Rank: Forum user
|
Hi all
I choose my words carefully but............
Despite: direct consultation, transparency, tact, diplomacy, training etc etc you name it WE have tried it and for a long long time. even the behavioural safety route.
how do you deal with militant obstructive union members? miltant to say the least
When for example:
They refuse and discourage others (often by bullying) to work to risk assessments, method statements!All of which they have had involvement with, also refusal to work to policies, procedures.
We have even trained/involved them in risk assessment preparation....But no, they say they want paying to write them, (whatever happened to co-operating with their employer)
Exactly to you what does "consultation mean"
And do you have to meet face to face and consult? When all you meet with is aggression and negativity
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Is this limited to H&S matters or is the reported confrontation common in all day to day matters?
If the latter then I suggest that it is nothing to do with H&S but is a fundamental management/workforce issue, not solvable by H&S people alone. Needs the CEO and Board to want to do something about it and have the skill, will and patience to pursue a solution.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi David
the resitance is to just about everything and i agree the change needs to come from the top down
thanks
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The chapters on power and motivation in this well-researched book can ensure that you avoid simply stepping into the elephant trap of interpreting 'resistance' as open to change 'from the top down':
'Psychology of Organisations. The Social Identity Approach'. S A Haslam, Sage 2nd edition. 2004
Haslam explains with rare skill how ingeniously the unions are designing experiments better than you, much like those who rehabilitated refugees after WWII. Learning to outsmart them skilfully can become the most fulfilling and life-changing 'CPD' you could wish for.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
KieranD wrote:The chapters on power and motivation in this well-researched book can ensure that you avoid simply stepping into the elephant trap of interpreting 'resistance' as open to change 'from the top down':
'Psychology of Organisations. The Social Identity Approach'. S A Haslam, Sage 2nd edition. 2004
Haslam explains with rare skill how ingeniously the unions are designing experiments better than you, much like those who rehabilitated refugees after WWII. Learning to outsmart them skilfully can become the most fulfilling and life-changing 'CPD' you could wish for
Haslam (and Steve Reicher) were the creators of a famous experiment on BBC1 around 2005, in which two groups seriously role-played prisoners and guards for a week and explained how the prisoners developed the psychological creativity not to 'resist' but to develop as an autonomous community while the 'guards' ended up flaked out, talking in just they way you have written. They describe this event in'Tyranny: Revisiting Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment' in 'Social Psychology. Revisiting the classic studies', eds. J R Smith & S A Haslam, Sage 2012. The punchline of this story is that Zimbardo became really angry with how Haslam and Reicher showed up flaws in his famous research on prisoners and guards. If you really want 'CPD' in depth, go for it here!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Consultation means " This is what we are going to do, your input is for improvement purposes only, to aid a smooth transition" e.g. new policy is coming from head office because of legislation X, we have to do it or we as a business are liable to prosecution, suck it up.
Negotiation means "This is our position, do you agree? If not we are open to discuss alternatives which are not as beneficial to us." e.g. pay.
It becomes increasingly difficult to rebel against people you break bread with. Many arguments with shop stewards are settled over tea and bickies away from their audience of fans.
Many are militant for a reason; bitter experience.
Respect requires risk, maybe you need to risk something personal to gain their respect. Just a thought.
Good luck Z
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
They're not obstructive union members, they're obstructive employees who happen to be in a union. Usually employees become "unhelpful" when they are not consulted, are consulted and then ignored or just plain told "this is the way, nothing else will do and suck this if you don't like it" Been in a few meetings where the "we're management and we know best" attitude guaranteed that help would not be forthcoming. "Learning to outsmart them skilfully" Very helpful. As soon as that attitude gets known (and it does) you can throw "employee co-operation" out the nearest window.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
If you have staff not working to controls through risk assessment etc. then this is serious, indeed a breech of law, and if the TU H&S Reps are promoting this behavior then this is remiss of them and something which I would recommend you call in their National Officer to discuss. A TU H&S Rep is indeed protected in the undertaking of their duties, however not endangering others.
I suggest this only in view of the efforts you mention having already attempted. As already mentioned they is invariably underlying issues in operation. A nice chat with the National Officer - which doesn't necessitate the need for the Reps to all sit in - to try and ascertain what is going on.
