At present it is not difficult to understand that the success of the organization depends on the well-being experienced by Human Capital, both inside and outside the organization. And it is that it is a logical and intuitive thought, nobody can work with quality if the conditions in which they do it are adverse and even hostile.
However, by taking a look at the past it is possible to observe, in hindsight, how difficult it has been to reach such a level of knowledge, regardless of how simple and elementary it seems to be, and at the same time it is possible to find, perhaps with some wonder, the genesis of one of the paradigms that currently dominates the world of work and that at present seems to have no basis for its existence: Trade unions.
The need for man to group together has been demonstrated since the beginning of its history, regardless of the reasons that motivated it, man understood that he was more powerful if he acted in groups and not individually, so he did to hunt, build and conquer, in the different stages of its cultural evolution and as civilizations became more and more complex.
Subsequently, and after the important influence that religion had on the development of communities, the presence of representatives was present as a way to reach agreements between the different groups that had emerged, thus initiating a system of negotiations that still continues to give good results today. results.
Centuries later, with the arrival of the industrial revolution and the changes that the concept of work underwent, the need to group was distorted due to the existing economic and dependency conditions and, in the work environment, it was normal for employees to be exploited and even mistreated by their employers, since their subsistence depended on them, guaranteed income, however little it was, and, in some cases, provided the hope of achieving growth within what they called "the company."
Now it is obvious to observe that the treatment that employees received was unfair and disproportionate, but by then the rules of the game were made in such a way that questioning them was only allowed in the shelter of the home or in any other place where the employers would not listen to it..
So many abuses were committed that, finally, movements and groups dedicated to questioning, regulating and even ordering companies to abandon such practices and direct their efforts to guarantee the well-being of the worker arose; Syndicalism had appeared as a means to balance the employer-worker relationship and guarantee the coexistence of two entities whose natures were seen as different.
The unions became true defenders of the labor condition, contributed ideas and solutions to those problems where the company lacked sensitivity and guaranteed treatment under the vision of equal conditions for all personnel, and it made sense, at the time of their appearance, employees were no more than an obligatory "resource" for the development of the company's own tasks or a number more in the payroll staff, since only the old concept of slavery had been transferred to the work environment, being the The only notable difference is the payment of wages for the work performed.
But it would be irresponsible to ensure that all companies looked down on their workers at the time the unions appeared, as well as to affirm that all unions were oriented to improve the relationship between the company and its employees, some of them were real obstacles that stood between the occupational health and financial health of organizations.
Now, in the light of current knowledge related to Human Capital management, is the existence of unions justified? What role do they play today? Can they be considered as a way of knowing that the company does not have good personnel policies?
The new paradigm is decisive, the people are the company, without the participation of the people the companies would not be more than an inert and useless commercial document.
The companies stopped being seen as those great monsters of buildings that were erected in the most important cities, or in their outskirts; It was difficult to realize that having large buildings and an almost unlimited number of assets was not what made the business prosper, but the appearance of concepts such as intellectual capital as an element of value in organizations as well as the understanding of knowledge management and its The impact on the environment destroyed anything that undermined the dignity of the human being.
In theory, companies should be oriented to maintaining a work environment that encourages creativity, balance and well-being of employees, the concepts of compensation and benefits should seek the incorporation of the character "made to measure" in order to satisfy the needs of the workers while keeping them motivated; the detection, quantification and development of competencies is another means that should be used by those whose responsibility is to manage human resources in order to increase the personal development of the individual and lead them to achieve a greater degree of professionalism; The colors of the facilities, lighting and types of furniture should be studied, according to the case, to adapt them to the work being carried out and, if that were not enough,make schedules more flexible to adapt them to the ideal moment where the employee is more productive and that facilitates their social and personal development, beyond their work responsibilities.
Faced with a scenario like the previous one, would the presence of a union be required? The answer is obvious.
In an environment such as the one described, a union would have no place, since the functions inherent to its existence have been assumed by those who manage human capital and treat it as a true resource, so why would a union be needed?
Additionally, the unions are the representatives of the employees before the company, they are the ones who take their requirements to those who have the capacity to respond to them, or at least, that was what happened in the organizational structures of the early twentieth century, but in the Nowadays organizations are no longer understood as a great pyramid and concepts such as the Open Networked Organization (ONO) and the Managerial Zeitgeist make possible a fluid and constant communication between those who make up the company.
The workers went from a third level (they) to a main level (us) due to the vision of separating the companies into two halves, on the one hand the weak legal one: the employee; and on the other hand, the owner of financial resources: the employer, has tended to disappear, the organization is understood as a whole, its efforts being oriented to a common good, in fact there is already talk of the social responsibility of the company. which directly impacts the quality of life of its workers.
