Flexibility

Will we continue to enjoy the same kind of workplace flexibility we currently have with management after we form a union?

Answer:  A union can actually enhance flexibility in a number of ways.  After an election, work rules that are already treated flexibly at MGB must remain in place unless changes are agreed to by all parties.  During the pre-contract phase, there's nothing to keep union members and management from agreeing to new policies to improve workplace flexibility.  In our contract, we can also bargain for additional policies that increase flexibility and other workplace benefits.

One important point in labor law is that pre-existing practices at an institution must continue after a union certification unless management or our union proposes new changes that are agreed to by the new union membership.  If the pre-existing practices have historically included the willingness of management to be flexible around certain aspects of work then they must continue to be honored. These might include, for example, allowing physicians to modify their schedules when needed to attend to personal matters, discussion about ways to improve workflow and teamwork, etc., assuming these sorts of arrangements have historically been allowed at the workplace.

Whereas in the past employees would have typically no legal leverage to prevent management from adopting an unpopular new policy, after an election filing all new policies directly affecting our work, and changes in such existing policies, must be negotiated.  Nothing prevents both sides from agreeing to new policies that they both support, which could include such things as salary increases and other matters, or even new policies that promote more flexibility.

One way in which this aspect of labor law is sometimes obscured by management during a union campaign is around the language of “direct dealing.”  This language aims to ensure that the new union membership has a right to decide democratically whether to adopt any new proposals.  Management is not allowed to make sweetheart deals behind closed doors with individuals in a way that excludes the rest of the membership from participating.

Management sometimes frames this to say that unionization will bring an end to the institution’s open door culture and the ability to be flexible with employees.  For instance, in the Salem Hospital campaign, MGB implied in communications with staff that the law around direct dealing prohibited them from offering “individual flexibility, scheduling changes, and the like.”  This would be false if they were speaking of the types of flexibility that were already allowed at the workplace.

A second way that flexibility can be promoted by unionization is through the inclusion of a grievance process in collective bargaining contracts, which gives employees a way to settle disagreements with managers in potentially new and flexible ways.  Under a grievance procedure, several steps could be followed, including a casual discussion among a physician and a supervisor, a more formal meeting among physicians, HR, and union staff, and even involvement of an independent arbitrator. 

Thirdly, some groups have used the collective bargaining process itself to codify flexible practices.  For example, a Doctors Council provider group in MN negotiated language in their contract that made it easier for them to get clarity and consistency around adjustments in their FTE.