It is upsetting as I value the TU movement, not least as we representing a vocation which exists because of this movement. However, I have seen one or two reps be stripped from function as a rep due to this sort of behavior - in one case thrown out of the union.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
John Murray
I respectfully encourage you to read the relevant research evidence and explanations of Haslam before you dismiss the 'outsmart skilfully' observation. I wonder why you so abruptly dismiss the power of the exercise of skifully outsmarting by Gandhi, M L King, Mandela and many other scene changers. As Haslam explains, they created new relationships that offered alternative social identities which none of the alternatives do.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
He doesn't actually say that it is "the union", he says that it is "militant obstructive union members". And that seems to me to be a personal observation. In fact, it seems more likely to be the start of a strawman thread. I consider that any union rep who has received the training/education/read-the-notes-on-the-beemats (delete/tick as prejudice decides) would act in that manner. Certainly, if they did, the union would like to know about it. KieranD: Quite. I'm sure, when I get a free several months, I will read the relevant outsmarting text. I feel sure that, in my next national/international negotiating regime it will be invaluable. We have discussed your viewpoints before, privately, and nothing was resolved. It never will be since I feel we are not only diametrically opposed, but probably we are not even in the same universe. In fact, with your viewpoints, which are seemingly based upon defeating the argument before the argument starts, and probably before the people are assembled to argument, I doubt you could accept the losing side of any argument anyway ! This is a workplace, a single workplace, and probably the guys are not even adopting an official union policy. Probably the company is not even adopting a policy worth mentioning but is trying the usual imposition without consultation routine, and coming up against the usual brick wall. All this is based upon the original start post. But, as I said above, it seems more likely to be a "strawman" thread. again.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
An insightful observation (by a Belgian safety professional) on an IEHF LinkedIn discussion forum at present throws some light on the kind of down-to-earth innovation that counters what Z has portrayed:
"In our Prevention Policy Maj Haz we have a pair of questions about the presence of safety criteria in the evaluation of performance at all levels. This to say that we find this important. As to make the link to bonusses or renumeration we find that this is to the companies to decide. Very important is the criteria you use to calculate the bonusses.
In one of my prior companies we as Managers had a bonus package related to partly production, partly budget and costing and partly safety. For all this subtopics there was a result driven component and a effort driven component. "
This 'smart' approach is far, far beyond the haggling about payment for risk assessment, yet respects the need to balance incentives with fairness in safety. Though the guy doesn't refer to Haslam's social identity approach, he illustrates what it means in practice - well-informed and respectful problem resolution and responsible exercise of authority in while abuse, bullying, labelling and negligence out.
Any complexity arises from reasoning about differences on the basis of evidence.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I was once an 'obstructive' TU health and safety rep. Clearly there are political issues with management which appear to be filtering into h&s issues, which is a shame because I don't like to see h&s used as a political football. It happens in management circles as well, but only more subtly. Without knowing the structure of your organisation it is difficult to give advice.
That said, ideally you would like to win over some hearts and minds. Perhaps a h&s day off site where some meaningful relationships can be developed. You could ask those attending to do a short presentation on h&s issues which affect them and their colleagues to include suggestion on how to resolve those issues ie working group, training, monitoring, etc. Make them feel they are part of the solution...not the problem. Moreover, have some fun to lighten the day and to bring the best out of people. Whatever people's persuasion I have always found that they like to enjoy themselves when they get the opportunity - good luck.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Well just to say thank you to your responses, some interesting thoughts/suggestions
I for one am a believer that any union has a valuable role to play in any organisation the same as anyone else, if done properly.
now my mind has been sufficiently stretched by your responses I feel that the problem is more deep rooted than I thought, again I feel its the small wins and Jedi mind games that may need to take effect!
thanks all
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
These are not the droids you're looking for. They're over in Disney.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It is easy to be revisionist regarding Zimbardo's original prison experiment. It was carried out in a different era under conditions which today would not be allowed, as the fundamentals of the experiment would be considered unethical. Zimbardo pulled the plug on the original experiment, to his credit, when some of those who were playing the role of prisoners became massively agitated. It is like saying that Milgram's experiment was out of order - of course it was, but take it in the context in which it was carried out. Then, it was cutting edge research - now, if it was allowed to be repeated, those carrying out the research would no doubt be prosecuted/sued. If the union is breaking the law, call their national office and get the union to police their own. They will do that if they find that the local members are taking the mickey. If the local union members are not allowing the business to run, then there are a couple of choices - fight them or close the business. If you accept gangster behaviour then you will get nothing done without a draining fight over the smallest details. It will hurt, in terms of productivity and staff morale, but unions running the show is not unions protecting the workers. If union reps are demanding payment for carrying out risk assessments then that is a gross dereliction of duty, and stinks of Deggsy style unionism. For the record I am in favour of union interaction and consultation when it comes to health and safety, and it works where I work, but not to the extent that unions call the shots and refuse legitimate management requests. Power does indeed corrupt.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnMurray
You're quite right about 'the union' distinction.
