, RI

401-277-2200

Beverly Dwyer

Human Resource Program Administrator

Rhode Island Department of Administration

One Capitol Hill

Providence, RI 02908-5860

Merger and Reorganization of Fire

Department and the Bureau of Paramedical

Rescue

Norfolk, VA

804-664-4789

Claus Koepke

Management Services

City Manager’s Office

City of Norfolk

1101 City Hall Building

Norfolk, VA 23501

Continuous Quality Improvement

This joint effort (85% of employees unionized

in Department of Transportation) has focused on safety

improvement and now includes an annual quality training and recognition conference. It’s an award-winning program.

Harrisburg, PA

717-783-1068

Richard Harris

Director

Operations Review Group

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

105 Transportation & Safety Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120

Curbside Refuse Collection Program

The focus is on the Remote Water Meter Reading Program and the Refuse Collection Program. Both

have decreased cost and improved customer satisfaction.

Rochester, NY

716-428-6836

Edward Woisin

Principal Staff Assistant

Department of Environmental Services

City of Rochester

300-B City Hall

Rochester, NY 14614-1290

Handling Citizen Complaint Calls Through

the Total Quality Transformation (TQT)

Process

Erie, PA

814-870-1340

Robert Walczak

Superintendent

Bureau of Streets

City of Erie

2001 French Street

Erie, PA 16503

Philadelphia School District Cooperative

Initiative

A formalized, inclusive communications process

involving all employee groups representing school district staff.

Philadelphia, PA

215-351-1180 ext 31

Naomi Alper

Communications Director

Philadelphia Area Labor Management

Committee

414 Walnut Street, Fifth Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19106
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Plan for School-Based Planning and Shared

Decision Making

A way to improve the quality of instruction and

the work environment for teachers.

East Syracuse, NY

315-437-0109

Maureen McManus

President

East Syracuse-Minoa United Teachers,

Local 2623

303 Roby Avenue

East Syracuse, NY 13057

Quality through Participation

How a change in state political leadership has

changed this union’s perception of the value of cooperation

Albany, NY

518-785-1900 ext. 223

Lorelei Landau

Labor-Management Coordinator

New York State Public Employees

Federation, AFL-CIO

1168-70 Troy-Schenectady Road

Albany, NY 12212-2414

Remote Meter Program

Describes the benefits, human and financial,

achieved by converting from direct read to electronically encoded water meters.

Rochester, NY

716-428-7509

Donald Navor

Director

Bureau of Water & Lighting

City of Rochester

10 Felix Street

Rochester, NY 14608

Testing Services Division Revitalization

A project to consolidate, automate, and engage

all levels of workers in an effort to improve the quality

of work and worklife.

Albany, NY

518-457-5465

Willard Merwin

Assistant Director

Testing Services Division

New York Department of Civil Service

The W. Averell Harriman State Office

 Building Campus

Albany, NY 12239

Ulster County-CSEA Labor/Management

Committee

Kingston, NY

914-340-3542

Karen MacIntosh-Frering

Labor-Management Coordinator

Ulster County-CSEA Labor-Management

Committee

P.O. Box 1800

Kingston, NY 12402

SOUTHEAST

Alabama D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance

Education) Training Center

Trains police officers to work cooperatively with

public schools on drug prevention programs.

Huntsville, AL

205-532-7201

Ric Ottman

Chief

Huntsville Police Department

P.O. Box 2085

Huntsville, AL 35804

CALM (Cooperative Association of Labor

and Management)

Improve labor/management communication with

focus on problem areas; where communication has

broken down.

Fort Lauderdale, FL

305-761-5310

Scott Milinski

Employee Relations Director

City of Fort Lauderdale

100 North Andrews Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Collaborative Efforts to Stop the Demand for

Drugs

Huntsville, AL

205-539-7339

Deborah Soule

Executive Director

Partnership For a Drug Free Community, Inc.

P.O. Box 2603

Huntsville, AL 35804

Compensation Review Study and Resulting

Market-Based Pay System

Virginia Beach, VA

804-427-8374

Fagan Stackhouse

Director

Department of Human Resources

City of Virginia Beach

Municipal Center, Building 18

Virginia Beach, VA 23456

Employee Involvement in Public Safety

Compensation and Performance Management

Systems Design

Charlotte, NC

704-336-4508

Karen McCotter

Performance Management Manager

Human Resources Department

City of Charlotte

600 East Fourth Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

Excellent People Improving Quality (EPIQ)

Employees work in teams to identify ways to

improve customer service.

 Altamonte Springs, FL

407-263-3789

Allison Marcous

Quality Management Coordinator

City of Altamonte Springs

225 Newburyport

Altamonte Springs, FL 32701

The Fox Squad

Community policing in high crime, high density

public housing.

Huntsville, AL

205-532-7201

Ric Ottman

Chief

Huntsville Police Department

P.O. Box 2085

Huntsville, AL 35804

Personnel Rules Revision Committee

Venice, FL

941-485-3311

Rollie Reynolds

Director of Personnel

City of Venice

401 West Venice Avenue

Venice, FL 34285

Refuse Collection Incentive Program

Has resulted in significant crew performance and

customer satisfaction.

Winston-Salem, NC

910-727-2638

David Martin

Department of Public Works

City of Winston-Salem

P.O. Box 2511

101 North Main Street

Winston-Salem, NC 27102

Safety Bonus Day Program

A joint labor-management project to make work

safer for employees and save money on worker compensation premiums.

Lauderhill, FL

954-730-3000

Desorae Giles

Assistant to the Mayor

City of Lauderhill

2000 City Hall Drive

Lauderhill, FL 33313
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Springfield Initiative

A customer/employee service survey to improve

city services.

