I work in a
participatory
workplace, although the general feeling among the employees is that it
is primarily in name only. The company has replaced all first
line
supervisors, a management position, with shift leaders. Shift
leaders
are union personnel charged with the responsibility of assuring the
tacks
are completed and the plant operates efficiency. This appears to
be a true effort at participation, but 2 of 5 of the shift leaders are
past first line supervisors. I respect the company protecting
these
employees and their expertise, but the union employees question their
loyalty
to the union that they had to re-join, and the union members remember
them
as company employees. This has caused some apprehension on these
shifts.
The company has
created
a team concept, in the maintenance department by creating 4 teams of 6
members. These teams consist of each of the crafts from the old
maintenance
department as well a one operator from the operations department.
The teams are responsible for all maintenance requirements that arise
during
the 8-hour shift they work, as well as scheduled work needed throughout
the plant. This also seems to be an effort in participatory
working,
and it is, but they have taken straight day workers and put them on
shift
work with no input being accepted from the union workers. The
crafts
are now expected to work together on jobs and cross train each other so
everyone has knowledge of the others’ crafts. In theory this is
an
excellent procedure. The artisans being forced into this position
complain they went to school to learn their trade and dislike giving
away
their job skills they worked and studied so hard to gain.
The company originally
held monthly meetings to exchange information and ideas as well as to
find
answers to problems as well as employee concerns. These tended to
be one sided with the union members providing information, voicing
concerns,
then listening to the company telling the union how things would be
regardless
of how the workers felt. The union workers, while being asked
their
opinions, quickly learned the company still would run things the way
they
saw necessary.
For a participatory
workplace to operate the way it is suppose to operate, and do it
effectively,
the labor force must fell the company is honest in their wanting this
type
of management. Before the change to a participatory management
style
can be made the labor and management should have extensive negotiations
as to how it will be done. Questions and answers should be
continuous
at all levels of labors, not with just a few who are expected to relay
information back and forth. Meeting should be held, and both
labor
and company personnel should be present to work out as many aspects of
the change as is feasibly possible. At this point, job
descriptions
should be discussed, emphasizing changes that will be made and the
reasons
behind them. Knowing the reasons behind the changes is as
important
to understand as what the changes are to be. The labor force
needs
to have as much voice in these changes as possible, because they are
now
to be the people responsible for the work. If the plant or
company
does not succeed with the participatory work force, labor is now held
accountable.
If labor does not get a voice in setting up this new system, they can
effectively
be set up to fail even though they have the best interest of the
company
in mind.
The selection of the
shift leaders at our company was strictly a company decision, based on
a written test, and an interview with the plant manager. The test
scores were kept secret and the company had the right to wave the test
and or test score in the selection process. This told the labor
force
the company would hand pick whom they wanted in the position.
Whereas
I do not think the union should have the power to put whomever they
desire
in the position, I do think a defined job qualification should be
written
and followed when created this type of position. This would
ensure
that the most qualified individual that was interested in the position,
would receive the position. This would be received by the labor
force
as being the people most capable and not hand picked favorites.
Shift work is very
difficult on a person’s health, both physical and mental, as well as
making
family involvement complicated. Very few people like shift work
because
of these reasons, and to take people from a straight day job, with
every
weekend off, put them on shift work, with 1 weekend off per month
creates
a great deal of animosity. When the company asks for input on the
effectiveness of the new shift style and is given productive and
reasonable
suggestions on how to do the job with the same team concept, same team
members, on a straight shift as opposed to shift work, and then the
company
ignores the ideas or refuses to discuss the ideas, it is quickly seen
that
there is no open lines of communication. Employees need to be
allowed
to openly explore their ideas, at least open honest discussion of
ideas.
This is part of what the theory of participatory work places is to
entail.
To allow the labor force to improve the way jobs are done to the
improvement
of the company.
With participatory
work places comes increased responsibility for the labor force, with
this
added responsibility should come some form of added compensation,
whether
in increased wages of a form of bonus system based on improved
production,
and company value. These bonuses need to be done across the board
to all employees, not to an individual employee as this leads to
employee
competition and a divisiveness that is disruptive and prevents the
sharing
of ideas with other workers because of the fear of helping someone else
at your own expense. Workers need to work together and feel that
the sharing of information will benefit everyone.
Participatory
workplaces
are in theory the way for companies to succeed in a time of growing
competition,
both locally and overseas. It enables the labor force to make
themselves
responsible for their company’s well being. By allowing labor to
run the company, they should be making decisions that will benefit
them,
because without the company, they have no jobs. Upper management
often times loses sight of the need of these jobs. If a plant
does
not make the profit margin they feel it should they can shut down the
plant,
and or move it, leaving hard working employees feeling cheated and lied
to about their future. Labor interests lie in keeping these
plants
open and operating locally, this is their livelihood.