Tweet
PNP must choose carefully
Henley Morgan
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Those familiar with industrial relations would understand that a company's management has one of three approaches it can adopt in dealing with the union. One approach is for management to see the union as an unwanted intruder; take it down to the wire fighting for every gain it makes and create unease for those workers who participate in its leadership or ascribe to its principles.
A second approach is for management to ignore and seek to make the union irrelevant by winning the affection and allegiance of workers the union hopes to add to its membership. To do this effectively, management may attempt to pre-empt the union by doing for workers those necessary and good things that the union would naturally pursue.
The third approach is one of partnership. By this approach, management views the union as a legitimate vehicle for worker representation; constructively engages it in pursuing the common goal of worker productivity and industrial peace.
The approach that management adopts can significantly affect the tone and tenor of the relationship between itself and the union, and ultimately the results produced. The first approach, which is the traditional approach, leads inevitably to a combative posture in the relationship between the two entities and has a record of producing worker go-slows, strikes and other industrial actions.
The second approach, like the first, has the motive of undermining the union. Motives eventually become transparent, and should workers become aware of its ulterior nature they may choose to play the one (management) off against the other (union). This tends to be a costly and risky approach.
The third approach promises the most. There is, however, a proviso. It assumes that there is maturity on both sides. Management and union must share a common goal which puts the larger interest above their individual preoccupation with power. Each must respect the role of the other and avoid any attempt at usurpation or one-upmanship.
Partnerships are never easy to achieve, but where they work the results have been superior to that of any other approach.
In the aftermath of its electoral defeat, the PNP is facing a situation not significantly different from that faced by management in dealing with the union. It too has three approaches or strategies from which it must choose.
On the night of his party's victory and on almost every occasion since then, Mr Bruce Golding has clearly enunciated his desire for partnership or constructive engagement with the PNP. In her interpretation of the role of the PNP in Opposition, Mrs Portia Simpson Miller's thinking appears to be taking the relationship with the government in a different direction. Widely read and respected commentator Don Robothom has written that the PNP has chosen the path of destructive engagement.
As is the case with management and the union, the party in power, by virtue of its control of resources, can to a degree dictate the approach that will be eventually adopted by the opposing number. If Mr Golding wants constructive engagement he should be consistent in seeking it and not change course at every provocation.
Mr Golding's public rebuttal of Mrs Portia Simpson Miller's promise (given in a speech at the recently held party conference) to be his worst nightmare was both unnecessary and unwise. He should have ignored it. Instead, he had to get cute by saying he is already experiencing a nightmare in having to deal with the mess the PNP left behind. The statement grabbed the headlines, but it also served to fuel the bellicose attitude Mr Golding says he does not want. There will be many provocations in the days and months ahead. Mr Golding and the JLP would do well to heed the wise counsel of Napoleon: "Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a great mistake."
The three approaches open to the PNP come with three different results. One possible result is win/lose whereby the PNP wins the battle but loses the war. In other words, the party prevails in its ambition for continued occupation of the seat of power but inherits a divided and possibly ungovernable country.
Another possible result is lose/lose. In this scenario, both the PNP and the JLP lose and the country as well. There is no one left who in the opinion of the electorate is worthy of picking up the pieces and starting over.
Yet another possible result is win/win. Here, winning is measured by the benefits to the country. True, only one party at a time can be in power but the democratic process and civility are preserved, thereby winning the trust of the electorate and creating a level playing field for the parties to compete on in the future.
The PNP intelligentsia can do the matching exercise between the three approaches and the three possible results. My parting advice is that they choose carefully the approach or strategy they will pursue at this time and during the party's tenure in Opposition.
Henley Morgan
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Those familiar with industrial relations would understand that a company's management has one of three approaches it can adopt in dealing with the union. One approach is for management to see the union as an unwanted intruder; take it down to the wire fighting for every gain it makes and create unease for those workers who participate in its leadership or ascribe to its principles.
A second approach is for management to ignore and seek to make the union irrelevant by winning the affection and allegiance of workers the union hopes to add to its membership. To do this effectively, management may attempt to pre-empt the union by doing for workers those necessary and good things that the union would naturally pursue.
The third approach is one of partnership. By this approach, management views the union as a legitimate vehicle for worker representation; constructively engages it in pursuing the common goal of worker productivity and industrial peace.
The approach that management adopts can significantly affect the tone and tenor of the relationship between itself and the union, and ultimately the results produced. The first approach, which is the traditional approach, leads inevitably to a combative posture in the relationship between the two entities and has a record of producing worker go-slows, strikes and other industrial actions.
The second approach, like the first, has the motive of undermining the union. Motives eventually become transparent, and should workers become aware of its ulterior nature they may choose to play the one (management) off against the other (union). This tends to be a costly and risky approach.
The third approach promises the most. There is, however, a proviso. It assumes that there is maturity on both sides. Management and union must share a common goal which puts the larger interest above their individual preoccupation with power. Each must respect the role of the other and avoid any attempt at usurpation or one-upmanship.
Partnerships are never easy to achieve, but where they work the results have been superior to that of any other approach.
In the aftermath of its electoral defeat, the PNP is facing a situation not significantly different from that faced by management in dealing with the union. It too has three approaches or strategies from which it must choose.
On the night of his party's victory and on almost every occasion since then, Mr Bruce Golding has clearly enunciated his desire for partnership or constructive engagement with the PNP. In her interpretation of the role of the PNP in Opposition, Mrs Portia Simpson Miller's thinking appears to be taking the relationship with the government in a different direction. Widely read and respected commentator Don Robothom has written that the PNP has chosen the path of destructive engagement.
As is the case with management and the union, the party in power, by virtue of its control of resources, can to a degree dictate the approach that will be eventually adopted by the opposing number. If Mr Golding wants constructive engagement he should be consistent in seeking it and not change course at every provocation.
Mr Golding's public rebuttal of Mrs Portia Simpson Miller's promise (given in a speech at the recently held party conference) to be his worst nightmare was both unnecessary and unwise. He should have ignored it. Instead, he had to get cute by saying he is already experiencing a nightmare in having to deal with the mess the PNP left behind. The statement grabbed the headlines, but it also served to fuel the bellicose attitude Mr Golding says he does not want. There will be many provocations in the days and months ahead. Mr Golding and the JLP would do well to heed the wise counsel of Napoleon: "Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a great mistake."
The three approaches open to the PNP come with three different results. One possible result is win/lose whereby the PNP wins the battle but loses the war. In other words, the party prevails in its ambition for continued occupation of the seat of power but inherits a divided and possibly ungovernable country.
Another possible result is lose/lose. In this scenario, both the PNP and the JLP lose and the country as well. There is no one left who in the opinion of the electorate is worthy of picking up the pieces and starting over.
Yet another possible result is win/win. Here, winning is measured by the benefits to the country. True, only one party at a time can be in power but the democratic process and civility are preserved, thereby winning the trust of the electorate and creating a level playing field for the parties to compete on in the future.
The PNP intelligentsia can do the matching exercise between the three approaches and the three possible results. My parting advice is that they choose carefully the approach or strategy they will pursue at this time and during the party's tenure in Opposition.