Let's hope that there scope for improvement does exist more than in the original outline of the tough issue. My own relatively limited negotations with construction trade union officers with simply at central level at a time when rates of pay for apprentices were real bargaining issues......
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Martinw
I appreciate what you state about the ethics of Zimbardo's experiment in 1971, 41 years ago but you are simply factually more than a generation out of date in your observations about conditions for experimental socialpsychology today.
The experiment Haslam and Reicher conducted that I refer to were in 2004, and publicised on the BBC with none of the adverse consequences of prosecution or lawsuits you refer to. Quite the reverse - in fact, Haslam and Reicher have been prime movers in the improvement of ethical behaviour in such interventions in the UK and more widely in Europe and Australia.
The significance of the social identity research of this kind - over 700 studies of this kind have been reported in leading authoritative journals in the last 15 years - is thatthey simplify the tough issues raised by this thread and offer empirical evidence about them.
As a result, a lot of the confusion and emotional energy misdirected into arguments about approaches such as 'behavioural safety', can be reconsidered on the basis of empirical data. In fairness to leaders in the IOSH, they got the ball rolling in such research as early as 2004/5 and evidence they've since gathered played a major part in influencing Loftstedt's report of 29.11.2011
These IOSH-commissioned reports are available free online under the 'Books and resources' tab on the IOSH webite; some of them are directly relevant to the question which opened this thread.
In the situation discussed, the significance of relevant studies can be read in hours rather then 'months', by anyone with a mind open to evidence
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kieren,
Bonus targets don't work with safety. They drive reporting underground and lead to a culture whose prime goal is money.
Rather spending hours learning how to skillfully outsmart my colleagues I much prefer to talk to them as human beings.
Zanshin 67,
The advice about speaking to the senior officials is good. You will probably find they will have similar problems as yourself with the individuals and at the very least can act as an intermediary,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Zanshin67
You have many people here agreeing, without a scrap of evidence, with your assumptions that it must be these unionised workers who are at fault. They are belligerents, obstructive and unhelpful, even law breakers, that must be removed from the organisation with the stout hand of a robust CEO etc.
Regrettably, that is a typical response here and of course it might possibly be the right one. But there is one other strong possibility on which you must reflect.
Perhaps it is you who is the problem, and change is required on your part more that theirs? Perhaps change on your part it could have avoided the present situation? Perhaps now, even more effort is needed to undo the damage done?
There is no need to wallow in the past difficulties but do reflect on ALL of the possible causes, including the possibility it may be your approach that has contributed to the current situation.