Springfield, MA

413-787-6058

Patricia Devine

Personnel Department

City of Springfield

36 Court Street

Springfield, MA 01103

Quality Management in Arkansas State

Government

A program to involve state employees in problem solving and decision making.

Little Rock, AK

501-682-5352

Artee Williams

State Personnel Administrator

Arkansas Department of Finance and

Administration

P.O. Box 3278

Little Rock, AK 72203

SOUTHWEST

Alternate Work Schedule

Extends hours that staff is available to clients in

a way that better serves both employees and customers.

San Diego, CA

619-525-3675

C.J. Thomas

San Diego Housing Commission

1625 Newton Avenue

San Diego, CA 92113

Building Austin’s Standard in Customer

Service (BASICS)

A cooperative program that has succeeded in

improving citizen attitudes about city services.

Austin, TX

512-499-3215

Joe Canales

Director

Human Resources and Civil Service

City of Austin

P.O. Box 1088

Austin, TX 78767

Citizen and Neighborhood Services Pilot

Projects

Is a labor-management project that seeks to create an efficient, user-friendly information and response

systems throughout the city.

Tucson, AZ

520-791-4204

Cathy Reynolds

Organizational Effectiveness

City Manager’s Office

City of Tucson

P.O. Box 27210

Tucson, AZ 85726-7210

Goal Planning for the Future

Employee involvement in setting the goals for

this fire department has resulted in better morale and

service quality.

Hobbs, NM

505-397-9308

Mike Ravenelle

Captain

Fire Department

City of Hobbs

301 East White Street

Hobbs, NM 88240

“Kaiser-on-the Job” 24- Hour Managed Care

A project to test the effectiveness of bringing

managed care to workers’ compensation.

San Diego, CA

619-236-2203

Terry Aronoff

Employee Benefits Coordinator

Department of Human Resources

County of San Diego

444 West Beech Street, 3rd floor

San Diego, CA 92101-2942
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Mutual Gain Bargaining and Labor

Management Committees

Also called interest based negotiations, this process leads to less adversarial bargaining.

San Jose, CA

408-277-5849

Regina V.K. Williams

City Manager

City of San Jose

801 North First Street

San Jose, CA 95110

Neighborhood Improvement Program

Staff from city departments formed teams to

address problems specific to neighborhoods

Napa, CA

707-257-9586

Tom Johnson

Operations Chief

City of Napa

P.O. Box 660

Napa, CA 94559-0660

Reinventing Union Sanitary District

This project improved operational effectiveness

and customer service through employee empowerment.

Fremont, CA

510-790-0100 ext 256

Judi Berzon

Human Resource Administrator

Union Sanitary District

37532 Dusterberry Way

Fremont, CA 94536

MIDWEST

Collective Bargaining Health Care Saving

Transferred into Base Wage Increase

Lansing, MI

517-485-3310

Fred Parks

Executive Director

Michigan Corrections Organization,

SEIU Local 526M

426 South Walnut Street.

Lansing, MI 48933

Cooperative/Collaborative Process

Focuses on how the cooperative process has improved employee morale and the quality of education.

Berea, OH

216-826-3311

Robert Cistolo

President

Berea Federation of Teachers

P.O. Box 271

Berea, OH 44017

Disability Management Project

Lansing, MI

517-335-4274

Karen Beauregard

Administrator

Disability Management Office

Michigan Department of Civil Service

Capitol Commons Center

400 South Pine

Lansing, MI 48909

Employee Insurance Task Force

Decisions about employees insurances no longer

made by City Administrator but by Employee Insurance Task Force who negotiate coverage and cost directly with insurance companies.

Newton, IA

515-792-2787

Barbara Majerus

Assistant City Administrator

City of Newton

P.O. Box 399

Newton, IA 50208-0399
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Innovation in Recruiting and Hiring:

Attracting the Best and Brightest to

Wisconsin State Government

Madison, WI

608-266-1136

Robert Lavigna

Administrator

Division of Merit Recruitment and Selection

Wisconsin Department of Employment Relations

137 East Wilson Street

Madison, WI 53702

Joint Health Care Committee

A cooperative approach to negotiating health care

coverages and costs.

Columbus, OH

614-466-2923

Teri Decker

Management Co-Chair

Office of Collective Bargaining

Ohio Department of Administrative Services.

106 North High Street, 7th Floor

Columbus, OH 43215-3019

Joint Labor-Management Committee to

Control Health Care Cost

Peoria, IL

309-672-8575

Patrick Parsons

City of Peoria

419 Fulton Street, Room. 203

Peoria, IL 61602

Labor-Management Committees & Shared

Decisions

Promotion and creation of cooperative committees by State Bureau of Mediation Services and the

Minnesota School Boards Association.

St. Peter, MN

507-931-2450

Carol Ries

Minnesota School Boards Association

1900 West Jefferson Avenue

St. Peter, MN 56082-3015

Labor-Management-Health Care Cost

Containment Committee

Toledo, OH

419-245-1001

Daniel Hiskey

Assistant Operations Officer

Office of the Mayor

City of Toledo

One Government Center, Suite 2200

Toledo, OH 43604

Operation “Street Pride”

This joint labor-management project established

a “safe haven” symbol and process for the children of

Springfield to use in times of distress.

Springfield, OH

513-324-7321

James Bodenmiller

Personnel Director

City of Springfield

76 East High Street

Springfield, OH 45502

Quality Minneapolis Budget System Redesign

A process that involves all stakeholders in budget redesign and outcome based decision making.

