Historically unions have benefited workers by protecting their jobs increasing pay and securing benefits. Another downside for manufacturing companies and for union members (although they may not know it until it is too late) is that the union leadership also wants to control job descriptions through strict rules about which employees can do what jobs. These rules have the effect of adding more people to the workforce. If this is allowed to be carried to the extreme the manufacturing company can be forced out of business. A good example of this is International Harvester where the unions had complete control of the manufacturing areas and when they went out of business the union employees lost their jobs and their seniority. Another manufacturer, Case, finally bought International Harvester out.

I will make a key assumption in the case of government unions and that is that they do not have the strict rules on job descriptions found in manufacturing and that their primary focus is on salary and benefit increases. The best approach in this case is to take some time to build a closer relationship with union leaders and members. I would start by using the “management by walking around” approach. Visit offices and work areas unannounced talk with employees ask for their opinions. In political terms the strategy is called the “big tent” approach. After a month of doing this test the waters with the union leaders to get their input on forming Work Improvement Teams (WIT). In the exchange with union leaders give real examples of employee input and how they can contribute to improving the work processes. This is a difficult sell to union leadership but it also has the benefit of allowing employees a say in how things are done. Be aware that for some union leaders “improve processes” equates as loss of jobs and with their own members contributing. The key here is in knowing the union leaders well enough that you can gain their trust.