By Monica Shaw is Executive Editor Pulp & Paper Magazine

Searching for middle ground

Just ten years ago, the cooperative labor/management relationships that now occur at times in the U.S. paper industry were extremely rare, if they even existed at all. Times have changed, as our article on pg. 31 describes, with the two sides attempting to combine forces against globalization and poor industry performance. But can the two form true partnerships - or do they even want to?

FINALLY ON THE SAME TEAM? With paper prices on the decline throughout most of the 1990s, both union and management have come to the realization that companies must operate on sound business practices as a matter of survival. As a result, contracts have reflected an acknowledgement of the business climate. For example, longer-term contracts with unions, many around five years, now exist and are helping management better project their labor costs. Whether this equates to gaining or losing ground for unions is a matter of perspective.

Sound business practices also mean downsizing, consolidation, and adoption of new technology. All of these are a competitive necessity, yet all threaten job security - a primary union concern. So, in facing such difficult decisions, what do unions and management ultimately want from their relationship, and is there enough middle ground to achieve it?

Other than the usual negotiations surrounding pay and seniority, unions now claim they want more input into making decisions to business strategy, offering cooperation and insight as a way to improve productivity and profits. In fact, they say that such involvement is the key to negotiating difficult issues surrounding new technology and task consolidation. For example, if they understand the business case for a new control system and its impacts on workers, it will make the whole project less contentious.

And, according to Pulp & Paper's 1999 mill manager's survey, involving unions more in the business side has paid off in shorter negotiations, longer contracts, and better overall relations. On a mill-by-mill basis, positive relationships have always existed, when, for example, a particular mill manager and union leader have worked well together. But, to ensure this involvement occurs when leadership changes hands and at an influential level, unions want such business "partnership" language included in contracts.

One of Webster's definitions for a partner is a "player on the same team," and it seems clear that both sides have mentally come to this point as they face a competitive marketplace. But, in contractual terms, partnership language is what opens doors for cooperation, as well as threatens the balance of power. Such language can extend a perfunctory nod or a full-fledged handshake, depending on its intensity.

WHERE'S THE MIDDLE GROUND? Advocates of a true, contractually-supported partnership be-tween management and unions-one that is not limited to certain issues and includes in-volvement in business decisions-cite such advantages as a motivated work force focused on continuous improvement, mutual accountability, and better profits. On the flip side, detractors don't agree with the "two heads are better than one" approach for all scenarios, pointing to infringement upon the rights of management to effectively run a business, especially as it relates to downsizing and new technologies that compromise jobs.

So, is there middle ground when it comes to forming partnerships? If any can be found, it will be dependent on the sincere acknowledge-ment of both sides that working closely together is the only way to ensure competitive survival for the U.S. paper industry. If efforts are not sincere and built solely on self-interest and manipulation, no one will win in the end.

Cooperative agreements-pre-cursors to partnerships-do successfully exist. Two mills that are taking cooperative paths in labor relations were contacted for the article. Neither would comment on the record, but one particular mill described its experience with an enabling agreement giving both parties a voice.

"Historically, we had more strikes and some of the worst labor relations in the industry," explains the director of labor relations at the mill. "In the 1990s, our CEO saw that we could no longer afford to fight, so we came up with a cooperative agreement committing the parties to work together for survival. The work redesign has resulted in fewer jobs, but we became more competitive and have actually seen more investment at our site. Recently, we completed a five-year agreement in a day and a half-something that usually takes two or three months. We continue to work hard to strike a nice balance between the workers and the business needs, relying on listening skills and conflict resolution."