Minneapolis, MN

612-673-2591

Tom Tiedemann

Quality Coordinator

City of Minneapolis

350 South Fifth Street, Room A-25

Minneapolis, MN 55415-1393

State Human Resources Reform Act of 1994

A project to reform Oklahoma’s State Government personnel system.

Oklahoma City, OK

405-521-6301

Oscar Jackson

Administrator and Cabinet Secretary of Human

Resources

Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management

2101 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite G-80

Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4904
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

State of Nebraska Labor/Management

Council

An FMCS initiated program in the Department

of Public Institutions to help them resolve workplace

issues, like the disciplinary process.

Lincoln, Nebraska

402-471-4605

Sherri Collins-Wimes

Labor Relations Representative

Nebraska Department of Administrative Services

301 Centennial Mall South

P.O. Box 95061

Lincoln, NE 68509-5061

Total Quality Management

An effort to improve service delivery systems

through the practices of TQM.

Palatine, IL

847-359-9057

Sam Ferguson

Director of Data Processing

Village of Palatine

200 East Wood Street

Palatine, IL 60067

Upward Mobility Program

Is a joint training program which provides career

counseling, direct tuition payment, and promotional

priority.

Springfield, IL

217-524-1381

Tammy McClure

Deputy Director of Human Resources

Bureau of Personnel

Illinois Department of Central Management

Services

503 Stratton Office Building

Springfield, IL 62706

 THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Grievance Mediation

The Virgin Islands of the United States

809-773-5580

Lorin Kleeger

Counsel

Virgin Islands Public Employee Relations Board

P.O. Box 2984

Christiansted, USVI 00822
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Agency:

Address:

Contact person(s):

Phone:

Fax:

Name of Project or Initiative:

RESULTS

1. Please describe the primary result of the cooperative effort

you are describing in terms of improvement in service effectiveness or efficiency. On an attached page, please write a few

paragraphs that summarize the impact of the improvement, i.e.,

change in service effectiveness, improvement in service quality or customer satisfaction, better match of skills to task, lower

cost of a key service, policy change, etc. If you have any measurements that demonstrate the extent of the improvement,

please note them also.

2. Please describe the results in terms of the impact on the

quality of work and worklife.

3. Describe changes, if any, in the process or technology or in

the way the job is done. Include changes in interactions within

the agency and relationships with other agencies, customers or

suppliers.

4. How pervasive is the change? For example, what is the size

of the agency budget and workforce involved? Does it represent a whole department, the whole city, county, state, school

district, fire district, etc.? If it has moved beyond its original

location, how was the idea transferred?

5. Has there been any alteration in features of the personnel or

civil service system as a result of or as a prelude to this service

improvement? For example, were there any changes in classification practices, compensation systems, hiring, transfer or removal practices as part of this service improvement?

PROCESS

1. Were there any false starts or barriers in the process that

were overcome on the way to success? What were those and

how were they overcome?

Appendix E (continued)

Task Force Survey

As part of its informaton gathering activity, the Task Force

sought examples of excellence in public service that came about

through workplace cooperation. Some of the people that provided examples were asked to make presentations at some of

the regional hearings of the Task Force. This questionnaire was

completed by the persons in an organization who were involved

in seeking service and workplace excellence.

SURVEY FORM

The Secretary’s Task Force is seeking examples of excellence

in policy, programs or services that have significant or primary

roots in workplace cooperation. The Secretary’s Task Force

has a mandate to identify such examples of excellence and to

identify the factors that support and sustain cooperation leading to excellence. The Task Force will be able to hear from or

visit a selected number of examples brought to its attention.

The Task Force will examine the trends and common features

in other examples provided to us, and will publicize, through

its report and other means, examples, resources, and key principles from which other public workplaces can learn.

In this questionnaire, we are asking your organization to inform us about examples of workplace excellence from which

we and others in the public service can learn. Please answer the

attached questions. If possible, please fill out jointly, so that

the employee and management groups involved can comfortably sign off on the form. Please complete and return as soon

as possible in order to maximize the chance of your example

being included in the Task Force’s report.

When completed please fax to Professor Jon Brock (206) 616-

1748 or mail to Prof. Brock at the Cascade Center for Public

Service, University of Washington, 303 Parrington Hall, DC14, Seattle WA 98195.

If you have questions, please call Leslie Redd at the Cascade

Center, (206) 685-0523.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

TYPE OF CORPORATION

1. How is the cooperation carried out? Is there a formal committee or other forum? Please describe.

2. What form of agreement defines the ongoing cooperative

arrangement or other governance of this change in service or

policy?

GENESIS

1. How did this cooperative relationship begin?

Was there a leader who believed in or heard about

this approach? Was there a crisis? Budget pressure?

An opportunity? Other?

2. What commitments or provisions, if any, were made regarding the impact on employees, services? For example:

Retraining programs/re-deployment to other functions

Early out incentives

Placement opportunities

Measurements

3. What, if any other outside assistance was helpful (or harmful!)?

4. What else should others know about this change in service

and job quality that would help them do something similar or

otherwise learn from your experience?

5. Is there any other feature of this service improvement through

cooperation you are especially proud of or wish to highlight?

2. How long has this service improvement project been going

on?

Since the idea was first raised. Date:

Since the service change or improvement was put

into place. Date:

3. What accounts for the longevity of the project, or for its

demise? What has sustained it?

4. From where was the most resistance and how was it handled?

How successfully?

5. Is there a state bargaining law operational in this jurisdiction? Are there aspects of that statute and its related regulatory

structure that contributed to making this change successful? Are

there aspects of that structure that had to be worked around in

order to implement the changes described above?

 If there is not a state bargaining law, was there an employee

association involved?

