Workplace Change in the US Federal Government - Case Study Example

Running Header: Workplace Change Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code & Name: Date of Submission: Workplace Change Introduction According to Leslie (2008, p. 2), change in work is experienced at all levels from senior manager, executive or a frontline supervisor. The inertia for change are varied and many. Bargaining for change is the approach that agrees on practices of work to be secured from various groups in trade for compensatory payments (IRC 2007, p. 2). The workplace change in federal agency has occurred through collaborative bargain by employees’ representatives. According to Marick (2010, p. 2), 60 % of workers under federal services are unionized, offering fertile ground to engage workers in changing the agency performance. Engagement gives an opportunity to promote collaborative workplaces that offer both the management and employees a greater voice in improving working conditions and operations. The bargain for change in workplace has created an objective in recent executive order under president Obama on developing labor-management forum to improve government services delivery. Efficient government needs efficient management and in turn management needs momentous engagement of employees in government. The first section of this essay tackles the workplace change in the federal service from 1960 under the lead of President Kennedy where he pioneered limited bargaining approach in the workplace. It also discusses the efforts of President Clinton in try to reinvent the government by absolutely doing way with top-down model and widening the bargaining approach. The Bush management has also been discussed where he reversed the bargaining plans that had been previously set by Clinton and inclined more to top-down model of management. Obama is discussed in later section, seen to revert all the Bush approaches and adopt a bargaining approach by encouraging unions’ participation. The workplace change in the federal services has been dominated by bargaining for change approach. Workplace change in the federal service Since 1960, the US federal policy has allowed workers the right to have union representation (Marick 2010, p. 5). However, the administrations have differed greatly in their pledge to attain good labor-relations, mirroring varying philosophies toward legitimacy of involvement of union and public management. There has been varying relations of labor-management between the different administrations from Clinton to Obama. Organization and labor activism among workers of federal service started in mid 19th century. Workplace and political forces increased until they succeeded to have a government wide policy to allow fundamental rights of labor. President Kennedy established a task force in 1961, led by Goldberg, the then secretary of labor, to investigate relations of labor management in federal service and develop necessary recommendations of policy. The president also put the memorandum that stated that the management officials at every level in agencies and departments should recognize that every worker of federal government is entitled to participate and join in employee organization activities and asks for enhanced conditions of work and grievances resolution. The memorandum continued to state that involvement of government workers in the implementation and formulation of policies and procedures of employees concerning them helps to efficient execution of public activities. It also stated that participation should involve discussion by liable leaders with employees’ representatives and organization of federal employees. This yielded the establishment of a Policy for Employee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Service in 1961, proposed that the president form a policy of government to allow federal workers the right to form unions and bargain collectively for change in workplace. Marick (2010, p.7) states that in 1962, the president installed agenda allowing federal workers this fundamental labor right which was under the policy of employee-management cooperation in the federal service. Its main aim was to eliminate confrontation and improve collaboration through the process of bargaining. However, this policy restricted the scope of bargaining definition and disallowed strikes (IRC 2007, 1). Issues associated with benefits and pays were outside the probability of negotiability and broadly stated as management rights clause which fell under decree of president. Under this policy the representation of union grew quickly. President Nixon established a policy to restructure the process of union-recognition and develop highly needed structures of administration. However, the fundamental elements of policy of labor were left intact. Over a period, the federal labor-management relations constantly declined (Yukl 1998). The program permitted for only restricted employee engagement using representation of union. It was a situation such that managers and their agencies didn’t face strict consequences if they utilized confrontational positions against the union. There were hardly incentives to attract manager to involve union representative appropriately. Furthermore, legislators, agency executives and president increasingly showed no interest to federal labor-management relations. This resulted to suffering of government performance at the expense of public due to deteriorating employees’ morale. In 1981, the air traffic controller strike symbolized the well established decay in the program of federal management relations (Yukl 1998). The general Accounting Office (GAO) produced findings in 1991 where GAO experts established