The Most Common Mistake in Labor Relations Isn’t Legal

Why the People Who Handle Workplace Problems Are Often the Problem Themselves

Trying to educate a workforce about complex matters like labor relations is usually an uphill battle. Especially if they come to the table misinformed and emotional in their views. There is a lot at stake. Here's where we might be doing it wrong. 

Article By Harrison Rose Tate

There is someone among you that your employees don't trust. Yet somehow that person keeps being put in charge of fixing trust. 

It escalates for a while, until one day it lands in HR's inbox. 

That seems to make sense. Labor relations is a subset of HR. Both fields deal with employee-employer relationships, workplace policies, and compliance with labor laws. HR professionals already manage aspects like hiring, compensation, and performance, which can overlap with the underlying concerns employees have that are driving the unionization efforts. They also deal with conflicts and act as mediators. 

Yet, a typical bachelor’s degree in Human Resources Management might include one course on labor relations, if any. If you've taken that class, you'll know, it focuses a lot on employment law, organizational behavior, and training & development. A lot of HR professionals come from Sociology, Communications, and Public Administration backgrounds, where there is no labor relations curriculum included at all. 

Even in graduate-level HR programs like an MHRM, MBA with HR concentration, or Master’s in Industrial-Organizational Psychology, labor relations is not universally guaranteed as core curriculum. If it is included at all, it is in the form of one course attempting to fully explore the concepts of labor relations, collective bargaining, and employment law that touches on unions, all in one semester. 

The result is that your HR hires are likely coming to you with little to no formal training in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), union organizing phases, grievance arbitration, and collective bargaining dynamics. 

Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

In other words, you're going to need to train someone. Here's how to make the right choice:

Avoid Dual Allegiance

If a person is viewed as leaning more toward protecting the company than supporting employees, by the time you get to the card mitigation phase, it's highly likely that members of the unionizing organizational unit have had experiences with that person that have reinforced that perception.

Don't Make Policy Enforcers the Face of Change

Anyone who implements and enforces rules that employees may find punitive, inconsistent, or out of touch should not be the face of change. The group responsible for terminations, denials of accommodation, or opaque promotion practices, is unlikely to be a good fit. 

Pick People With Perceived Advocacy

Let's face it. Even with the best team, you wouldn't be in this situation if your workforce viewed that team as effective. Assuming they've been trained well, your management staff will favor risk mitigation and legal defensibility over genuine problem-solving or empathy.

But it's the genuine desire to solve problems, and empathy that are required. 

To really connect with, and shift, the mindset of a fired-up workforce, especially in union contexts, an individual needs a mix of psychology, empathy, and relatability. Real change requires credibility to prove your case is more than words.

Don't select people who are solely trained to broadcast, not receive. 

Avoid Conflicting Agendas

Look around your corporate office. You'll likely see a group of talented individuals who come from academic or administrative backgrounds, but not frontline work. That disconnect can make them seem out of touch with day-to-day realities, especially in union-prone environments. This is perhaps the most key factor. The policies and metrics they are hired to maintain are frequently the source of friction. If you want someone who can truly connect with the workers, look for someone outside of that box. 

Beware of Ineffective Intermediaries

A common complaint among workforces is that plant managers, operations managers, branch managers, and local human resources have created a roadblock between them and access to the C-suite. Their grievances never go any further. They aren't wrong, especially if the issue is that person themselves. This is something that all senior executives should keep in mind. Even your Vice Presidents may not be completely transparent with you about the issues they face at ground level. 

Avoid involving people when it could potentially backfire. The wrong HR leader can be seen as biased, workers' direct contact with legal counsel can be seen as coercive, outside labor consultants without soft skills can do more harm than good, and overconfident executives using corporate jargon will probably be viewed as "a suit." Unrelatable and ineffective. 

Making Better Choices Results in Better Labor Relations

If you've got union activity, you likely already have hired labor counsel.

Vet Their Consultants

Full disclosure - I'm a consultant myself. I've seen the bad, the good, and everything in between. By and large, most consultants are very well-versed in labor law. Some have an innate ability to connect with people, others not as much. The right consultant can be a game-changer. Yes, ask about expertise in labor law, of course, but don't focus on it. Ask about their background. The likelihood is that they'll all have sufficient knowledge of the National Labor Relations Act to do their job.

Ironically, the best fit might be someone who left HR, or a former union employee. Someone who can look your employees in the eye and say, "I get it."

The right team of outsiders can really reset the environment in powerful ways. They can guide dialogue, rather than "sell" a position. Their approach usually triggers less resistance (psychological pushback) than someone perceived as having the company's agenda in mind.

Still, keep in mind that they are strangers. Crucial, but unknown entities. Using them wisely means combining their skills with the relatability of individuals from the inside. 

Use The Right People From Within

A senior executive with a track record of integrity and direct impact on conditions can truly be a catalyst for change. Ideally, this person will be someone who has been visible to your employees before, someone who has walked the floor. Operations people are often relatable. I wouldn't advise you to stay away from HR entirely, but have more than one ear to the ground, and talk to them separately. Just so you know you're getting the full story. 

A respected line manager or supervisor can be inspirational. Someone who has worked alongside employees, not above them. Research in social identity theory shows peer-level credibility beats top-down authority. Common sense tells us that's true. 

A retired or former employee respected by the workforce, someone who was transferred (even if it was to corporate). I was at a site recently, where they brought back a highly respected manager who had transferred to another state. He was greeted with hugs, not handshakes. He stayed for a week, met with the team, and really listened. 

Finally, after years of stalemate, progress was made. 

The Roles Matter As Much As The People In Them

Even great teams can be miscast in moments like these. If you're rethinking how your organization shows up during critical conversations about trust, I hope this offers a place to start.

Employees rarely reject information because it’s unclear. More often, they decide within the first five minutes of walking into the room if the person delivering the information can be trusted. 

The companies that understand this well don’t rely solely on sharp legal strategy. They’re intentional about who steps into the room.