I don’t fly on Delta or Northwest much these days, so I don’t really have any personal insight into whether the proposed merger of the two airlines makes much business sense. One thing I do know, however, is that making one strong and profitable company out of two struggling ones is near impossible if you don’t get the workforce to buy in.
And, that’s where this one may have a struggle. A story in The Detroit News headlined “Wary workers cloud Delta-Northwest merger” talks about the challenge of merging the workforces of union-dominated Northwest (with about 22,500 union employees out of 32,000 total) with primarily nonunion Delta (where 6,300 pilots and a small number of dispatchers out of 47,000 employees are represented).
“Delta’s an interesting company in that it’s been able to maintain a decidedly nonunion culture while staying on relatively good terms with its employees,” said Michael Boyd, president of the Boyd Group, an Evergreen, Colorado-based consulting firm. “Even through bankruptcy, management has succeeded in convincing employees that their best representative is themselves.”
But, The Detroit News points out, “selling that culture to Northwest’s entrenched unions won’t be easy. Even before merger talk began, the Association of Flight Attendants got enough signatures on a petition requesting a unionization vote of 12,000 Delta flight attendants. Neither Delta nor the union has speculated on the outcome of the current election.”
If they can make this merger work, the combined airline would be the largest in the world. “The new Delta,” says The Detroit News, “is expected to employ about 75,000 people after the two companies are fully integrated. [But] employees worry: Will management follow through on promises not to cut jobs or close hubs? If the companies are in such dire financial straits because of fuel prices, will they be looking to cut wages next?”
Those are all good questions, because those are all reasonable worries for workers to have. Delta has promised that no frontline workers will lose their jobs in the merger, but is that realistic given the huge and unrelenting rise in fuel prices?
I question that promise, and so does Joe Tiberi, spokesman for the union that represents 9,500 Northwest baggage handlers. “There’s no way they can combine without massive losses of jobs,” Tiberi told The Detroit News. “We’re also worried about merging our unionized workforce with Delta’s nonunionized workers. We have pensions, but they don’t. We have no guarantee Delta wouldn’t want to get rid of our union.”
It’s hard enough to make one good airline out of two struggling ones when everyone is on board. But it is damn near impossible if you have union squabbling and critical workforce issues to hurdle. The only saving grace here is that Delta’s management seems to be driving this deal, and frankly, Delta’s management seems a lot more sensitive to worker issues than Northwest’s does . That raises the odds of success, but not enough for me gamble my next trip on Delta. I’d be surprised if a lot of other frequent travelers don’t feel the same way.
Layoffs used to be something workers had to handle on their own. But, as with most things in the modern workplace, even the old way of losing your job has a new twist.
“Like so many other personal experiences transformed by the Internet, getting canned need no longer be endured in quiet, isolating shame,” according to a story in today’s Los Angeles Times. “Technology is allowing people to turn a traditionally private trauma into a quasi-public event, drawing quick moral support and even job referrals,” the Times reports. “ ‘This is something that used to be shared over the dinner table. Now the whole world can watch and participate,’ technology forecaster Paul Saffo said.”
The gist of the story is this: Workers who get laid off these days are increasingly taking a very public approach to their plight, plugging friends and colleagues into what they are going through with online tools such as Twitter. This is an online service “that notifies your friends, by mobile phone, instant message, e-mail or on the Twitter Web site, what you are doing at any given moment. These messages of 140 characters or less, called tweets, are sent to anyone who subscribes to or follows your Twitter stream.”
The Times story follows Ryan Kuder, a senior marketing manager at Yahoo, who was one of 1,100 employees laid off last week. As the story puts it, “Self-broadcasting what is usually a private experience gave Kuder more than 15 minutes of Internet fame. It gave him solace, and, more important, job leads. The San Jose husband and father of two was flooded with ‘positive tweets’ offering support as well as connections via social networking services such as Facebook and LinkedIn.”
“At least three of my e-mails this morning contained admissions that the writers simply didn’t know how to network or that they didn’t think they knew anyone who could help them find a job,” Stafford writes. “In their worried job hunts lies a warning to others: It’s no longer enough to sit at your desk and do your job well. Someday, perhaps through no fault of your own, you may not have that desk anymore—and it’s vital that you know people outside that job.”
I would take this one step further: With layoffs seemingly on the rise everywhere, often with little rhyme, reason or logical business purpose, having a fallback plan just in case something does happen is essential. That’s true for employees at all levels, from worker bees to midlevel managers to senior supervisors. Hoping for the best is a good way to live, but planning for the worst is the best way to survive.
Well, of course, there were a lot of tough, stressful jobs as recently as the first half of the 20th century. But if you have been awake for the last 10 years, you know that while the physical side may have gotten better, there’s still a lot
of stress to deal with in the modern workplace.
Nearly half of U.S. employers (48 percent) say that the stress of working long hours is affecting business performance, but only 5 percent of businesses are really doing anything about it.
Another 32 percent say that employee stress from trying to balance their work and home life is hurting the business.
More than a quarter of employers (29 percent) feel that widespread use of technology, such as cell phones and BlackBerrys, is a huge business stressor, but only 6 percent are taking action to confront the issue.
“Many companies don’t appear to appreciate how stress is affecting their business,” said Shelly Wolff, national practice director of health and productivity at Watson Wyatt. “Too much stress from heavy demands, poorly defined priorities and little on-the-job flexibility can add to health issues. By leaving stress unaddressed, employers invite an increase in unscheduled time off, absence rates and health care costs—all of which hurt a company’s bottom line.”