that the program of federal labor-management was inefficient. Some reasons were given that the mechanisms for solving dispute were complex, slow and lengthy (Mindy Joseph & Sonja 2006, p. 63). Also the federal labor relations authority was ineffective and its management had negatively affected the program. The GAO argued that the crises in the program of federal labor-management relations was systematic and had widely spread such that technique of piecemeal revision would be unworkable answer. The recommendation was congress committees to initiate hearings on the program status with an aim of developing a panel of experts that are recognized nationally to establish comprehensive reform proposal. In the dawn of President Clinton, the government recognized the necessity for reform. Reinvention was the new philosophy of public management that combined private sector best practices in the governance. Higher bargain and participation were pivotal point for reinvention, eliminating the bureaucratic and rigid model of top-down (Marick 2010, p. 9). When employees are entrusted by their managers on crucial decisions, they gesture their respect for the workers. Clinton initiated a National Performance Review (NPR) to turn the whole federal government to be more effective, less expensive and install empowerment, and do away with top-down model of management. The 3 major representatives of unions of non-postal federal workers recommended to the president to give an executive order putting management of labor partnership as an objective of the executive office which later was endorsed by NPR. The proposal from NPR stated that there is need to give power to front line worker to solve more of their problems and make more of their own decisions. It also recognized that no government can succeed without equal and full participation of unions and employees (IRC 2007, p. 2). Later, President established a decree that stated that inclusion of workers of federal government and their representatives of union is crucial in attaining objectives of the reform. It was clear that it was necessary to replace federal labor management relation nature so as union representatives, employees and managers would work as partners in order to successfully implement and design thorough change necessary to reform government. This was to aid inclusion of workers and their representatives of union as major players with representatives of management to craft solution and identify problems to efficiently serve the mission and customer of the agency. The order also had a room for negotiation on issues such as position or grade, types, and numbers of the workers. The policy concentrated on partnership of labor management as a major part of reinventing government to attain bottom line effects. Marick (2010, p. 12) states that the aim of engagement was to change management of labor from confrontational to collaborative. A widened range of bargaining functioned as supporting philosophy of full engagement. Clinton reaffirmed this policy by directing agencies to show to the management and budget office on the success they had achieved toward elevating partnership and attaining improvements in customer service, efficiency, quality, productivity and work life quality. When President Bush took over the office he abolished this partnership program on 2001. It became vivid that employee partnership through their representatives of union had no chance under administration of bush and his management approach. The administration argued that putting decision making in the arms of self-centered unions places the interest of the permanent government first. It established The President Management Agenda which was meant to bring relations of labor-management to an entire new level of policy making. His agenda was to improve the performance of government. However, opposite to Clinton, top-down approach of management dominated (Michael 1999, p. 4). Instead of partner change, Bush stood for management freedom. The event of 9/11 revealed the incapability of government to protect the country and this necessitated military and organizational response. As a result, the airport security operation was federalized. Baggage and passenger screeners were converter into workers of newly established Transport Security Administration (TSA) and relocated to Homeland Security Department. The TSA management approach did not restrict screeners from entering unions, but equally restricted them the complete rationale for unionization. In the period of 8 years, the administration of bush battering on unions went beyond departments and agencies with complete responsibilities of national securities. Relations on labor-management declined at the FAA, where stalemates of bargaining disappeared in 12 units, with inclusion of one represented by the National Air Traffic Controller Association (NATCA). The administration of Bush last enactment of enlarging flexibility of management at the cost of union occurred when he eliminated 1500 bargaining unit employees of the explosive, firearms, tobacco and alcohol Bureau from the protection of FSLMRS in order to avoid their representation right. At the time of President Obama entry, the program of federal labor management had been converted on its head. The hitches of performance emerged on small and large scales. Obama developed an executive order to dawn a chance to re-structure the engagement of labour management. He ordered the installation of a productive and cooperative labor-management relations form in the entire branch of executive. This was in quest to produce best quality services to people of US. The president has made a National Council on FLMR to supervise the plan to