If organizations have understood the value of the people who make them up, it makes no sense to have a body other than Human Resources that, in addition to monitoring their functions, reminds them of their responsibilities as well as the good treatment they must offer to their staff, since To exist would be the strongest proof of the deficient work that this unit and those who run the firm are doing in terms of human capital management.
Now, it is prudent to point out that the presence of a union does not necessarily mean that the organization obviates the implementation of new management trends; assuming such a thing would also be irresponsible, since it is evident that in some sectors this paradigm is so ingrained that it seems impossible to imagine without the presence of these.
But it would be an interesting task to ask the following questions: are the reasons that led to the union's presence in the company still intact at present? Would the quality of care for human capital decrease without the presence of the union? Are the problems raised by the union representative individual or collective? And regardless of how they are, how is it that the company has not given you answers? Do you need something or someone to remind you of your duties?
Questioning the presence of unions in companies does not intend to issue value judgments, it cannot be said that they are good or bad, that they work or not, because doing so immediately would give sufficient arguments to refute one or the other thing; but it is important to highlight that the reasons that led to the birth of unions in the past have apparently disappeared and their presence points to the neglect that some companies have incurred or are incurring in personnel management.
Although it is true that today there are organizations in which this figure works, as part of the legacy left by the 20th century, it is no less true that today the presence of practices that deteriorate, humiliate or undermine is completely unimaginable. the staff and therefore if it requires grouping it will not have to do it as a block or coalition to confront an entity that exploits them in an irrational and irresponsible way, but to contribute to the success of the company… but if so, why group together ?
Companies are called to ensure the well-being of their people, without the presence of groups that subdivide their reality, Human Resources should be the first unit to defend, promote and maintain a behavior aimed at generating that balance, equity and valuation that people deserve in any place they occupy within the organization, otherwise the presence of an entity that reminds them of such an important responsibility is completely justifiable, but at the same time it would be accepting that the policies and processes prior to the appearance of The union group were completely removed from reality, that there was a labor insensitivity and that those who manage the people ignored their proposals and ignored their needs.
But Human Resources cannot be considered solely responsible for the creation of a union, if it arose due to neglect and little organizational sensitivity; the business owners are the source from which its guidelines emanate, if they maintain the concept of separating the company into two halves and generating policies and procedures that undermine the worker, omitting the suggestions and opinions issued by the Personnel Management, they are directly responsible for the appearance of this type of group. But is it bad that they appear? Should they be supported or fought? Should they be seen as enemies or allies?
The legislation supports and encourages the creation of trade unions, in Venezuela they are constitutional and the International Labor Organization has a very clear position regarding freedom of association, this makes it imperative to assume that they cannot be seen as an evil for the company, and in fact they are not, as has already been mentioned, unions allow organizations to be more sensitive to the needs of their personnel, or in theory it should be so, but isn't this the task of Human Capital Management? That is precisely the dilemma.
If the company has a unit that sensitizes, guides and advises it with respect to its people, it does not need a union, since the reasons that generally motivate its appearance would not be present.
Now, if unions act as links between "workers" and "employers", in the best style of the early twentieth century, obviously they should be seen as allies since it is evident that the consciousness that unites the employee-employer binomial does not it has still been assimilated by the company and the presence of this intermediary is fully justified.
It can then be said, once all of the above has been analyzed, that Human Resources Management must be the best union of any company par excellence, but not as a liaison unit, but as a guarantor of balance, equity and the identification that must exist always in the organization, otherwise, and naturally, discontent and demotivation will culminate in individuals developing a way to defend themselves and, at the same time, protect themselves from those who reject them.
Unions are not a problem, but the consequence of the accumulation of several of them and it is precisely their base of origin that could be questioning their existence in 21st century companies.
The demise of the Soviet Union, as it was known fifty years ago, as well as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the unification of the European Economic Community represent just a few examples of how the world has changed in such a short time.
The 20th century was the scene of the beginning and beginning of multiple wars, whether they were armed, cold, for the conquest of space or technological; all of them differentiated with deep cultural nuances based on the prevailing paradigms of the moment.
Likewise, managerial thinking changed.
First it was important to produce and the world revolved around the industry, then someone showed that the way was the quality of what was produced and companies were inclined to improve processes and involve people, later variables such as capital began to appear intellectual, added value, values, cost… all to constantly improve the way of achieving success as a company.
However, there is something that does not seem to have evolved with the times, or at least not in most cases, and it is that union vision that equates the company with the enemy.
As already commented, in the past the existence of unions was totally justifiable because companies had a behavior contrary to human nature, exploited and mistreated their employees to the point of not showing the slightest consideration for their needs and expectations. it was a scene of masters and slaves where wages were the only differentiator.
