CI (Cooperative Intentions?)
Caterpillar has failed in maintaining cooperation, the biggest component needed to make programs such as CI work.
It's clear that cooperation has been coming from our end. Programs such as CI and Tracks rely on employee participation to make them work. If there isn't employee cooperation, the programs fold quickly.
However, in return for our cooperation, Caterpillar must in turn be cooperative towards our needs as well.
The model set up by Toyota/GM in its NUMMI California plant was an innovative attempt at labor-management cooperation that proved successful.
The NUMMI plant had closed about a year earlier. After Toyota and GM agreed to a joint venture at the NUMMI plant, the UAW wanted hiring priority to go to the laid off workers. Toyota, initially against recognizing the union and hiring former members, especially the more militant union members, backed off of that demand and permitted the union in to the rehiring process.
As it turned out, a vast majority of the militant union members and union heirarchy were rehired along with many other members. Only four hiring grievances were filed by the UAW after the rehiring process was finished. The union members were impressed with this "chance" taken by management.
For their part, the employees produced at faster rates and agreed to reduce grievances against management. Most grievances that were filed were settled immediately on the shop floor.
Promises were made back and forth. Toyota/GM made no layoff pledges, which were seriously tested when production was slowed by 30% and inventories piled up, and gave employees the right to stop the assembly line. The union in turn made pledges to not strike over the speed of the line and agreed to fewer seniority rights. Through all the committments one thing remained constant, both sides took risks in cooperating and neither has fallen back on their promises. As a result, morale went up and absenteeism fell dramatically. (Source: California Management Review, Summer 1989)
Through cooperation, the business objectives were met at NUMMI.
It's a different story here at CAT.
While many of us have cooperated in filling out suggestion forms, joining teams, and giving ideas to facilitators, CAT has failed in returning that cooperation. Promises of posting job openings, allowing the union time in new hire orientation sessions and the contracted promise of settling grievances at the earliest step are all examples of broken promises by Caterpillar here in Denver. Allowing employee input in the new absence and other management policies would also show a cooperative effort by CAT to meet our needs. CAT has, for the most part failed, in this area.
Another undermining of cooperation was when Caterpillar refused to give the union a position on the steering committee. The union offered to be on the steering committee but was told CI is a company program and we weren't invited.
Our CI program was set up because management admitted that it didn't know the answers. We, the employees, have the knowledge to provide the answers. After we give our answers they are approved or disapproved by a steering committee made up of only management. Budget questions aside, how are the people asking for answers because they don't know them, going to make an informed judgement on those answers when they are provided by the hourly employees?
Article after article on Continuous Improvement programs stated that if a union is in the shop it is vital for the company to include the union in the program. (Sources: California Management Review Spring 1993, Summer 1989; National Civic Review March/April 1989) Caterpillar has not done this and has shown no inclination to include us. So much for cooperation.
(In the contract, language provides for the setting up of teams for improvement. However, the model Caterpillar uses in CI was not agreed to. CAT can dissolve and set teams up at will and can bar an interested person from joining a team. This model was not agreed to.)
In order for cooperation to exist, the company must live up to the image that it projects at its all-employee meetings. As of now it seems that image only exists on the slogan boards spouting "trust" and mutual respect" located throughout the warehouse.
Trust, mutual respect and cooperation has broken down on many levels.
There isn't even mutual respect and cooperation when it comes to our safety.
CAT Manager of Contract Administration Keith Ehley came out and said that it seems that there isn't cooperation by CAT with the union when it comes to safety in some warehouses. Can we trust CAT when its own reps are saying that CAT isn't cooperating with the union when it pertains to our safety?
This infringement on our safety now includes charging us four dollars for gloves if we don't have a pair to exchange. This despite the fact that there is no mention of charging us for gloves in the contract and the CI new hire booklet says that they will be "furnished free of charge".
Even on a basic level it seems that trust isn't a thought.
Messages about quality over quantity and vice versa seem to change weekly. One week we are given a picnic for reducing errors, the next week we are being prodded to get our tag count higher. How can trust be built if the basis of business operation, a clear objective, can't be given to us?
"Without this vision (the goal) and the resulting plan, warehouse operations will drift into fire fighting anarchy," said James Tompkins of Tompkins and Associates, a warehousing consulting firm. "Costs will skyrocket. Customer service will not be achieved."
To many, production anarchy exists already and two-way cooperation ceases to exist. Conflicting messages, a breakdown of mutual respect and CAT's precious "right-to-manage" as it sees fit (right-to-ignore employee rights and dignity) are some of the factors that have destroyed cooperation here.
We, the future of this company, have been forced by Cat's union busting to give up insurance benefits, wages (there was no deviation by CAT on meeting those objectives) and the demand that management not do wage employee work. When do the concessions begin coming from the other direction?
Or, instead of finally extending its hand in cooperation, will management use its iron fist to pulverize the Denver Distribution Center so it can set up shop elsewhere? They are presently doing a good job at the latter.
SOLIDARITY