develop labor-management forum on the entire section of federal agencies and departments. Departments and agencies are needed to send, for evaluation and endorsement by the council, arrangements on undertaking these forums within 3 months. They are needed to permit union representatives and their workers to acquire pre-decisional inclusion in all workplace issues to the maximum degree possible, without considering whether those issues are negotiable matters of bargaining (Marick 2010, p. 17). Michael (1999, p. 6) suggest that it is crucial to involve public services labor-management. Relations on labor management occur in various forms and exist through varying processes. In the system of industrial relations in US, bargaining and its auxiliaries, e.g. contracts management, dominate. Using these procedures, the players discuss agreements which explain their responsibilities and rights and set up platform to articulate differences over application and interpretation. Furthermore, players may develop work-place level commissions to handle certain matters, stretching from safety and health to recreation or education. They must also develop united groups of work to handle crises and search solutions to steer collective bargaining (Michael 1999, p. 4).. Collective bargaining is usually bound to matters that are within bargaining legal definition and mostly is concerned with slimmer range of matters. Full engagement stretches past negotiability boundaries, engaging unions in issues of strategy implementation and formation. However, collective bargaining may be seen as relatively adversarial, although it can be integrative or cooperative in nature (Marick 2010, p. 18). The earlier period experience with partnership in public and private fields shows that they perform appropriately if the players harmonize their approach to engagement with how they carry out collective bargaining. It is very hard for either management or labor to involve in an honest sense if they are antagonistically in collective bargaining. For instance, if the federal sector completely sticks to a slim range of bargaining, which would be revealed by a systematic refusal by the management to negotiate on items that are permissive, just aggravates suspicion and doubt about the honesty of management to feasible engagement. Positive approach to contract administration and collective bargaining are promoted by the engagement (IRC 2007, p. 4). This in turn helps in lowering labor-relation transaction costs such as unfair labor charges, arbitration, grievances, complaints, impasses and ambient unwillingness to comply with required change. When the players are genuine, a relationship of labor management can accommodate union and employees strong engagement in wide range of decisions from the highest to the lowest level. It involves engagement in decisions at stages from site of work to the headquarters where strategy is established and budgeting of capital occurs. According to (IRC 2007, p. 5), the models of bargaining for change, unions are important. Union gives an independent and collective voice that allows a lot of workers to contribute who mightn’t otherwise have the opportunity. In this effort, unions give an autonomous say and act as a crucial check on misguided practices and policies. In absence of union representation protection, worker may be frightened to air their voices in fear of losing job (Mindy, Joseph & Sonja 2006 p. 63). Also, union is able to have long-term plan since they work autonomously from appointees of political position, who may exit after 4 year. Additional, unions give management a crucial links of communications that are well established and broader in comparison to top-down approach. It has also been found to lower turnover and hence promoting stability of workforce. In return this permits firms to build up relational and institutional capital greatly needed to effective performance. It also enhances commitment and trust. Conclusion The workplace change in US federal government has been dominated by the bargaining for change. Representatives of union have been the driving force behind the bargaining for change in the federal workplaces from the era of President Kennedy to the present Obama administration. Clinton embraced this approach completely because he realized that greater bargain and participation were pivotal point for reinvention, eliminating the bureaucratic and rigid model of top-down. The Bush approach to muzzle bargaining for change in federal government resulted in deterioration in service delivery to the public. Unions have the advantage to both employees and firm if mutual trust exists. However this approach has a risk of introducing other new restrictions in progress such as those introduced by Bush administration. Results for the bargain for change approach have not been supported by any data. Reference IRC 2007, ‘Exploring ways to improve labor-management relations and collective bargaining’, IRConcepts, Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-26. Leslie, A 2008, ‘Managing change in the workplace’, A practical Guidance, pp. 1-98. Marick, F 2010, Engaging Federal Employees Through Their Union Representatives To Improve Agency Performance, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-37. Michael, O 1999, The New Public Management and Workplace Change In Australia, pp. 1- 22. Mindy. M. C, Joseph, S. L & Sonja, P 2006, ‘Managers’ role in implementing organizational change: case of the restaurant industry in melbourne’, Journal of Global Business and Technology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 58-67. Yukl, G. 1998. Leadership in Organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Read More