6. If this has been done in conjunction with an organized employee organization , please briefly note the results or major

impacts, if any, in terms of labor management relations such as:

Contractual changes

Work rule changes

Improved or new joint committees

Changes in contract administration

Changes in statute

Changes in bargaining relationships

Changes in conflict resolution practices

Impact on grievances or grievance handling

7. Has this change in service and relationships now survived

an election cycle or change in either labor or management leadership? What effect have elections, elected officials or political

relationships had on the project?
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

International Union of Operating Engineers

National School Boards Association

International Union of Police Associations

Laborer’s International Union of North

America

Service Employees International Union

U.S. Conference of Mayors

In cooperation with:

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

U.S. Department of Labor

 State and Local Government Labor-

 Management Committee

 815 16th Street, NW.

 Washington, DC 20006

 202 (393-2820)

Co-Chair Al Bilik

President, Public Employee Department

AFL-CIO

(202) 393-2820

Co-Chair Roger Dahl

Managing Director, Office of Program

Development & Technical Assistance

U.S. Conference of Mayors

and

Executive Director, National Public

Employer Labor Relations

Association

(202) 296-2230

Appendix F

The State and Local Government LaborManagement Committee

The committee brings together the major nationallevel public employer and union organizations concerned with labor relations in state and local government. From its initial meeting in December 1985, the

committee has dedicated itself to the promotion of excellence in government through labor- management

cooperation.

Participating organizations

AFL-CIO Public Employee Department

Council of State Governments

American Federation of State, County and

 Municipal Employees

International City Management Association

American Federation of Teachers

National Association of Counties

Communications Workers of America

National Conference of State Legislatures

International Association of Fire Fighters

National Governors Association

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

National League of Cities

International Federation of Professional and

Technical Engineers

National Public Employer Labor Relations

Association
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Appendix G

Features of a Service-Oriented

Collective Bargaining Law

This section contains a collection of principles

intended to be helpful to jurisdictions which desire or

intend to create or amend state collective bargaining

statutes. These principles are proposed, when incorporated into a statute, to encourage the beginning or

development of service-oriented collective bargaining

relationships that support a high performance workplace.

General Background

Basically, all of the 36 state public sector bargaining statutes protect the right to organize and bargain collectively over wages, hours and working conditions of employment, similar to the laws governing

the private sector. While 23 state laws are comprehensive in coverage, other laws vary greatly as to coverage, e.g., local but not state employees; some cover

only firefighters and police; still others apply only to

teachers. Virtually all of the laws provide a means of

determining a majority representative in an appropriate unit with exclusions for managerial or high level

supervisors. The various laws have different forms of

impasse resolution, from fact finding with recommendations, e.g. Florida and New York State; to binding

arbitration, e.g., Iowa and Wisconsin, the limited right

to strike in Ohio or Alaska.

While the Task Force saw service-oriented workplace relationships under almost every kind of legal

structure, constructive collective bargaining relationships and workplace change can more easily be

achieved when certain identifiable ingredients and attitudes are in place. Experience with these more productive collective bargaining relationships and several

decades of experience with a variety of public bargaining laws suggest at least the following features in a

bargaining law will be of significant assistance in promoting the necessary attitudes, skills and structures.

This is not intended to be a model law or even a

comprehensive guide for constructing a bargaining law.

Any workable statute must provide for the basic provisions of a collective bargaining relationship, such as

referred to above, and respond to the local needs and

history and more specific legal considerations. Individual states will find that local circumstances offer

other opportunities and problems requiring attention.

This document is intended to emphasize features that

would support the development of service oriented relationships encouraging employee participation.

These principles seek to make the spirit, features,

and practices emanating from the bargaining law focus on the parties’ mutual responsibilities for effective

service delivery and improvement, on structures for

effective workplace partnerships and on constructive

conflict resolution. Similarly, standard provisions for

ensuring the preservation of the employer’s mission,

fair treatment and employee protections, and for protecting and adjudicating bargaining rights should all

reflect these principles.

Chapter 4 refers in detail to the range of ingredients that contribute to service-focused bargaining relationships that involve employes in workplace decisions, and interested parties are referred there for further detail or explanation. Interested parties are also

referred to the model law on public sector labor-management cooperation, published by The Council of

State Governments.1

Preamble

Many statutes contain preambles that include

general statements concerning the need for harmonious relationships. Notably absent, however, are references to joint or partnership-based relationships committed to excellence. While many jurisdictions carry

on certain of these activities, an effective policy statement may serve to help prevent or deter established

behavior patterns more common in conflictual rather

than service-oriented relationships.

The preamble to a collective bargaining law can

assist in clarifying these intentions by describing the

1

 See “Public Sector Labor-Management Cooperation Act, in 1994

Volume 53, Suggested State Legislation, the Council of State Governments, Lexington, KY.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

obligations of the parties to include the following:

• a mutual commitment to service excellence and

continuous improvement

• a mutual commitment to quality of work life

• a mutual commitment to constructive problem

solving and conflict resolution

• a mutual commitment to a cooperative workplace relationship and cooperative approaches

• a mutual commitment for state level labor and

management leaders and neutral officials to make the

necessary investments to provide resources for local

parties (i.e. officials and union leaders from state agencies, counties, schools and other independent districts

and cities) to gain the necessary skills and perspectives and assistance to begin and carry on effective

collective bargaining relationships, workplace partnerships and resolve conflicts that inevitably arise

• a mutual recognition of obligations to citizens

for a constructive labor-management relationship that

supports service excellence

Provision for Putting the Statute in Place

Recognizing the importance of beginning or reinventing the structure and relationship in a constructive service-oriented manner, key labor and management leaders, should jointly acquaint themselves with

public and private sector relationships that have experience with the cooperative and participative models

of workplace relationships. This will provide a means

of preparing key leaders for the necessary interactions

and concentration on participative practices and service issues.