But once such a scenario has been overcome, not only does the question arise of the need or not for the presence of unions in the companies of the 21st century, but it is necessary to establish whether that vision of combat and confrontation that is still present in certain unions today Trade unions must be seen as a natural element or it has also become an anachronistic feature.
It is prudent to emphasize that at present it is completely inadmissible to exploit people for the exclusive benefit of the financial owner of the business; it is not justified that, in light of the advances that have been made in the area of human capital management, there are still practices as unprofessional as those that occurred in the past and that culminated as irrefutable bases for the birth of the unions, so the analysis that follows is based on the firm belief that such abominable conditions do not exist.
In the first place, it is necessary to resort to a simple example of correspondence: just as it is understood that people are the company and that without it it would not exist, it should also be understood that without a company there is no union, so there is an interdependence that It must not only be considered unavoidable but must be present in any conflict situation.
When the union exerts the pressures that for years have served to achieve its objectives, it is ignoring three management elements that have been operating with great success in managerial thinking:
- Past successes do not guarantee future successes Cannot apply the same formula to different problems Scenarios have changed and will continue to change
While it is true that in the past the paralysis of a production line or the entire plant worked perfectly, it is no less true that such radical actions could bankrupt a company in the present and leave the same people as the union unemployed represents and for which it is exerting pressure.
The possibility of achieving improvements or of bringing an organization to bankruptcy equates companies and unions with the yin and the eastern yan, those gods who are creators and destroyers at the same time and whose binomial has existed since the beginning of time.
Just as the company is responsible for the appearance of the unions as a consequence of the lack of sensitivity for the well-being of its people, emerging as the balance between the forces, that same balance is threatened when the demands of the union exceed the economic reality, productive and operational of a company and subjects it to disproportionate pressure.
This can only happen under the premise that says "the end of the fight is to win" and only fight against the enemy.
By transferring this warlike concept to the organization, elements such as employee identification and the performance of their moral values towards the company are put at risk. How can an employee be identified with a company that for him is the enemy to beat? How can the company trust the ethics of its employees if its actions are aimed at defeating it?
Perhaps in the near past a union management based on the strategy of confrontation was necessary, this allowed him to measure forces with the employer and show him that without the people, little or nothing was worth his company.
But that thought should have evolved over time, as has the management of human capital, today the importance of staff is an undeniable fact and it is considered even as the most valuable capital of the organization, then how could it be the enemy?
The unions should have evolved enough to know the reality of the companies from all the managerial points of view that are handled today, because in order to know what to demand one must be aware of what is given, and even what is received.
Sometimes union organizations demand more than the company can give without realizing an inescapable reality: the presumption of having money is not a guarantee of wealth.
While it is true that the people are the company, it is no less true that a company has many more obligations than the payment of payroll and related benefits: investment, costs, production, taxes and other transactions must be taken care of and attended with the same rigor with which the needs of the employees are attended, so it is a simplistic thought to resort to gross income as the basis of the improvements that are expected to be achieved.
All of the above leads to a daily reality: in their efforts to achieve the proposed objectives, some companies face unions whose vision places the organization on an opposite plane and therefore the threat of strikes, work stoppages, interruption of operations and Whether partially or totally, complaints to state entities and labor organizations, among other things, are announced and even executed as pressure mechanisms, sometimes without measuring the economic consequences that this may entail.
If in reality the premise that reads: "the people are the company" were an undeniable fact, it would be evident that no one could observe them as the enemy to be defeated, since in it the reasons that originate such thinking would not be generated and therefore the employees would not they might experience them, to the point of not even having a union.
More, unfortunately, this is not yet the case, the anachronistic practice of separating the company from its workers and, even more so, of downplaying their needs and expectations is still observed in the workplace, but does that justify observing the company as the enemy?
The answer is no. Nothing could place the company as the enemy, in fact it has never been and never will be, since it is nothing more than a group of people who work to achieve a common vision and whose expectations have been leveled for it, or so less so in theory.
All of the above leads to deep reflection: current unions present almost the same characteristics as those that preceded them, they have remained almost unchanged over time, which has led them to continue raising the flag of equal conditions, equity and union against the struggle of the exploitative employer who attacks the workers every day, completely ignoring the new trends in hiring, compensation and valuation that contemporary management has.
It cannot be said that it was easy for the company to understand that the people were the most important thing and that their success depended on their well-being, but it is disturbing to imagine how difficult it will be for some union groups to assimilate that now this incessant and daily struggle is not justified, where to obtain a benefit was to subtract ground from the opponent, where it was necessary to count on the union of the employees to defeat the enemy.
Therefore, not only advances in the management of human talent are questioning its presence in the 20th century, it is also fostering that wrong vision of struggle and struggle, if what they wanted in the past was to balance powers, in the present the Unions should be geared towards strengthening scenarios to accommodate a world of work where there is no opponent.
