Personnel, Labor, and Management Practices Affect Productivity

Introduction In difficult times such as these, there is a strong reaction to the current way of doing things. Typical reactions that we have all heard are "There has to be a better way," "We're pricing ourselves out of business," "We have to improve our productivity," and "We have to have more cooperation," between union and management and employees and management. All of these comments have at their roots one common factor - getting the maximum amount for your dollar. The other factor inherent in these statements is productivity. I have not yet met a person in our industry who has not expressed the opinion that we should, and that we can, improve our productivity. Reducing Labor Costs In light of these factors I suspect we have all spent a fair amount of time examining our labor costs. For some of us, labor costs are a high proportion of our total cost of doing business. To alleviate the impact of these costs, we have generally done four things. We have reduced our number of employees, shut down operations for appropriate periods, sought concessions from union employees, and placed freezes on wages, salaries, and other benefits on nonunion employees. These approaches have been made to improve current shortfalls in our cash positions - to tide us over, as it were - or to provide us with a chance for survival. These are short-term measures that help to bring immediate relief, but can pose significant problems (or challenges), for the longer term. For instance, what do we do when times improve? How much do things have to improve before we do anything? By seeking concessions from unions in bad times, what do we do when unions come to us in good times? It is a rather sad and critical fact that we have grown too fat during the good times and too thin during the bad. In the first case, we have failed to optimize our earnings. In the second, we have cut ourselves too far. Consequently, when good or better times have arrived, we have had to bulk up our requirements to meet production commitments. In mining, for example, when times become tough, we tend to reduce our development plans so that when times improve we have to really "sock it to 'em," so that we can maintain productive capacities. We should plan ahead a little more to reduce the amplitude of our cyclical wavelength, so that in good times profits are optimized and in bad time we are better able to take the strain. Of course, forecasting cycles is not a refined art, but if we properly control our work force levels and costs at all times, and therefore optimize our productivity, we would be more able to withstand the problems we face today. Unfortunately, it appears that it takes bad times to bring us to a realistic appraisal of our way of managing our businesses. Labor Practices Not all of the problems now faced are due to low metal prices. Inflation has played a major role in bringing costs to a frightening level. Trade unions alone can not be blamed for high inflation levels over the past several years, popular though that notion is. Contract negotiations, after all, require two parties. Indeed, our current levels of labor cost are due to two factors: • We have felt obliged to keep our employees whole, relative to the cost of living. • We have felt obliged to maintain our competitive position relative to our peers, in order to maintain our ability to attract and retain a skilled, efficient work force. In the first case, our felt obligation has been applied without due recognition of the factor of performance, either in individuals or groups. Average, even mediocre performers, have been amply rewarded for their average work and mediocrity, while the good performers, no doubt receiving more for their good work and effort, have not perhaps appreciated the slight premium for their effectiveness. The rather predictable result of this practice has been that the average and mediocre stay that way (why change?), while some (certainly not all) of the good performers have said "It's not worth it," and slipped into the warm, cosy pool of the average and mediocre. In the second case, that of maintaining competitiveness with other companies' employees, we have compounded an already serious problem of lack of skilled tradesmen by paying higher and higher prices for the existing pool to maintain comparability without improving the flow of more skilled people through sound and sufficient training programs. We have the rather dubious pleasure of paying more and more for the same problems. Compensation is either mutually agreed, as with unions, or it is unilaterally applied, as with nonunion employees. Generally, there is more flexibility available to the employer when dealing with nonunionized groups than there is with unionized groups. Sometimes that flexibility has not been used well, most often be-