• An initial statewide joint labor-management advisory committee, with labor, management, community and neutral leaders should be established to facilitate resolution of problems in implementation of the

statute, including responsibilities to ensure a constructive beginning to the process. All parties, particularly

the administrative agency, should be mindful of the

importance of the impact of the early decisions on the

ultimate nature of the relationship. For example, bargaining unit determinations should be substantially

based on the ability of the parties to implement a service-oriented relationship and otherwise address service problems.

• The joint committee should be charged with

using its good offices and prestige to ensure that problems arising during initial activities, such as elections,

and first contracts are handled constructively and with

an eye towards the long term stability of the relationships in communities around the state.

• Under the sponsorship of this Joint Committee, offer joint training to develop the necessary problem solving skills and background for the beginning

and maintenance of a constructive collective bargaining system. Training should be offered in effective

collaborative bargaining and contract development for

key labor and management leaders in agencies, and

local jurisdictions. Eventually, the training should be

available for all levels of participants in bargaining.

Training such as provided by the Oregon Public Employee Relations Board would be one model to follow,

although there are others. Similarly, there should be

arrangements for appropriate orientation of those who

will later be charged with overseeing and administering the statute. Any number of delivery systems that

fit the local situation could be utilized.

Incorporating Service and Participation

Considerations into Other Features of a

Bargaining Statute

Conflict Resolution: Parties should be encouraged to use collaborative bargaining or similar approaches. Joint training in such techniques should be

accessible for all local parties in districts, agencies,

counties or cities. Local joint committees should attend to this in conjunction with appropriate administrative authorities and the statewide Public Employment Relations Boards should be a helpful resource

and clearing house. In general there should be extensive use of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures available.

Impasse Resolution: Final resolution of contract issues is necessary in order to focus on joint efforts towards service improvements. Therefore, it is

supportive of service improvement to have effective

and trusted means of resolving bargaining impasses.

Impasse procedures should rely significantly on me-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

diation and informal problem solving, and include access to training and neutral assistance. Under current

fact finding and arbitration provisions of collective

bargaining laws, the arbitrator is required to take into

consideration several criteria. One important criteria

should be the impact of the settlement on quality and

excellence of the services affected.

Whatever provisions are made for the final resolution of contract disputes, they should recognize the

relationship of the final closure mechanism to the ability to address service quality issues and service improvements. Where there is a relationship between traditional bargaining issues and quality of services, any

third party resolution process should be sufficiently

flexible to deal with those issues. Alternative dispute

resolution methods, such as various forms of enhanced

mediation, show promise and should be emphasized.

In the case of binding arbitration, for example,

the inclusion of service quality issues and the capacity

to explore service improvements should be preserved

in the steps following impasse, and in the criteria for

third party resolution. A far greater degree of mediation and problem solving should be employed, including the ability to provide subsequent training and neutral assistance to parties in an effort to make more constructive habitually difficult relationships into more

constructive ones, and to make a special effort to preclude resorting to external, third-party adjudication.

(See the Massachusetts Joint Labor Management Committee for Municipal Police and Fire Fighters referred

to in Appendix D, for one example of inserting increased problem solving into impasse resolution.)

Permissive, Mandatory and Prohibited Subjects of Bargaining: Whatever the particular scope

outlined in statute, parties have the ability to discuss

the range of issues necessary in order to improve service outcomes. In doing so, no party would gain or

give advantage through discussion of service-related

issues under cooperative arrangements. Management

rights clauses should be structured to allow parties to

discuss all issues affecting service delivery in a manner that permits broad-based discussion and resolution

of problems, while ensuring that there is not undue interference in agency mission or in the responsibilities

of elected and appointed officials.

Joint Committees: In each jurisdiction (i.e. city,

county, school district, transportation or utility district,

etc.) where there is a contract, a joint committee consisting of top leaders in labor and management covered by contracts in that jurisdiction normally should

be established according to the needs of the local parties. Its charter will include workplace problem solving and encouragement of service quality and improvement efforts. In addition to jurisdiction-wide committees, usually departmental committees would be established for major departments or groupings to ensure

that labor and management leaders who can affect service delivery can do so in the relevant context. Appropriate coordination should be established among the

committees within a jurisdiction or district. Arrangements for management and employee leaders selected

for such committees should permit full participation.

Members of joint committees should receive appropriate training and preparation for effective participation (see above), whether through the state board or

locally identified providers.

Joint Training: Training in the necessary skills

should be provided for in order to ensure that parties

use effective conflict resolution and problem-solving

techniques, and learn to deal effectively with the intersection of service and workplace issues in the context

of a collective bargaining relationship. (See Chapter 4

for a description of skills normally required or helpful

to support employee participation and effective problem solving.) Training should be jointly sponsored and

developed for maximum relevance, acceptance, and

effectiveness.

Relation to Civil Service Systems

When designing or modifying a bargaining law,

parties should examine, perhaps through the state-wide

labor-management committee, how the bargaining law

and state or local civil service statutes mesh. The purposes and processes of each law should provide for

accommodation as opposed to rigidities. A truly effective service-oriented system requires that each of

these processes expand, rather than restrict, the abilities of the parties to address impacts on service and

quality of work life. The jurisdiction-wide joint com-
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

mittee should periodically consult with the appropriate authorities to ensure that these systems work to

further the purposes of the overall labor-management

relationship.

