Joint Labor-Management Committees and Unionism

 By Dave Huff

In my last column, I discussed the12 th National Joint Labor-Management Conference. One issue brought up at that meeting concerned the failure of some Joint Labor-Management (JLM) partnerships. I find myself concerned that the possibility of a breakdown in our own JLM process is an ever-present specter that we have not acknowledged sufficiently.

The driving forces behind the formation of our JLM process (including state energy deregulation and the 1993 Strike) are fading in the memories of some of the key players in the partnership and, perhaps worse, are simply not known by people who were not here at its inception.

I hear rumblings about how the JLMCs are ineffective. When I do, I think of accomplishments that have come recently through the work of our JLMCs. The Worker Safety Committee has overseen the distribution of Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) to most facilities, and has also formulated a prescription safety eye-wear benefit.

The Water Distribution Committee has prepared a policy to protect our members from exposure to electrical ground current while replacing water meters. The Business Process Improvement Committee has saved DWP millions of dollars by standardizing and consolidating computer hardware and software.

A particularly shining example of what can come from a true Labor-Management partnership is the Executive Equity Committee (EEC). The EEC has, for the first time, created a timely method to address inequities. In less than two years, the EEC has processed more than 70 Requests for Inequity Review; under the old systems, this might have taken decades to resolve.

The ultimate example of the successful Joint Labor-Management process is the Joint Resolution Board (JRB). The JRB has the authority to rectify problems through amendments to the MOU during the term of the contract. This allows us to better address the needs of our members in a timelier manner, as well as expedite contract negotiations. Contracts no longer are delayed over finalization of minor details. Since 1996, this has made it possible for us to ratify our contracts prior to the expiration of the previous one, allowing work to progress seamlessly.

The union’s role in this process is the same as a union’s role in any other situation: to act for the benefit of the membership. The JLM process has given us a voice in many areas that were previously closed to us. This input is uncomfortable for some and intimidating to others.

Recently, some anti-union, anti-JLM attitudes have surfaced in high levels of DWP management. I believe these attitudes are based on an unrealistic fear that, if our Union has a voice in the day-to-day operations of the Department, we will take everything we can, leaving only a rotting carcass to be bleached by the sun. Nothing could be further from the truth. For many of us, DWP is our family business. We care about the viability of the Department as a possible career opportunity for our children, just as our mothers and fathers cared about it for us. Our interest, as members of IBEW Local 18, as employees of the Department of Water and Power, and as civil servants working for the citizens of the City of Los Angeles, is to help build and maintain a strong DWP.

We cannot allow our Joint Labor-Management process to be undermined by people who do not understand its benefits to both our membership and to DWP. I believe we are all better off because of the Joint Labor-Management partnership that we have forged with the Department, and I encourage you to stay active. You have a voice, let it be heard!