Excellent Paper #3

         I work in a participatory workplace, although the general feeling among the employees is that it is primarily in name only.  The company has replaced all first line supervisors, a management position, with shift leaders.  Shift leaders are union personnel charged with the responsibility of assuring the tacks are completed and the plant operates efficiency.  This appears to be a true effort at participation, but 2 of 5 of the shift leaders are past first line supervisors.  I respect the company protecting these employees and their expertise, but the union employees question their loyalty to the union that they had to re-join, and the union members remember them as company employees.  This has caused some apprehension on these shifts.
         The company has created a team concept, in the maintenance department by creating 4 teams of 6 members.  These teams consist of each of the crafts from the old maintenance department as well a one operator from the operations department.  The teams are responsible for all maintenance requirements that arise during the 8-hour shift they work, as well as scheduled work needed throughout the plant.  This also seems to be an effort in participatory working, and it is, but they have taken straight day workers and put them on shift work with no input being accepted from the union workers.  The crafts are now expected to work together on jobs and cross train each other so everyone has knowledge of the others’ crafts.  In theory this is an excellent procedure.  The artisans being forced into this position complain they went to school to learn their trade and dislike giving away their job skills they worked and studied so hard to gain.
         The company originally held monthly meetings to exchange information and ideas as well as to find answers to problems as well as employee concerns.  These tended to be one sided with the union members providing information, voicing concerns, then listening to the company telling the union how things would be regardless of how the workers felt.  The union workers, while being asked their opinions, quickly learned the company still would run things the way they saw necessary.
         For a participatory workplace to operate the way it is suppose to operate, and do it effectively, the labor force must fell the company is honest in their wanting this type of management.  Before the change to a participatory management style can be made the labor and management should have extensive negotiations as to how it will be done.  Questions and answers should be continuous at all levels of labors, not with just a few who are expected to relay information back and forth.  Meeting should be held, and both labor and company personnel should be present to work out as many aspects of the change as is feasibly possible.  At this point, job descriptions should be discussed, emphasizing changes that will be made and the reasons behind them.  Knowing the reasons behind the changes is as important to understand as what the changes are to be.  The labor force needs to have as much voice in these changes as possible, because they are now to be the people responsible for the work.  If the plant or company does not succeed with the participatory work force, labor is now held accountable.  If labor does not get a voice in setting up this new system, they can effectively be set up to fail even though they have the best interest of the company in mind.
         The selection of the shift leaders at our company was strictly a company decision, based on a written test, and an interview with the plant manager.  The test scores were kept secret and the company had the right to wave the test and or test score in the selection process.  This told the labor force the company would hand pick whom they wanted in the position.  Whereas I do not think the union should have the power to put whomever they desire in the position, I do think a defined job qualification should be written and followed when created this type of position.  This would ensure that the most qualified individual that was interested in the position, would receive the position.  This would be received by the labor force as being the people most capable and not hand picked favorites.
         Shift work is very difficult on a person’s health, both physical and mental, as well as making family involvement complicated.  Very few people like shift work because of these reasons, and to take people from a straight day job, with every weekend off, put them on shift work, with 1 weekend off per month creates a great deal of animosity.  When the company asks for input on the effectiveness of the new shift style and is given productive and reasonable suggestions on how to do the job with the same team concept, same team members, on a straight shift as opposed to shift work, and then the company ignores the ideas or refuses to discuss the ideas, it is quickly seen that there is no open lines of communication.  Employees need to be allowed to openly explore their ideas, at least open honest discussion of ideas.  This is part of what the theory of participatory work places is to entail.  To allow the labor force to improve the way jobs are done to the improvement of the company.
         With participatory work places comes increased responsibility for the labor force, with this added responsibility should come some form of added compensation, whether in increased wages of a form of bonus system based on improved production, and company value.  These bonuses need to be done across the board to all employees, not to an individual employee as this leads to employee competition and a divisiveness that is disruptive and prevents the sharing of ideas with other workers because of the fear of helping someone else at your own expense.  Workers need to work together and feel that the sharing of information will benefit everyone.
         Participatory workplaces are in theory the way for companies to succeed in a time of growing competition, both locally and overseas.  It enables the labor force to make themselves responsible for their company’s well being.  By allowing labor to run the company, they should be making decisions that will benefit them, because without the company, they have no jobs.  Upper management often times loses sight of the need of these jobs.  If a plant does not make the profit margin they feel it should they can shut down the plant, and or move it, leaving hard working employees feeling cheated and lied to about their future.  Labor interests lie in keeping these plants open and operating locally, this is their livelihood.