Public Employment Relations Board (PERB)

A key ingredient is an administrative agency to

determine questions of representation, to regulate unfair labor practices, to administer grievance resolution

and to resolve impasses. To reflect the service emphasis, the mandate and normal services of such a body

should reflect this preventive and service-supporting

philosophy. Recognizing that such boards have a broad

range of activities, the following issues are highlighted

in connection with service and promoting cooperative

relationships:

Preventive Focus: Public employment relations

boards should be active and funded in preventive activities and processes, not only those that respond to

conflict. These would include application of, and joint

training in, appropriate ADR practices and related technical assistance to help relationships between the parties develop and evolve effectively. Agency staff should

be trained in these skills.

The Board should employ and encourage the use

of ADR or other preventive or rapid resolution of grievances and other conflicts close to the source. Training

and technical assistance, advice, and referrals and service in conflict resolution and problems solving should

be available through the PERB. Joint training and

mediation assistance should be provided for all first

contracts, and then generally available.

Unit Determination: Unit determinations should

consider the ability to cross traditional occupational

lines in order to flexibly respond to changes needed in

the interest of service improvements and related impact on employees. Highly fragmented or a proliferation of bargaining units should be avoided, so that the

integrated nature of service delivery can be reflected,

and so that a proliferation of units doesn’t place the

parties in duplicative negotiations or cause other problems that interfere with a mutual focus on service and

efforts at cooperation.

Enforcement Activities: All parties should be

assisted and encouraged in living up to their responsibilities under the law, including attention to service

delivery and rights of employees. Here, as in other

areas, alternative dispute resolution practices should

be used to resolve differences wherever possible. Jurisdiction-wide or statewide labor-management committees might be helpful in addressing some of these

issues, especially in the early going as parties gain experience. Legal enforcement, where it becomes necessary should be simple and avoid undue time and expense to the parties and the state.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

* See Chapter Four of this report for additional description of

alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Appendix H

Quality Standards and Principals for

Developing an Effective Alternative Dispute

Resolution System for Rights Guaranteed by

Law and for Other Workplace Disputes*

Purpose

To provide a voluntary, fair, effective and expedient means to resolve allegations and conflicts over

workplace rights guaranteed by public law and other

workplace disputes and rights as an alternative to

lengthy, expensive or conflictual processing through

courts or administrative procedures.

To do so by encouraging interested local parties

in a city, state, county, school board or other local jurisdiction to develop and experiment with ADR systems. Systems thus developed should take care not to

interfere with the exercise or development of collective bargaining rights. Any system should arrange for

objective evaluation after an initial period of operation.

The specific design and development of a dispute resolution system must fit the local circumstances

and promote trust among those who will use it. The

following principles are intended to suggest a foundation for a fair, effective and trustworthy system.

The “Basic Features” section below summarizes

the principles from the ADR Table in Chapter Four of

this report and the remainder of this Appendix expands

the discussion of administrative and other features of

workplace ADR systems.:

Basic Features

• Voluntary, only post-dispute

• Retain basic employee or employer rights

• Includes mediation and arbitration features

• Mediation can be used at any time prior to arbitration award

• Employee has access to counsel or representative of his or her own choosing

• Employee can obtain, through discovery and

other appropriate means, information necessary to pursue his/her claim

• Employee may exit system and go to court

anytime prior to arbitration agreement. Employer will

only pursue litigation if the employee has elected to

pursue his or her claim in the courts

• Arbitration award shall be in writing

• Arbitrator to have same powers in developing

an award or seeking evidence as a judge under the same

statute

• Mediators and arbitrators to be trained in the

relevant area of law.

• Not intended for class action or precedential

cases

• Arbitration award is final and binding unless it

is found by the standards of appellate review to be in

violation of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, or of the applicable federal or state statutes, or the procedures were

irregular. Reference the Spielberg principle by the

National Labor Relations Board [112 NLRB 1080

(1955)].

• ADR available to all employees of employer

without preference or limitation

Administration and Operations

• Expeditious time frames in goals and practices.

• Avoids actual or appearances of conflict or employer domination.

• An independent board or administrative structure should ordinarily administer the system in a manner that promotes independence and fairness and that

is knowledgeable about dispute resolution practices.

• Such an entity should have an independent

board or other governance arrangement that takes into

account employer and employee interests as well as

that of relevant community groups with expertise concerned with fair employment practices.

• The local system should coordinate with appropriate administrative bodies to ensure employee
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

rights, such as by preserving statutory rights.

• The relationship of the ADR system to personnel regulations or collective bargaining rights should

be clear and be respectful of established rights that do

not violate public law.

• Should be flexible enough to avoid rigidities

and complexity of administrative or court procedures,

yet preserve due process rights.

• Employees should be educated re: their rights

by appropriate, neutrally provided information, and primarily by access to counsel.

• Data on cases should be maintained to allow

for disclosures permitting evaluation of quality,

timelines, types of cases filed, by whom, against whom

and decisions rendered.

Other Safeguards for Quality and Fairness

• It must be seen and arranged as a neutral forum, independent of bias, and governed and administered in a manner to support and protect such independence.

 • To ensure and encourage access, provisions

should be made for suitable reimbursement of employee counsel or representative, either through the

system itself or by award of the arbitrator.

• Attorneys and neutrals paid under the system

should receive their fees in a manner that does not influence their role or rehire considerations.

• Preferably, all funds for operating the system

should be provided and segregated so as to avoid apparent “one to one” correspondence of cases and dollars.

• In addition to funding by the employer entity

or entities, consideration may be given for obtaining

some contribution from employees towards the operation of the system.

• As noted above, opportunity available for judicial review and not intended for class action and

precedential cases.

• Systems not conforming with these overall standards should be challengeable.