Don't assume that it is you against the world and that the world, or at least those you face on a day-to-day basis and who you believe wilfully obstruct your best intentions, are wrong. It could be you, and without reflection and change on your part you could soon find yourself in an even more unenviable position.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It would be nice to know what LED to the present situation. Presumably it was not always like that ? Jedi mind games. Quite. I work exclusively in small biz, the time taken to acquaint myself with the panoply of research, done mainly in relation to large biz, would defat the object. Simply, if someone is deliberately uncooperative to the point of obstruction, and will not reconsider his/her position, then he/she may be more bother than the biz can handle. If the labour is unionised then consult with the regional office. Start the dismissal routine.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kieran
there are huge differences between the original prison experiment and the re-run in the 2000s which I think are not expedited by the safeguards. Back in 1971 California, the students were post-Vietnam, the culture was hugely different to what we have in this country(then and now), the attitude to authority has developed since then and we have a class system, the American version is different in that only rich kids tend to get to university. The attempt to give the re-run of the experiment legitimisation by the ethical committee being given such high importance papers over the cracks. That, and the fact that this was underpinned by the support of the BBC(huge respected organisation) means that it is again matrerially different to the original. Zimbardo ran his own his own experiment - the BBC heped to run the newer version effectively - so responsibility is fuzzy in the 'repeat'. If Haslam and Reicher had not had the BBC behind them, then their report would well have vanished along with hundreds of others, as they would not have had the holy grail of instant publicity and academic stardom. That, and the fact that TV cameras were following the modern version calls into question the validity of behaviour of those involved in the study. No-one behaves normally when they are in an unusual situation, trapped, and - have a camera in their face. This new study just gives evidence of how middle class students would in the current generation deal with a particular situation, not how most would deal with it, and is more reality TV than anything else. The fact that it has been accepted by social psychologists is just evidence of the attempt by social psychologists to continually re-legitimise their area of study in the face of funding challenges and continual pooh-poohing by those who regard themselves as proper scientists. Just the emperor's new clothes. The new study started with the preposition that Zimbardo had made errors in his management of the original study and sought to find proof of that. They reported that they had found such evidence. If they had sought to find that the original experiment was fine and dandy and had found such evidence, they would have been laughed out of the senior common room. Good choice on their part.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I favour the SA means of dealing with militants union members. Which, from experience, is the SME way; given a chance. Come to think of it, the original poster never says which country he/they are in. As for psychologists, social sexual or ineffectual, I cannot put my personal opinion to type about them. Other than to say that calling psychology a science is a bit like calling hurricane sandy a spring breeze.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not sure. Physics is an apparent science but when an experiment does not go to plan they can say that it is due to something theoretical such as 'dark' matter - hippy nonesense. Might as well say that the tooth fairy stuck his paw in the way. In most situations if you cannot prod it it is not there, just like the debate about religion. Psychology has helped many people, but like economics, it depends on your beliefs where you start your position. If it were based on one undisputed fact, it would be easy, but you see what has happened with evolution - which is an unproven theory - and intelligent design which has given itself the same status as evolution as both share the same unproven status. Makes me shudder. That is scary, never mind psychology, which I do respect, and have studied, but do not believe what it says without a reality check. The psychological academics willl never be believed fully until they decide to stop positioning themselves from one side or another - it just then becomes like party politics, where all of the participants have their own agendas rather than the good of those who they are supposed to be helping or representing. No doubt any psychologists reading this will be looking to my motivation for my comments and validating it or decrying it, depending on their standpoint. The point is that their responses will be largely determined by their standpoints. Pavlov's dogs. Have fun.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
JohnMurray wrote:It would be nice to know what LED to the present situation. Presumably it was not always like that ? Jedi mind games. Quite. I work exclusively in small biz, the time taken to acquaint myself with the panoply of research, done mainly in relation to large biz, would defat the object. Simply, if someone is deliberately uncooperative to the point of obstruction, and will not reconsider his/her position, then he/she may be more bother than the biz can handle. If the labour is unionised then consult with the regional office. Start the dismissal routine. Simple and succinct. Having been a Safety Rep and then going on to work with Safety Rep's from a management perspective John's really hit the nail on the head. It seems that there's some questions thast need to be answered before progress can be made. Why does the situation exist? Are there actions that can improve the relationship between H&S Rep's and management and promote co-operation? If this is a question of individuals acting for their own interests (not something I've experienced whilst sat on the management side of the fence, but had to deal with as a Safety Rep) then how can this be resolved locally to enable progression? Behavioural safety isn't the appropriate route to deal with this as it'll come across as something being done to the workforce rather than the involvement of everyone. If this is seem to be the case then its just another reason for people to kick back against 'the man'. The first step has got to be open the lines of communication, coax the rep's into coming in to talk about their expectations and what they want for their members and then work from there. No quick fix but with a bit of diplomancy you should soon be able to determine if they're in it for the right reasons.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Zanshin67 wrote:
They refuse...... to work to risk assessments, method statements
Irrespective of status, Union membership, whatever, you should have clear disciplinary procedures for dealing with this. Easy to say, I know - but the process has to fit everytime or it falls into disrepute. Hardball.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yep.
It is easy to start fights and keep them going but there seems to be less expertise in ending them.
Being in the legal, technical, moral right does not necessarily make it the right or wise course of action.
Industrial relations is chess, not ping pong.
In this slaves opinion.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
May I suggest the HSE "topic pack" on Worker Involvement? I'd also consider contacting the Unions branch H&S Officer about this as well.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.