LW.A. team

Continued from page seven

Elements of High Performance Work
Systems outlined by University of
Texas economist Dr. Ray Marshall
in an address to an AFL-CIO Con-
ference in 1991.

Dr. Marshall outlined the eight
components featured in high perfor-
mance workplaces as follows:

1) Effective use of all company
resources, especially the insights
and experience of front-line work-
ers, in order to achieve continuous
improvements in productivity.
2) Acute concern for the quality of
products and services in order to
satisfy the demands of the con-
sumer-driven marketplace.
8) A participative and non-authori-
tarian management style in which
workers - both at the point of pro-
duction and at the point of customer
contact - are empowered to make
significant decisions by (a) using
their individual discretion, experi-
ence and creativity, and (b) cooper-
ating with their peers in a mutually
supportive atmosphere.
4) Internal and external flexibility
in order to: (a) rapidly adjust inter-
nal production processes to produce
a variety of goods or services; and
(b) accurately comprehend the exter-
nal environment and adjust to
changing economic and social trends.
5) A positive incentive structure
that includes: employment security;
rewards for effectively working in
groups; decent pay and working
conditions; and policies that pro-
mote and appreciation for how the
company functions as an integrated
whole.
6) Leading-edge technology deployed
in a manner that extends human
capabilities and builds upon the
skills, knowledges and insights of
personnel at all levels of the com-

any.

+) A well-trained and well-edu-
cated workforce capable of: improv-
ing a company’s work organization
and production processes; adapting
existing machine technology and
selecting new equipment; develop-
ing new and improved products or
services; and engaging in continu-
ous learning, both on-the-job and in
the classroom.
8) An independent source of power
for workers - a labor union and col-
lective bargaining agreement - that
protects employee interests in the
workplace; helps to equalize power
relations with management; and
provides mechanisms to resolve dis-
agreements that arise because of
the inherently adversarial nature of
labor-management relations.

_ The IAM has built on Marshall’s
components to create the HPWO
Partnership Key Components as fol-
lows:

1) A full Partnership Between
Union and Management.

2) Shared Decision-Making.

8) Development of Continuous
Learning and Skill Building.

4) Continuous Integration of Lead-

ing Edge Technology.

ee

e I.W.A. President Haggard and I.W.A. collegues on tour of Weyerhaeuser
logging operation in Arkansas. On left is the IAM’s Rod Kelty.

5) A Co-determined Definition of
Quality.

6) Shared Technical and Financial
Information.

7) Ongoing Joint Determination of
the Cost.

8) The Union.

9) Dedicated Individuals.

10) A Jointly Developed Strategic
Business Plan.

From the HPWO Partnership Key
Components, the IAM has devel-
oped a program to implement a part-
nership program in individual com-
panies and workplaces. This process
includes education, planning, signed
partnership commitments at vari-
ous levels of the union and com-

pany, negotiation of HPWO agree-
ments, implementation and
evaluation.

Despite the development of these
key components and an implemen-
tation process, there is no “cookie
cutter language” for HPWO. At each
level of the union and company,
commitment is made through signed,
negotiated agreements. Within the
parameters of these commitments
comes implementation at the work-

place level, customized to that par-
ticular workplace.

THE FOCUS

The focus of HPWO is growth of
the overall business. This runs
counter to the quality movement
and other management schemes
where productivity is the focus.

As noted in the IAM Field Man-
ual on HPWO: If we only increase
productivity or improve the work
process, while neglecting strategies
to stabilize and grow the business
with strong markets and a greater
market share, labor and manage-
ment are more than likely to
“improve” their way out of employ-
ment.

The above statement capsulizes
the inherent difficulties with “qual-
ity circles” and “teams,” and identi-
fies the root of labour’s opposition to
these management schemes. It is
for that reason a critical component.
of all HPWO agreements is employ-
ment security provisions for both
hourly and salaried personnel.

These provisions generally pro-
tect employment and wage rates in
relation to any joint recommenda-
tions under the HPWO process and.
are clearly documented. A key com-
ponent of the employment security
provisions in the IAM HPWO agree-
ments is a commitment to training
and skill upgrading of the work-
force.

THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

At the workplace level, decisions
are made by consensus of jointly
established teams. These teams are
equally selected by the partners (eg,
union selects worker representa-
tives, management selects company
representatives).

It is interesting to note that the
partners also jointly - through a
consensus-building process - deter-
mine which type ai leciaione will be
made jointly in the operation. The
IAM uses three levels to determine

Photo by Dennis Bonvillo

how decisions are and will be made
in an HPWO: 1 - unilateral, 2 - uni-
lateral with prior input 3 - joint or
consensus.

For example, in the area of disci-
pline the consensus may be to kee
decision-making at a 1 or a 2, wit
management retaining the unilat-
eral right to discipline and the union
retaining the unilateral right to
grieve. In such cases, teams would
not get involved in the final deci-
sion-making in the area of disci-

line. In an area such as safety and

ealth, however, the goal under
HPWO would likely be decision-
making at a 3 (consensus) and the
teams in the operation would work
toward that goal.

