Publications

New Technology & Work Systems: Opportunities & Dangers for Unions & Workers (2000)

In every sector where AFSCME represents workers, technology is rapidly reshaping the way public services are provided. In social services, computer programs and databases match job-seekers to jobs, perform case management functions for "welfare to work" clients, and assemble information on child support payments. In other agencies, Internet- and telephone-based systems are increasingly used for everything from drivers' licensing to unemployment insurance processing. Health care, corrections and public works have also seen major changes in how work is performed and who performs it. These changes create both opportunities and dangers for AFSCME members.

In fact, new technologies and work processes are truly a double-edged sword for all workers, and for society in general. While they can profoundly improve the quality of workers' jobs and the services they provide to the public, they can worsen or

eliminate jobs, render crucial skills obsolete and dilute the quality of services workers provide. New techniques can also give privatizing companies a foot in the door; where private companies can provide services at lower cost than government, it is often cutting-edge technology that gives them an advantage.

Technological advances can be positive when they streamline mundane tasks, provide better information, build new skills and enhance the value of work done for the public. This is much more likely to occur when workers are fully involved in the design and implementation of new systems, and when the systems are used to augment, not replace, workers' skills and abilities.

However, changes can fundamentally harm workers when they bring about unreasonable workloads and undue stress, limit or oversimplify the information workers can use, lower skill requirements, and impede the delivery of quality services. These types of changes tend to occur in the absence of genuine worker input: Workers are viewed as functionaries, not assets; human abilities that cannot be readily automated are ignored, and workers have little room for independent judgment or career development. Not coincidentally, they boost the power of a technical and managerial elite and often result in the loss of jobs among rank-and-file workers.

Key Principles

There are a number of key principles to bear in mind in dealing with technology.

First, new systems are not inevitable, nor are there usually "right" and "wrong" ways to organize work; rather, technology and new processes are consciously chosen and deployed, and often actively encouraged by forces opposed to worker interests. Looking back in time, many currently dominant technologies may appear to have been inevitable, and virtually impossible to stop or modify. In reality, as changes were introduced, there were opportunities to alter them. However, as they became standard operating procedure, the ability to make changes became increasingly limited.

Second, technologies and processes that involve workers and build on what they know are much more likely to succeed. Studies consistently find "high performance work organizations," which involve workers in innovations, to be more effective than traditional "command and control" structures, which do not effectively utilize worker knowledge.

Third, technology opens up important new avenues for union activism and advocacy. The Internet and e-mail are primary examples of this. These innovations not only allow workers and unions to get their messages out cheaply and quickly to an extremely broad audience, but also facilitate rapid, two-way exchanges of information. These tools also simplify information gathering about employers and labor laws.

Fourth, "e-government" and high-technology ‘solutions' can pose major threats to public employees and the public at large. Although new technologies and systems have the potential to increase convenience and quality, they also create grave risks of alienating citizens from government, cutting out those most in need of hands-on assistance, and giving new powers to private technology vendors and consultants who can potentially use technology to become de-facto gatekeepers to public services.

Fifth, workers and unions should be alert to signs of technological changes and address this issue pro-actively. Advocates should not only safeguard their interests once innovations have been launched, but should also anticipate such changes and fight for protections in advance. Timing is of the essence: Once equipment is purchased or a contract with a technology vendor is signed, workers and the public are left to deal with any problems that occur. To prevent this, unions need a role at all levels: in the workplace itself and on advisory or steering committees; and at all stages, from crucial, front-end decision-making to implementation.

Protecting workers and the public interest in well-run, responsible programs extends from selecting and shaping the technology and forms of work to be used, to securing workers' place in implementing and operating the new systems. Workers need access to training in new technologies, as well as protection from displacement or downsizing. Training is particularly needed when employers claim, as they often do, that existing workers cannot do the job — a claim frequently used to justify outsourcing.

Point One: Technology is invented, not discovered, and how it is used is not pre-ordained.

Technology does not appear in a vacuum, nor is it inevitable once introduced. As Richard Du Boff, economics professor at Bryn Mawr College, states, "Technology does not fall on us like manna from heaven. Those who control the shop floor or office select and deploy technology in ways that reinforce their own economic power — and they ignore other, possibly more beneficial uses of it. And economic power means control, not just profits. Owners will introduce a new machine tool or a computerized printing process not necessarily to improve workers' efficiency on the job, but to undercut the power of skilled workers whose knowledge becomes obsolete" ("Millennial Technology" in Dollars and Sense, January/February 2000).

Du Boff notes that while public discussion seems to assume skill levels are rising, the evidence is ambiguous at best. He writes, "Skill upgrading has been no greater in the 1980s and 1990s than in earlier decades [before the computer was prominent in most workplaces]. Among clerical jobs, about half experienced significant upskilling, half significant deskilling, an example of which is the effects of electronic scanners on ... cashiers." Once scanners were introduced to check-out lines, cashiers no longer needed math skills.

Union advocates and the public should be very leery of claims that there are no choices when it comes to technology. Management technology proposals are much like bargaining proposals — starting points for discussion, not final pronouncements. There is often a wide range of options available, and contract language giving the union a role in technology decisions is especially important.

Point Two: Innovations that involve workers are more successful than those that do not.

