DULUTH NEWS-TRIBUNE
Copyright (c) 1997, Duluth News-Tribune

Monday, September 1, 1997
By Daniel Bernard/News-Tribune staff writer 

LABOR HELPS MANAGEMENT RUN THE PLANT
PARTNERSHIPS BECOMING POPULAR TO SOLVE PROBLEMS, DEFUSE TENSION

   If the American worker is in a state of hopeful nervousness this Labor Day, then the Georgia-Pacific plant near Duluth's waterfront is keeping with the times.
   Stomachs froze in July when managers handed down the news that 15 jobs at the hardboard plant were being eliminated permanently. Then the surprise: Part of the newly negotiated labor contract would create a committee where union leaders would meet with managers on a regular basis to cooperate in planning on every aspect of running the plant.
   Jack Pederson, an electrician for 29 years at the plant, wasn't sure which bit of news scared him more.
   ``Most of us were a little nervous about it,'' Pederson said of the formation of the Joint Leadership Team. ``It's the unknown -- if the committee's going to be one-sided, and is the plant going to survive this trying to change the style of management.''
   Georgia-Pacific became the latest employer in the Northland to adopt what has become an increasingly popular means of defusing tension between workers and business owners.
   While they haven't grabbed the attention of confrontations such as the recent Teamsters strike against United Parcel Service, labor-management committees have proliferated in Northeast Minnesota and Northwest Wisconsin in the last five years.
   The committees are gaining praise from both sides of the table as a way to discuss decisions -- from technology upgrades to absenteeism crackdowns -- before they lead to hard feelings or worse. But the panels remain a source of unease for some.
   At Georgia-Pacific, the wariness was understandable. After all, the 15 jobs had been eliminated in the name of increasing the plant's profitability. Top on the management list of missions for the Joint Leadership Team was to ensure the plant's ``profitability.''
   Union members, accustomed to resisting, now were being asked to collaborate.
   ``It's not going to be easy to go from the traditional style of labor and management, where you butt heads all the time,'' said Ron Osborne, president of the local United Paperworkers International Union. ``But we're going to try. It's just a matter of understanding that once we help each other, we have a better chance of being in business farther down the road.''

It seems to be working

   There's nothing new, of course, about workers and managers trying to head off conflicts. Labor-management committees rose in popularity in the 1980s when workers and bosses in the car industry recognized a common threat in Japanese imports. But they have continued to boom in the resource-rationed 1990s.
   ``With downsizing, people are figuring out they're not going to be able to have their workers checking their brain at the time clock,'' said Steve Korby, director of Lake Superior Area Labor Management Association, which has helped almost 50 Twin Ports-area employers set up labor-management committees since 1982. ``They're figuring out that they're going to have to utilize all the planning resources they have.''
   The highly unionized Twin Ports is no exception as the panels have become more prevalent in construction and government work since about 1990.
   The joint committees do not supplant traditional contract negotiations, but handle issues outside of wages and benefits.
   That doesn't mean the issues are lightweight. In the early 1990s, construction companies in Duluth and Superior wanted to implement policies to determine whether any of their workers were abusing drugs or alcohol. Rather than escalating, the issue was forwarded to the Pickwick restaurant, where about 30 representatives of major contractors and building trades union meet every other month.
   ``In the past, this might have been a strike issue,'' said Jerry Alander, a carpenters business agent and president of the AFL-CIO Central Labor Body. ``Instead, the labor-management committee sat down and looked at the problem, and we were able to come up with an acceptable policy.''

Cooperation thriving

   While the traditional adversarial relationship prevails in parts of the taconite industry, the labor-management committee is thriving at National Steel Pellet Co. in Keewatin. Union and management there had pooled their lobbying efforts as early as 1986. But a 1993-'94 labor dispute made cooperation seem more urgent. Since 1994, union members not only help prepare the annual business plan, they travel with top executives to National Steel headquarters in Mishawaka, Ind., to help present it.
   ``We came of out that strike with a whole new dynamic,'' said Jerry Drong, a company spokesman. ``Now, every decision that's made in this place has a (labor-management) team involved.''
   ``We view it as a partnership. We really feel that it's working for us here,'' said Steve Hamm of the United Steelworkers of America local that represents 432 hourly workers at the Keewatin plant. ``Now, they still manage the decisions, but at least we're a participant.''
   The committees are not guaranteed successes. Some unions believe they can serve as a tool by which management can stifle the union's voice rather than amplify it. The union that represents local government workers claims that has happened in recent years with one St. Louis County government agency.
   ``We would go the committee with a problem and they'd say `We're still looking into that. The person who's doing the report hasn't finished it yet.' And we'd say, `That's been nine months since we made the request,' '' said Alan Netland, president of AFSCME Local 66 in Duluth. ``Some of them work. Some of them are a waste of time. We say (to labor members on the committee), `Keep your eyes open, and if it's a waste of time, we can always withdraw.' ''
   Workers on such committees may be reluctant to voice complaints for fear of retaliation, Netland added.
   ``There is a camp of union leaders that is very reluctant to give up that adversarial relationship, which traces back to the early years of the union movement,'' said Stephen Rubenfeld, a professor of human resource management at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, who supports the committees. ``It's difficult to draw the line between cooperation and keeping up that fight for the vested interest of the union members.''
   The new style can be nerve-wracking for management, too. At Georgia-Pacific, managers decided that the threat from their competition was scarier.
   ``If you're looking at it from the broader perspective, all of our competitors have got access to technology, capital, the money so they can buy what equipment they want,'' said plant manager Phil Sutula. ``The only difference it's going to make from a competitive standpoint is the people running that equipment. And the union is just too big of a resource not to include them."