The study also found that stress has an impact on employee retention. It’s the most frequently cited reason given by American workers for why they would leave a company. There’s also a huge disconnect between how workers feel and how employers think they feel. Approximately 40 percent of respondents say stress is one of their top three reasons for leaving a job, according to the report. Employers, however, fail to list stress among the top five reasons they think workers leave their jobs. Instead, they cite insufficient pay, lack of career development and poor supervisor
relationships.
This isn’t just workers whining. Modern life is highly stressful, and modern technology plays a huge part in that. The balancing act is tricky and difficult for most people, even on a good day. And although a lot of progress has been made in the work/life arena, too many companies just aren’t very flexible or understanding when it comes to helping workers cope with life.
The study also had one more interesting wrinkle. Throwing money at this problem probably won’t make it go away.
“Pay alone is not enough to retain and engage today’s workers,” said Laura Sejen, global director of strategic rewards at Watson Wyatt. “To remain competitive, companies need to understand fully what causes employees to join or leave and what causes them to be productive if they stay.”
Last month, I wrote here about “SHRM’s Leadership Challenge” in the wake of the retirement announcement by SHRM’s CEO and president, Sue Meisinger. Although I felt I gave Meisinger her due for what she has accomplished during her tenure, I also said that “her departure gives SHRM a golden opportunity to address the ongoing malaise that permeates the HR profession and, perhaps, help more human resource professionals move up to that long sought-after “seat at the table.’”
It’s not the first time I’ve voiced my opinion about the Society for Human Resource Management, and it won’t be the last. But what always surprises me is the reaction I get when I do write about the organization. “Interesting editorial piece,” said one reader in reaction to that blog post. “It sure went off track somewhere along the line. Frankly, it sounds like you have an axe to grind against the organization.”
Although I’ve come to expect comments like that when I write about SHRM, it still makes me wonder. Why do so many people get their backs up when reporting, commentary and scrutiny are applied to the world’s largest HR organization?
I’d guess it is because nobody has ever publicly scrutinized SHRM before, looking at how well it fulfills its stated mission and asking whether it is truly using its ever-increasing size and war chest to better help the 200,000-plus human resource professionals who each pay $160 a year to be a member. SHRM does strategic reviews of itself, and you can find individual critics piping up now and then on SHRM’s member message boards. But that’s not independent reporting or inquiry.
SHRM affects the human resources profession in ways both large and small. “SHRM is the voice of the profession,” says HR author, Workforce Management essayist and University Michigan professor Dave Ulrich. “It services all types of organizations–large and small, public and private–and all types of HR professionals: junior and senior, generalists and specialists.”
In addition, SHRM is a not-for profit 501 (c) (6) organization. Although some parts of the organization are for-profit enterprises (such as HR Magazine, which competes with Workforce Management), SHRM in general gets special tax breaks because of its not-for-profit tax status. That alone should make SHRM a newsworthy enterprise that demands regular coverage.
“SHRM at a Crossroads” represents many months of work by the staff of Workforce Management. Most of the reporting, writing and research has been done by Washington-based Mark Schoeff Jr., a reporter who has worked in Washington for a long time, knows SHRM and sees it in action on Capitol Hill. He worked hard to make sure the story told all sides, and when you read the package, I think you’ll see that’s the case.
In the end, I’d say that Workforce Management is writing about SHRM because SHRM deserves to be covered like any other large, powerful and influential organization that has an effect on readers’ lives and work. I think you’ll find that “SHRM at a Crossroads” is a unique look at an important HR organization, and will offer insight and perspective about it that you won’t find anywhere else.
As always, I appreciate any comments you have about this story or about SHRM–either posted as comments at the end of this blog post, or sent to me directly at jhollon@workforce.com.
“I don’t think there was one overriding decision that says you have to get out now,” said John Moylan, a close Edwards friend and campaign adviser. “Clearly he could have stuck it out.” Moylan, who talked to The New York Times, added, I think the timing now felt right to him,” Mr. Moylan said. “He felt like it would do more good if he stepped aside.
“I don’t think there was one overriding decision that says you have to get out now. Clearly he could have stuck it out.”
The candidate’s decision puts a spotlight one of the toughest balancing acts that just about any leader (particularly as business leader) eventually has to face–when should I stay and when should I go?
Recent history is riddled with examples of executives who should have known it was time to depart gracefully, as Edwards did, but failed to do so (frequently for selfish reasons). Some, like former Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli and former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, overstayed their welcome and just refused to listen to the ever-increasing chorus of critics calling for their departure. Others – Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher and former American Red Cross President Mark Everson – had to be pushed to resign when confronted with damaging personal information.
But some executives, like John Mackey of Whole Foods Market and Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide, dig in their heels and refuse to leave when confronted with their public missteps. They stay on in spite of negative media coverage and calls for them to step aside. They seem to have no concern about the damage their continued presence might do to the company they purport to care about. Their imperious style makes you wonder how their boards put up with them.
As with all things in life, there is a time to dig in and fight, and a time to let things go. No one wants to be thought of as a quitter, but then again, no one wants to stick it out and continue to battle beyond reason. The trick is knowing when there is still a good reason to fight, and when to resign yourself to the inevitable and let things go.
I may not have wanted to vote for John Edwards, but I very much admire his ability to read the writing on the wall and admit that the time had come to give it up. It’s a lesson anyone toiling in our modern workforce would be wise to learn.
= Member Only
