I. PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

IRRA: Online and On-Message

MAGDALENA JACOBSEN
National Mediation Board

      Welcome to the annual meeting of the IRRA. The title of my talk today is: "IRRA, Online and On-Message." By online, I am referring to our recent efforts to use the Internet to allow our broad membership to participate retroactively in our June policy conference. By on-message, I am referring to our interests in expanding the dialogue for shaping labor and employment policy to all of our membership and others interested in our venue.

      I would like to make a proposition to all of you today and that is that we, the IRRA, actively and collectively, become an influence in the development of labor and employment policy. IRRA has a long history of providing analysis, research and opinions about the American workplace and labor economics. I believe that the diversity of interests and perspectives represented among our membership in universities, companies and labor organizations, among mediators, arbitrators and government representatives involved in the industrial and employment relations venue across our nation offer a comprehensive and rich source of experience, knowledge, information and ideas.

      We offer a perspective from the cities and towns across the vast breadth of our nation that reflects the depth of experience that comes from two centuries of unparalleled growth and expansion of industry in a melting pot of people from around the globe. Immigrants who brought their energies, skills, beliefs, prejudices, fears and zeal to succeed in this great land of opportunity defined our own unique industrial relations patchwork of systems through their struggles and successes. Why not capture that collective experience and wisdom and use it to advocate changes that make sense in this democracy?

      The scope of change that the global economy is driving necessitates a hard look, and reflective and creative solutions to the problems and obstacles that change is generating for American workers and industries. The IRRA is the preeminent organization that understands and is actively engaged in assessing and discussing our venue; who better than this organization to help in designing the fabric of changing labor-management relations systems?

      We have taken a first step in engaging the policy makers through the National Policy Conference in Washington, D.C. last June. Our Conference subject matter was "Shaping the Dialogue in Labor and Employment Policy." Our format was one that provided each conferee the opportunity to engage in a dialogue during facilitated round table discussions following our keynote address by Michael Maccoby and panelist presentations by representatives of labor, management, government and academia. Both the formal presentations and facilitated round table discussions were captured on videotape and, with the help of Mary LaCine of FMCS and the technology that the agency has developed called TAGS, we were able to make the Conference accessible on our IRRA website and thereby available to anyone who logged on. My hope was that conferees, members who were unable to attend and others interested in our venue would join in the dialogue, as not only could one read what was said but one could respond, ask questions and propound one's own theories on the subject matter. Furthermore, an expert and distinguished panel, including John Dunlop, Gladys Gershenfeld, Mac Lovell and Ray Marshall, was given the assignment of commenting on the ongoing dialogue. That commentary will happen later this afternoon at the Distinguished Panel session.

      The National Policy Forum has evolved from regional meetings which for many years were considered a midyear, practitioner-oriented meeting. This focus is slightly different from our annual meetings which traditionally had a more scholarly and research agenda. Participants at regional meetings usually grappled with contemporary conflicts and issues in the workplace and shared their approaches and solutions to challenges in their workplaces.

      The shift to an aspiring meeting in Washington, D.C. was intended to continue this kind of practitioner forum for discussion of workplace problems with the added value of gaining access to the policy makers and/or their staffs from relevant Congressional committees. The hope is that these policy makers would engage in the discussions with our frontline managers and labor leaders who are daily trying to mesh the needs of their constituents and industries with changes in economic, global competitive factors, societal changers, technological innovation, national security, generational issues, among many others. The policy makers would gain a greater appreciation and comprehension of the obstacles that companies and unions are facing and that understanding might translate into improved policy.

      My observations of how the process of labor and employment policy evolves today is that it emerges from a frenetic and conflicting flurry of information and demands, often responding to a specific event. Solutions develop with more of a short-term fix approach than a reflective and long-term approach to real problem-solving. Proposals for the fix filter through the halls of government, often over the desks of bright and well-meaning individuals, who nonetheless lack any comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the context of the subject matter. A lack of time or real broad and objective research, the presence of political agendas, the intensity of conflicting interest group pressures all contribute to marginalize sound labor and employment policy and legislation.

      The outcome of such a process is that such policies/legislation end up in the litigation swamp and the problem intended to be solved expands exponentially. Imposition of the ersatz policy on the workplace simply creates new challenges, increases costs to companies and unions, and undermines what should be a basic tenet of our industrial relations system, which is to find accommodations based upon mutuality of interests... so that we may have an engaged and productive workforce and keep the plant and the trains running on time.

      I am an evangelist for changing the food chain of policy from seed to fruition. If we do not, we will suffer in the race for global influence and participation. We cannot serve the incredible variety of circumstances, needs and aspirations of the American people or the demands in the American workplace unless we have as a priority policies that serve labor peace. Political winds of change that shift priorities and power, and alter perceptions of the legitimacy of hard won rights, generate a loss of respect for established institutions and practices.