Arbitrator Selection and Qualification

• Joint selection of arbitrator from an appropriate panel of qualified arbitrators. Body selecting panel

of arbitrators shall have no economic interests in the

outcome or process.

• Diversity of view and background should be

important in developing the panel of arbitrators. Panels should exhibit balanced representation of minorities and women.

• The local parties should determine the most

appropriate means of developing a panel, whether regional or national.

• Arbitrators to demonstrate that they are knowledgeable in procedure and substance of law. There

must be full disclosure to the parties of arbitrator background and experience.

• The “Protocols” developed by the tripartite special task force are a useful reference to standards of

arbitration and other matters ensuring quality and fairness.

References:

1. “Fact Finding Report,” May 1994, and “Final Report

and Recommendations,” December 1994, of the Commission on

the Future of Worker-Management Relations (Dunlop Commission), entitled in both volumes, Chapter IV, “Employment Litigation and Dispute Resolution”.

2. The agreed-upon “Protocols of the Special Task Force

on Alternative Dispute Resolution”, attatched, also has helpful

guidance on qualifications of mediators and arbitrators. The Special Task Force on ADR was co-chaired by Arnold Zack, Chair,

Max Zimny and Chris Bareca.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Appendix H (continued)

A Due Process Protocol for Mediation and

Arbitration of Statutory Disputes Arising

Out of the Employment Relationship*

The following protocol is offered by the undersigned individuals, members of the Task Force on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Employment, as a

means of providing due process in the resolution by

mediation and binding arbitration of employment disputes involving statutory rights. The signatories were

designated by their respective organizations, but the

protocol reflects their personal views and should not

be construed as representing the policy of the designating organizations.

GENESIS

This Task Force was created by individuals from

diverse organizations involved in labor and employment law to examine questions of due process arising

out of the use of mediation and arbitration for resolving employment disputes. In this protocol we confine

ourselves to statutory disputes.

The members of the Task Force felt that mediation and arbitration of statutory disputes conducted

under proper due process safeguards should be encouraged in order to provide expeditious, accessible, inexpensive and fair private enforcement of statutory employment disputes for the 100,000,000 members of the

workforce who might not otherwise have ready, effective access to administrative or judicial relief. They

also hope that such a system will serve to reduce the

delays which now arise out of the huge backlog of cases

pending before administrative agencies and courts and

that it will help forestall an even greater number of

such cases.

A. Pre or Post Dispute Arbitration

The Task Force recognizes the dilemma inherent

in the timing of an agreement to mediate and/or arbitrate statutory disputes. It did not achieve consensus

on this difficult issue. The views in this spectrum are

set forth randomly, as follows:

• Employers should be able to create mediation

and/or arbitration systems to resolve statutory claims,

but any agreement to mediate and/or arbitrate disputes

should be informed, voluntary, and not a condition of

initial or continued employment.

• Employers should have the right to insist on an

agreement to mediate and/or arbitrate statutory disputes as a condition of initial or continued employment. Postponing such an agreement until a dispute

actually arises, when there will likely exist a stronger

predisposition to litigate, will result in very few agreements to mediate and/or arbitrate, thus negating the

likelihood of effectively utilizing alternative dispute

resolution and overcoming the problems

ofadministrative and judicial delays which now plague

the system.

• Employees should not be permitted to waive

their right to judicial relief of statutory claims arising

out of the employment relationship for any reason.

• Employers should be able to create mediation

and/or arbitration systems to resolve statutory claims,

but the decision to mediate and/or arbitrate individual

cases should not be made until after the dispute arises.

The Task Force takes no position on the timing

of agreements to mediate and/or arbitrate statutory

employment disputes, though it agrees that such agreements be knowingly made. The focus of this protocol

is on standards of exemplary due process.

B. Right of Representation

1. Choice of Representative

Employees considering the use of or, in fact, utilizing mediation and/or arbitration procedures should

have the right to be represented by a spokesperson of

their own choosing. The mediation and arbitration

procedure should so specify and should include reference to institutions which might offer assistance, such

* These protocols were produced outside of the Secretary’s Task

Force process. This document is provided as a resource for those

interested in ADR standards.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

as bar associations, legal service associations, civil

rights organizations, trade unions, etc.

2. Fees for Representation

The amount and method of payment for representation should be determined between the claimant

and the representative. We recommend, however, a

number of existing systems which provide employer

reimbursement of at least a portion of the employee’s

attorney fees, especially for lower paid employees. The

arbitrator should have the authority to provide for fee

reimbursement, in whole or in part, as part of the remedy in accordance with applicable law or in the interests of justice.

3. Access to Information

One of the advantages of arbitration is that there

is usually less time and money spent in pre-trial discovery. Adequate but limited pre-trial discovery is to

be encouraged and employees should have access to

all information reasonably relevant to mediation and/

or arbitration of their claims. The employees’ representative should also have reasonable pre-hearing and

hearing access to all such information and documentation. Necessary pre-hearing depositions consistent with

the expedited nature of arbitration should be available.

We also recommend that prior to selection of an

arbitrator, each side should be provided with the names,

addresses and phone numbers of the representatives of

the parties in thatarbitrator’s six most recent cases to

aid them in selection.

C. Mediator and Arbitrator Qualification

1. Roster Membership

Mediators and arbitrators selected for such cases

should have skill in the conduct of hearings, knowledge of the statutory issues at stake in the dispute, and

familiarity with the workplace and employment environment. The roster of available mediators and arbitrators should be established on a non-discriminatory

basis, diverse by gender, ethnicity, background, experience, etc. to satisfy the parties that their interest and

objectives will be respected and fully considered. Our

recommendation is for selection of impartial arbitrators and mediators. We recognize the right of employers and employees to jointly select as mediator and/or

arbitrator one in whom both parties have requisite trust,

even though not possessing the qualifications here recommended, as most promising to bring finality and to

withstand judicial scrutiny.