In terms of decisions about work
processes, the key component is
shared information. The IAM is a
proponent of Activity Based Contin-
uous Improvement (ABCI) in its
HPWO program. ABCI has three
necessary elements: 1 - Grow the
Business; 2 - Cost the Activities; 3 -
Improve the Work Process

ABCI involves Activity-Based
Costing - providing accurate and
timely information about every activ-
ity in the production process, break-
ing down overhead and other indi-
rect labour costs and assigning them
to each specific activity - and Activ-
ity-Based Management - putting the
information to work to identify
appropriate strategies, improve
product design and remove waste,
thereby growing the business.

THE EXPERIENCE

a) Harley-Davidson Motor Com-
pany - At Harley-Davidson, HPWO
began in 1995 with Joint Partner-
ship Implementation at the highest
levels of the company and union.
The company and union developed
23 Elements of Shared Decision-
Making, which covers a wide-range
of topics and sets parameters for
implementing HPWO at the opera-
tional level.

At each Harley-Davidson opera-

tion (there are four) the local unions
and management have developed

their own Partnership Agreement
within the framework of the 23 Ble-
ments.

The partnership agreements are
ratified by the membership and are
separate from and subordinate to
the collective agreement. Any
changes to the collective agreement
recommended by the teams must
clear the traditional union negotiat-
ing committee.

These partnership agreements
establish “design teams” to deal
with various operational functions
and a process to make joint recom-
mendations, by consensus, for work-
place change. All teams work within
the “fences” of the collective agree-
ment, the 23 Elements and the Part-
nership Agreement.

Since Harley-Davidson has imple-
mented HPWO, the local union at
the York assembly plant has identi-
fied progress: in resolving griev-
ances (from 900 to 12 in 2 years,
with only 6 arbitrations); continu-
ous improvements in productivity,
quality and safety; and increased
hiring from outside the company.

In addition, the employer pays for
five (5) full-time local union staff in
the York plant, which employs
approximately 2,100 union mem-
bers.

b) Weyerhaeuser Company — At
Weyerhaeuser in Arkansas and
Oklahoma (mid-South), HPWO
began in 1994 with the Interna-
tional President of IAM and the
President and CEO of the company

agreeing to Labor Relations Princi-
ples.

From that point, the regional
management and District/Local rep-
resentatives agreed to a Partner-
a Agreement and established a
Mid-south HPWO Team for the six
(6) operations in the local.

Within the parameters of the Part-
nership Agreement and the Labor
Relations Principles, each operation

has its own “steering team” made
up of the manager and committee
chair. Below the operation steering
team are numerous joint “design
teams” charged with recommending
changes in the workplace by consen-

sus.

As with Harley-Davidson, all the
HPWO agreements are outside the
collective agreement and any rec-
ommended changes to the contract
are subject to the traditional negoti-
ating process.

Improvements to date at Dierks
sawmill include: reduction of super-
vision (now 1 to 20); improvements
in resolving grievances (2 arbitra-
tions in 1998 versus 100 in 1994);
and better communications.

The goal of the Weyerhaeuser
HPWO is to capture the potential
work from the increased plantation
harvest expected in 2005. If the
mills are productive, low-cost pro-
ducers the company will re-invest,
rather than simply selling the excess
timber.

POSITIVE FEATURES OF HPWO

Clearly, the most positive feature
and the key to the success of HPWO
for the IAM and the companies like
Harley-Davidson and Weyerhaeuser
is real partnership. As noted previ-
ously, the HPWO process is clearly
distinct from “quality circles” and
“teams” by the level and degree of
joint commitment and partnership.

Part of this partnership is the
recognition that labour-manage-
ment relations are inherently adver-
sarial in nature and that a true
partnership cannot exist without a
strong union and a strong manage-
ment structure.

Another positive feature of HPWO,
which also distinguishes it from
other schemes, is the focus on oyer-
all growth of the business covering
the needs of both partners, rather
than narrowly focussing on specific
needs such as higher productivity,
greater efficiency or flat out job
security.

A final positive feature is the
ongoing training and education that
are integrated into the HPWO
process at all levels. Not only does
the process call for classroom train-
ing on HPWO, it also calls for ongo-
ing communication and education

about the business as well as con-
tinuous skill upgrading for the work-
force.

Some company and union people
we met with noted some discomfort
with the process, however, it is clear
the degree of commitment at all lev-
els, the focus on growth and the
continuous education and communi-
cation are enough to overcome this
problem.

SUMMARY OF TOUR 4
The information obtained on this
study tour was valuable to the
LW.A., strategically and practically.
It is clear that the key to the suc-
cess of the I.A.M. in the area of
workplace partnerships is largely a
result of their development ofa
proactive, union alternative to com-
pany-driven change. Strategically,
this gives the union some measure
of control over the process, and the
successes shows the benefit of
belonging to a strong union in the
face of workplace change. 3
Witnessing first-hand the experi-
ence at Harley-Davidson and Wey-
erhaeuser Company provided a prac-
tical perspective on the process and
results of HPWO partnership agree-
ments. The extensive documenta-
tion provided in the Field Manual
and specific company and opera-
tional agreement put the “meat” on
the theory of HPWO.
_ With increasing company interest
in Co-Management, Co-Design and
other workplace partnerships, the
National Union is studying the new
information and will be developin:
a comprehensive I.W.A. industri:

partnership program to h: t the
local level. ae ie

ss
8/LUMBERWORKER/DECEMBER, 1998