This is interesting. The newly-elected WSM Worker-Owner Director
(Charles Traitor) and I disagree over the proposed new wording to the
clause in Board Policy 'Treatment of Staff' which deals with employee
participation in decision-making. Nicely disagree. But reasonably significantly disagree.
Here is our exchange on the internal WSM social media platform (Slack -
General Section - Saturday, December 5 and Sunday, December 6). I had
to use my department manager's computer. Which will cause some giggles
among the WSM corporate office management team. Even though I followed
protocol by announcing that it was me doing the posting.
If any
of this moves you, you still have today (but only today) to submit
comments to the WSM HR Manager. Contact details will be on the document
which was put in your WSM mailbox a week ago. Now, the opinions of
Charles and me ...
[Charles] "Greetings, friends,
As ever, I hope these few words find you in good spirits.
As representative-elect I want to offer my perspective on the second
draft of proposed changes to the Employee Policy Handbook and the Board
Policy.
The new draft is a good response to our concerns. Thank
you to everybody who spoke -- whether it is a conversation with a
coworker or a call to HR, each sharing helps to build consensus. Thank
you, Deborah, for the work of compiling and presenting both the
employee’s perspective and the Board’s action.
Regarding “Section
1: Policy Handbook”: I consider the articles non-controversial. These
changes amount to good faith efforts at compliance and consistency.
Regarding “Section 2: Board Policy”: Most of our objections to the proposed changes were addressed.
A. The Board restored its role as the court of last resort in the grievance process.
B. The Board removed the language regarding at-will employment. The
removal of the language does not alter the fact that we are an at-will
employer, but it does open up the space for a stronger appeal to the
policies which safeguard our rights.
C. The Board restored transparency to the process of decision-making.
D. The Board restored the language regarding an employee’s right to ethical dissent. I approve of all of these revisions.
Also, I am not concerned about the removal of “participation” from the
section governing treatment of staff. The new language makes more
specific and measurable demands on the general manager, and I believe
that it gives us a clearer standard on which to base grievances.
That said, it is imperative that we set in stone the concept of employee
participation. I believe that the place for that language is in the
Ends chart.
Under “Shared Economics,” along with pay/benefits,
worker dividend and advancement, we must add ‘participation.’ If you
agree, please contact Deborah and urge the addition of this term. I will
push for it, but my voice is much stronger together with yours.
Under “Shared Knowledge” the only suggestion of employee participation
concerns the “Co- op Plan” event. This is not sufficient. I understand
“shared knowledge” to mean the full range of talents and abilities that
each one of us brings to our workplace. We need language that affirms
our participation in the workplace and the free exercise of our unique
perspectives and abilities. Again, if you agree, please contact Deborah
and let her know your good thoughts.
Please let me know if you have any other concerns!
*Once again, I apologize for the lack of a translation into Spanish and
Karen. Hopefully we will start to set up a system for translation in
January/February 2016."
[Geoff] "Thank you Charles, for your
comments on the 2nd Draft of the Proposed Changes to ‘Treatment of
Staff,' and for your efforts.
I agree with all you say, save for
your suggestion that exclusion of ‘participation’ from ‘Treatment of
Staff’ might be harmless.
When the review of this section was
begun, we were clearly told the purpose of the rewording of this section
was clarification alone.
I would suggest the test is whether
proposed wording does, indeed, only clarify, or if, in fact, proposed
wording dilutes the impact.
My contention is that the proposed
wording, which you appear to support, does quite clearly reduce the
impact of the section, not least because of the removal of
‘participation.’
The existing wording is convoluted. Too many
negatives. But the impact is, in my opinion, still clear: all paid staff
are to be allowed the opportunity to participate in decisions and also
to shape the guidelines for decisions [with no distinction made between
policy, governance or operational decisions].
With respect, that
stands in stark contrast to the proposed wording, which offers only that
we be consulted, at a time when it suits management, and in the manner
of their choosing.
I would prefer that, at the Board Meeting this
coming Wednesday, December 9, you might support language along the
lines of the following:
"(The GM must not:)
Be
unresponsive to employee needs or operate without a transparent system
for communicating information to paid staff and for allowing paid staff
the opportunity to participate in decisions and shape guidelines for
decisions."
I believe this clarifies this section, without diluting its impact.
Now, if you wish to see the word ‘participate’ included elsewhere – as
well – you have my full support, provided it also appears in the above
section.
If others want to have a further discussion about
perhaps diluting this section in the future, that is another discussion,
for another time. But again, the stated purpose of this exercise was
clarification, not dilution.
Furthermore, if folks think this
wording is so sweeping as to be almost impossible to implement, with
respect, I would disagree.
A consultation exercise was held in
2007, to more narrowly define the decisions to be covered. The
resulting document can be found on
Storecentral.net.
I have for three years now been advocating for the follow-up
consultation exercise. Namely, the one where all paid staff further
shape the guidelines for decisions by designing the systems and
processes that would allow for fully inclusive decision-making at
department, unit and co-op level.
Perhaps, you could now encourage the Board to persuade the General Manager to hold that further consultation exercise in 2016?
Many thanks once again. I will be attending the Board Meeting on
Wednesday. For the sake of clarity, these are my personal opinions. And
this document was created off-the-clock."