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

Hi David

the resitance is to just about everything and i agree the change needs to come from the top down

thanks

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.