In the booming 2000′s – the european HR community watched with fascination what was going on in the US. Everytime there was negotations between the unions and the companies, they threatened the unions with “Off to Mexico”, often with great succes. Nothing beats the possibility of loosing jobs to now-paying regions.

when I entered HR, I really held my ethics high and proud. Never would I suggest “Off to Mexico” as a possible senario and negotiations-tool.

My life taught me that there are nuances to it. I have dealt a lot with unions through my career. I met trade-unionists that were full of commitment for the benefit of the company. They wanted to contribute albeit being the spokespersons for the rest of the employees.

In Denmark we have agreements that transends several sectors – general agreements between the unions and the representatives for industrial sectors. This makes HR much more easy. One agreement – and when you get a hold on it, it proves to be a book of solutions, just looking for a company representative and a trade-unionist that sits down and work out a local agreement. This normally takes the pressure of- and need for - the Danish equivalent of “Off To Mexico”. The system is based on  understanding and a shared interest for the company.

Now GFC is rolling over so many sectors and many a local agreement bears traces of being negotiated when money was in abundance, workforce hard to recruit. When I listen to the HR-grapewine I hear that when trying to negotiate – based on a crisis and perhaps a liquidity issue – a new local agreement, outsourcing rears it’s head again. Some use it as a wakeup-call for the unions some consider it a final solution, because the unions aren’t listening.

What would I do? hm… The prospect of outsourcing several jobs and the subsequent disaster for so many people makes it a tool I really would hate to pull out. It is a final solution not to be considered lightly.

But I am a company represenatative – and I would have to look at the greater picture and act on the benefit of the company, with due respect for the employees. I would have to be creative it the union-representative. But it really requires a union-rep that is in tune with the market, the company situation and most importantly understands that ultimative demands, will be met with the opposite from the management. Trench-warfare from WW-I proved that it is only the grunts that gets chewed up, rarely the Rear-Echelons that gets to taste the blood and gunpowder.

When looking at the danish system of agreements between the unions and companies, it is based on negotiations. It is really flexible with social security that enables the companies to fire people more swiftly and often in more controlled numbers; making the ajustments more swiftly and appropriate. so when companies threaten to either outsource or close down a part of the company, I can promise you one thing – it is NOT a hollow threat. It will most likely have been discussed at upper-management level, and a contingency plan will exist. It is NOT a tradition to threaten, but unfortunately it is a point lost on unions that through the last 5-6 years have been used to companies desperate to employ their members.

Two things must be my conclusion:

if you are in management and HR: if you pull the outsourcing card out, be ready to either be called as a bluff or you will have to go through with it. It can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

if you are in a union: you are responsible for keeping a good relationship with the management while representing your members. Please think big and forward. You might be able to call the outsourcing as a bluff, but you might end up paving the road for it later, as no management likes to be humiliated. Please be flexible and choose the battles best fought and won; some are more appropriate for a GFC some more appropriate for a GFB (Global Financial Boom).

For both parties: keep flexible and be creative. You are dealing with so many people and their financial situation. Do not let it get personal. Keep it professional. Take a timeout during the negotiations if they get heated. But be prepared to walk the walk …

Kindest,

Steen

I know what I think of the above mentioned question: hell no, if you blog on a regular basis and read the other blogs, the first thing you notice is that almost on-one(!!) go by their real name, Yours Truely included.
HRpunkrocker, HRmaven, HRwitch – and now adding to the brigade: HRDragon…

If you read
this article

you get the feeling that HR people does not feel like real employees.
I really do not think it is because we are superior people with a higher intellectual capacity, say like a salesperson – but I think it is because we often become pariahs of the organisation. We discipline people, we enforce corporate policies, we are often caught in OHS with all the legislation that acompanies that. We are the bottleneck – if you ask the managers – that stomps the growth.

So being the pariahs – we tend to give ourselfs cool nicknames and bitch on how other are utter morons.
Because nobody appreciates the benefits of a well-running, competent HR department. We do actually recruit the footsoldiers and generals, we assist with driving corporate strategy, we develop policies and guidelines so to keep a logic, fair and transperant way of conducting the internal business.

But they just bitch. So to ventilate our frustration – we bitch back. And give ourselfs cool nicknames, and blog like crazy to tell the world what we actually are contributing with and to.

Not that I do not recognize the benefits of a cool, and smooth running operation in accounting, sales, logistics, operations, businessdevelopment, and so forth. But they get recognized because they contribute directly to the running of business. Human Resources does it in the background.

And they don’t get to get cool nicknames…
Have a good sunday, friends.

Ever so often when I worked as a “hired gun” consultant I ended up with an organisation, that had the sweetest, kindest, innovative values – most often produced in High-gloss paper format, distributed generously to the employees.

More than once I attended “Value-implementation” workshops where the TopBrass told with great vigour and enthusiasm [on occasion not] about the creation behind the values, how much the costumers will benefit and on quite a few occasions how much more happy the employees would be, once they had taken to heart, this spanking brand new set of core values.

Now, is that nice, isn’t it. Few pamphlets, social gathering backed up with a new employee – manager conversation sheet, developed either by some high-priced consultant [not proud to admit: me] or some born-again HR Consultant, that has taken this golden opportunity to get out of the organisational shadowland and finally do something everybody will notice – and most likely hate.

so – to sum up:

Values created – CHECK

Values presented – CHECK

Values implemented according to what-ever new management fad, the CEO has stumbled upon: CHECK

And then nothing happens… the employees still feel disgruntled, they bitch about how much they have to disregard their own inner values, in order to comply.

Then the CEO calls either me again to complain that the values are malfunctioning. When I told him, noooo it is not the values but how they were made [Never do that if you are the consultant that helped concieving those darned values - then blame the organisation for lack of maturity].

At Copenhagen Business School there is a Ph.D. student, Susanne Eckmann. She has written an excellent article in the newspaper “Weekendavisen” – and I think she sums it up very nicely: It is a question of authenticity. Not the values, but the selfperception of the employees. Only do the important things, only the creative things and only in accordance with the employees own inner core value. If it does not happen to please that inner core, she states that “alienation” from the employee towards the organisation happens. And I tend to agree.

The higher education – the higher frustration, when the employee are ordered to do the tasks that is not interesting, creative or in accordance to the inner core. Atleast this is the humble opionion of this HRDragon. I have a MA and a BA and a 2 year consultant education from a highly esteemed institution in DK.

Yet I still have to answer questions on OHS, maternity leave, regulations, answer strange questions from future candidates. On occasion I do the “crazy OD” stuff… But, after working 2½ years with purely OD stuff, I can say onething: Dude, that is really hard to be creative on demand… But had you asked me when I was fresh out of university I would have puked out of sheer disgust to do such low-status jobs….

As she ends the article: Who gets to be free, creative and critical all the time?

1. Don’t be an asshole.
2. Don’t divert attention away from the mission and vision of the organization.
3. Don’t cause problems that are bigger than the problem we’re trying to solve.
4. If you don’t like it, leave.

http://punkrockhr.com/punk-rock-employee-handbook/

She is right… use common sense, accept that you are not the center of the universe and things have to be done – and you have to do them, as you are being paid to do so.

Kindest,

Steen