The existing cadre of labor and employment mediators and arbitrators, some lawyers, some not, although skilled in conducting hearings and familiar with

the employment milieu is unlikely, without special

training, to consistently possess knowledge of the statutory environment in which these disputes arise and of

the characteristics of the non-union workplace.

There is a manifest need for mediators and arbitrators with expertise in statutory requirements in the

employment field who may, without special training,

lack experience in the employment area and in the conduct of arbitration hearings and mediation sessions.

Reexamination of rostering eligibility by designating

agencies, such as the American Arbitration Association, may permit the expedited inclusion in the pool of

this most valuable source of expertise. The roster of

arbitrators and mediators should contain representatives with all such skills in order to meet the diverse

needs of this caseload.

Regardless of their prior experience, mediators

and arbitrators on the roster must be independent of

bias toward either party. They should reject cases if

they believe the procedure lacks requisite due process.

2. Training

The creation of a roster containing the foregoing

qualifications dictates the development of a training

program to educate existing and potential labor and

employment mediators and arbitrators as to the statutes, including substantive, procedural and remedial

issues to be confronted and to train experts in the statutes as to employer procedures governing the employment relationship as well as due process and fairness

in the conduct and control of arbitration hearings and

mediation sessions.

Training in the statutory issues should be provided

by the government agencies, barassociations, academic

institutions, etc., administered perhaps by the designating agency, such as the AAA, at various locations

throughout the country. Such training should be updated periodically and be required of all mediators and

arbitrators. Training in the conduct of mediation and
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

arbitration could be provided by a mentoring program

with experienced panelists.

Successful completion of such training would be

reflected in the resume or panel cards of the arbitrators

supplied to the parties for their selection process.

3. Panel Selection

Upon request of the parties, the designating

agency should utilize a list procedure such as that of

the AAA or select a panel composed of an odd number

of mediators and arbitrators from its roster or pool. The

panel cards for such individuals should be submitted

to the parties for their perusal prior to alternate striking of the names on the list, resulting in the designation of the remaining mediator and/or arbitrator. The

selection process could empower the designating

agency to appoint a mediator and/or arbitrator if the

striking procedure is unacceptable or unsuccessful. As

noted above, subject to the consent of the parties, the

designating agency should provide the names of the

parties and their representatives in recent cases decided

by the listed arbitrators.

4. Conflicts of Interest

The mediator and arbitrator for a case has a duty

to disclose any relationship which might reasonably

constitute or be perceived as a conflict of interest. The

designated mediator and/or arbitrator should be required to sign an oath provided by the designating

agency, if any, affirming the absence of such present

or preexisting ties.

5. Authority of the Arbitrator

The arbitrator should be bound by applicable

agreements, statutes, regulations and rules of procedure of the designating agency, including the authority

to determine the time and place of the hearing, permit

reasonable discovery, issue subpoenas, decide

arbitrability issues, preserve order and privacy in the

hearings, rule on evidentiary matters, determine the

close of the hearing and procedures for post-hearing

submissions, and issue an award resolving the submitted dispute. The arbitrator should be empowered to

award whatever relief would be available in court under the law. The arbitrator should issue an opinion and

award setting forth a summary of the issues, including

the type (s) of dispute(s), the damages and/or other relief requested and awarded, a statement of any other

issues resolved, and a statement regarding the disposition of any statutory claim(s).

6. Compensation of the Mediator and Arbitrator

Impartiality is best assured by the parties sharing

the fees and expenses of the mediatorand arbitrator. In

cases where the economic condition of a party does

not permit equal sharing, the parties should make mutually acceptable arrangements to achieve that goal if

at all possible. In the absence of such agreement, the

arbitrator should determine allocation of fees. The

designating agency, by negotiating the parties’ share

of costs and collecting such fees, might be able to reduce the bias potential of disparate contributions by

forwarding payment to the mediator and/or arbitrator

without disclosing the parties’ share therein.

D. Scope of Review

The arbitrator’s award should be final and binding and the scope of review should be limited.

Dated: May 9, 1995

[signed]

Christopher A. Barreca, Co-Chair

Partner

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker

Rep., Council of Labor & Employment

Section, American Bar Association

Arnold Zack, Co-Chair

President, National Academy of Arbitrators

Carl E. VerBeek

Partner

Varnum Riddering Schmidt & Howlett

Management Co-Chair

Arbitration Committee of

Labor & Employment Section, ABA
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Charles F. Ipavec, Arbitrator

Neutral Co-Chair

Arbitration Committee of Labor & Employment

Section, ABA

Michael F. Hoellering

General Counsel

American Arbitration Association

Wilma Liebman

Special Assistant to the Director

Federal Mediation & Conciliation

Lewis Maltby

Director - Workplace Rights Project,

American Civil Liberties Union

Max Zimny, Co-Chair

General Counsel, International

Ladies’GarmentWorkers’Union

Rep., Council of Labor & Employment Section,

American Bar Association

Robert D. Manning

Angoff, Goldman, Manning,

Pyle, Wanger & Hiatt, P.C.

Union Co-Chair

Arbitration Committee of

Labor & Employment Section, ABA

George H. Friedman

Senior Vice President

American Arbitration Association

W. Bruce Newman

Rep., Society of Professionals

in Dispute Resolution

Joseph Garrison, President

National Employment

Lawyers Association
WORKING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
U.S. Department of Labor

Office of the Secretary

Washington, DC 20210

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

G-744

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Department of Labor

Permit G-746