Having chaired more union meetings than I care to remember at local, area and regional level (but not national), I’ll say a few things.
Firstly, most union reps at local level are good guys, who are there to represent their colleagues, and do it very well. There are, unfortunately, some reps who think they are there to represent their union, or worse, themselves.
Secondly most managers are good guys too, and really care about their people. Clearly there are some managers who aren’t so caring, and as with the reps the worst sort are those who care mostly about themselves.
Industrial relations issues and mistrust is deep seated, particularly for those ‘long in the game’. In my very first union meeting (as a manager) I was astonished to see a stand up row between ‘staff’ and ‘management’ about a frankly minor issue - it was the relationship that was the problem, not the issues.
The lack of trust is unfortunately infectious. At my first union meeting in a new area the reps were very hostile to me - despite never having met me - and it took about a year of careful ‘management’ (and several trips to the pub, all funded from my pocket!) to build trust enough for the reps to believe that I wasn’t trying to put one over them at every turn. Even then, it was difficult to convince them that my overriding objective in my discussions with them was to do the right thing for my people - the people they represented.
As a manger I have been on the receiving end of some frankly appalling behaviour by union reps, who saw any manager as a target for what I can only describe as playground bullying. I have no doubt that there are managers that have acted the same way to reps. But that is no excuse, either way. My reaction was to explain the facts of life and let it go, on the basis that it’s a long term relationship. Others will, naturally, harbour a grudge.
Most staff I worked with who were in the union did so ‘in case I screw up’, and not for any political cause. Most were also happy to raise specific matters direct through the line management chain, rather than wait for the relevant local meeting (e.g., to complain that the toilet roll had run out, as was an agenda item on one meeting I chaired). Many also rolled their eyes about the union reps - perhaps unjustly - at what they perceived as the reps having an easy ride from management over general work matters because they were a rep. Sadly, some excellent colleagues wouldn’t get involved in union matters or stand in an election to be a rep. In some cases this was almost certainly under ‘pressure’ from existing reps, which is of course almost impossible to prove.
Specifically about the RMT (the union I dealt with the most, although I have also dealt with ASLEF, TSSA, and Unite): it was clear that the further up the hierarchy of the RMT that you go, the more militant it becomes. The late Bob Crow was a moderating tour de force, and since he died it has unquestionably been more difficult for the General Secretary to deal with the Union executive. See the public letters from Messrs Cash and Lynch for evidence.
For me, the fundamental difference is that - in my experience - reps are there to represent their colleagues, whereas managers are there to represent their company. I will now correct my last sentence. Most managers (again, in my experience), rather than represent their company, want to do the right thing for the railway : the passengers / freight users / taxpayers, who ultimately pay all of our salaries. There will of course be plenty of examples where this has not been the case. Whilst this difference is clearly understood by each party, it does make some conversations rather difficult.
So what’s the answer?
For me it lies in consistently great communication between ‘management’ and ‘staff’, with an open and public relationship with the unions. I am in favour that the Board or Executive team of each company should include someone who represents the staff - whether a union rep or not. I’ve said elsewhere that I believe union meetings should be recorded (video) for later playback so that anyone can see what has been discussed. Whilst this would be difficult at times, I think on balance that the openness it provides would be of huge benefit.
It surely must be the right thing to do for all involved in a company to see the current position and future direction of that company, and understand the part they have to play in it.
Here endeth the sermon.