      My experiences in the labor relations venue for over 35 years have exposed me to the entire spectrum of industries and labor organizations. In the past 8 years, as a presidential appointee in Washington, D.C., serving in an agency responsible for the administration of most facets of the labor-management relationship in airline and rail industries, I have substantially added to my understanding of the delicacy of the fabric of labor-management relationships. These industries are highly sensitive to economic fluctuations and public confidence, and employees in these industries, who number over 900,000, are highly sensitive to those same influences. The majority of employees are represented by labor organizations under a law that is unique for its creation.

      The Railway Labor Act (RLA) was written by a joint labor-management committee that was given the mandate to develop a statute under which both could live. At a time when government and industry were building the intricate and nationwide rail transportation system to meet a growing nation, an economy was also being developed under circumstances where a vast labor market of new immigrants were seeking work and security in a tumultuous land and myriad labor organizations were struggling to find a consensus though conflicts were abundant. After bloody strikes that left rail systems and labor-management relationships in a shambles, both parties agreed to find consensus. When their joint effort was adopted it was stated that the parties did not want government to do their jobs, just to add assistance if they required it.

      The RLA has served the nation well and has been able to accommodate dramatic changes in the economy, society and technology. It has done so because of the commitment of labor and management in handling their differences over time. And, it has done well because of the efforts of the government agency that administers the law. Stresses now are challenging this law and generating a call to change it. Changes would dramatically alter the sense of the statute because they would eliminate the consensual nature of its character. It is both because of politics and the significance of air transportation to the economy that there are calls to amend the RLA.

      The call for amending the law comes in the aftermath of a difficult year in the airline industry. All major air carriers were in the final stages of the bargaining process with a number of labor organizations. The law provides that agreements do not expire; rather, they become amendable, and there are extensive steps that must be exhausted before the parties reach the point where self-help can engender economic pressures. The framers intended the law to maximize the time, levels of pressure and influence available to each side in the bargaining process so that an agreement could be cobbled together consensually.

      The RLA steps include direct bargaining and mediation--which is a mandatory process, with the NMB entrusted with the authority to ultimately determine when the mediatory process has been exhausted. That decision, when made, often comes after years in direct talks and mediation. The Board proffers arbitration, which the parties may accept, giving a third party the authority to make final decisions on the settlement, or reject and proceed into a cooling-off period. Another authority vested in the NMB is the determination of whether a work stoppage can be of such magnitude as to substantially affect the economy in a section of the country. Should that determination be made, the Board recommends to the President that a group of arbitrators be impaneled to conduct hearings and make nonbinding recommendations for a settlement. Should the recommendations fail to bring about a settlement, the parties have a right to self-help after another 30-day period. Only Congress may intervene to stop a strike.

      Tensions between the politics of high-profile disputes, labor law and labor relations were played out in the media last year, with public pronouncements that there would be no strikes in the airline industry and that PEBs would be appointed. Anger, resentment and confusion about authority and whether the rules of the game were changing midstream distracted the parties, cost time and money, and almost derailed mediation efforts. The pronouncements were perceived as skewing the leverage at the table and made it difficult to engender a sense of equality and empowerment, which is essential if people are going to have the courage and sense of confidence to make the compromises that bargaining requires. Although a good rationale for such interference can be found in the potential risks to an airline of even the threat of a strike (a large percentage of travelers will cancel reservations and book away at the hint of a labor dispute, causing revenue losses), the potential for disturbing the dynamics of bargaining, exacerbating the conflicts that drive confrontation (strikes), and undermining the morale of the employees about whom the entire process is invoked, in my view, far exceeds the downsides of risks. In addition to table dynamics, the mere fact that the rules of the game appeared to be changing during play were destabilizing to all of the stakeholders under our law, airline and railroad, carrier and union.

      In the end, agreements were reached without strikes and the law worked as the labor and management negotiators intended. The employees felt confident about the value of the agreements, and the carriers earned the respect of their employees as represented by the high turnout and approval ratings in the ratification process. The public learned that the process works.

      I relate these experiences to you to provide an example of the importance of the need to create laws and policies that encourage respect and support by the public, the parties and the politics of power. We need to maximize the opportunity for labor and management to find mutually acceptable solutions to the many challenges they face, without the imposition of edicts that limit control and the exercise of the responsibility of those directly involved in the labor-management relationship. In our workplaces it is best to allow those who live in the house to be responsible for each building block.

      I call upon all of us in this august organization to bring our talents, knowledge, energies, perspectives and will to leading our nation in designing labor and employment policy and legislation that will serve our democracy the best--that is, in a way in which we do not create a web of rules that encourage litigation, or expend human and economic resources, in futile power and political struggles. Daily in the American workplace employees and managers are finding solutions to problems, in spite of the growing body of laws and precedents that often stifle creative and consensual problem-solving. Let us be part of a force to bring the knowledge and information gathered over the last half century into the mix for our policy makers. The IRRA, the preeminent organization in the industrial relations venue, is in a position to add great value to the discourse and decisions affecting labor-management relations. Let us do so by continuing the dialogue online and on-message.