Extensive study of "high-performance work organizations" has shown conclusively that genuine worker involvement pays huge dividends in both worker and customer satisfaction. Speaking especially of the public sector, a U.S. Department of Labor study notes: "Cooperation which engaged employees in decisions around service planning and implementation typically resulted in better service, more cost-effectiveness, better quality of work life, [and] improved labor/management relations" ("Working Together for Public Service," Report of the Task Force on Excellence in State and Local Government, 1996).

The benefits of employee involvement are particularly relevant to technology initiatives. One example of these benefits is the Quality Services through Partnership (QStP) program in Ohio. The Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA)/ AFSCME Local 11 has worked with state government to not only produce savings of over $150 million in six years, but also to design fundamental improvements in how services are delivered. In the state's Office of Medicaid, for instance, a QStP team developed an improved application for Medicaid providers and set up an automated mechanism for tracking the applications. Average application processing time fell from 44 days to 18 days, and error rates for initial applications were halved.

Point Three: New technology can be an effective tool in union organizing and other activities.

Unions are making extensive use of e-mail, list-serves, Web pages, and other tools. The Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (WashTech), an affiliate of the Communications Workers of America, has used a list-serve — essentially an interactive electronic newsletter or bulletin board — in its organizing efforts at Microsoft. The list-serve keeps in contact with so-called temporary workers (also called "perma-temps") at the company, and is used to solicit their opinions and to get information. WashTech conducted an Internet-based survey of Microsoft workers, and tailored its messages to address workers' major priorities.

Internet-based technology was also crucial to the International Association of Machinists' giant 1999 organizing victory among United Airlines ticket agents. The magazine America @ Work described the United campaign in its September, 1999 issue: "With 19,000 workers spread all over the country, communicating the union message quickly and effectively was a daunting task. By using a frequently updated web site, organizers augmented a communications strategy that also included mailings and worksite committee meetings. The site included press releases, photos and testimonials from workers ..., a weekly election summary, an area to submit comments and questions ..., handbills that could be downloaded, sample provisions from IAM contracts with other airlines, and an online authorization card."

AFSCME has effectively used the Internet in such organizing campaigns as the state of Maryland and the Federal Aviation Administration, by creating and customizing Web sites tailored to workers' interests and needs. These techniques were used to supplement, not replace, traditional organizing tools (most notably strong, representative organizing committees).

In fact, America @ Work points out that "the Internet will never — and should never — be a substitute for one-on-one communication with workers." And, union supporters should not underestimate the capacity and willingness of employers to monitor the union's electronic networks. While employers cannot legally target union communications on non-work time if they allow other non-job related communications, workers and organizers should proceed carefully when using the employer's equipment, especially if the employer is the organizing target.

Nonetheless, unions should strive to be innovative in cases where there is a bargaining relationship. Maryland Council 92, for example, won contract language giving it the right to use the state's e-mail system for membership and bargaining unit mailings. Further developments along these lines might include password-protected, union-only "intranets" and links from employer Web sites to AFSCME sites, thereby making union information freely accessible.

The Internet also offers new tools for researching employers, examining privatizing companies, investigating labor law issues, and so on. Here, too, a caveat is necessary. Users should be careful of the information they obtain. Information from anonymous or hard-to-identify sources should be taken with skepticism, and corporate Web pages — while they can provide some good information — serve basically as public relations and marketing tools for the companies.

AFSCME's own Web site is a powerful tool for Internet research. It is fully searchable, has links to a wide variety of topic areas, and features AFSCME publications on public policy, corporate research, privatization and a host of other issues workers face.

Point Four: Government use of technology can be promising, but can also create major problems.

Government at all levels is moving rapidly to automate many core tasks, and public services across a broad spectrum have been or could be automated. In Montgomery County, Md., for instance, "residents may now pay property taxes, apply for county jobs, renew library books, and track permit applications online," although surcharges will be applied to tax payments (Montgomery Gazette, July 19, 2000). Other jurisdictions have automated functions as diverse as wastewater processing, welfare benefit provision (via ATM cards) and procurement.

A serious danger of automation is that it will displace workers by replicating their functions without being able to replicate their skills and judgment. This is particularly troublesome in complex human interactions such as social services. The costs of failure, due to over-reliance on automation, could be very high. Government workers are experts on the programs and agencies in which they work, and their expertise cannot be easily translated into software.

Another danger posed by increased reliance on information technology by the public sector is that it opens the door to privatization. Technology is a major entry point for private vendors, and while some do indeed have expertise not readily available in the public sector, governments should be wary of turning over records and infrastructure to private firms. Companies market their technological skills, but fail to acknowledge the risks involved or the fact that many technology projects, in both the public and private sectors, are not successful.

One of many examples of information technology failure is that of Lockheed Martin IMS in California. The state hired the firm, a division of the giant defense contractor, to construct an automated database to track child support payments; the system was supposed to be done by 1995, at a cost of $99 million, but in November 1997, it was scrapped. Although far from complete, the system was severely flawed, serving only 23 of 58 counties and its estimated cost had tripled to $300 million. Said a frustrated county official: "The system just wouldn't perform."

There are also major privacy issues associated with letting private vendors run government projects. Data on social service eligibility, income, health and so on need to remain strictly confidential, but private firms may be tempted to divert such data for other purposes.

In the unemployment insurance and job training field, for instance, a movement toward phone-in claims processing and self-service job-matching is underway. The federal government is actively encouraging the automation of unemployment insurance by providing start-up grants to at least 34 states.

Point Five: Unions need to watch for signs of technology on the horizon.

Technology decisions are like a large funnel. At the top of the funnel, workers, unions and society at large have wide latitude in figuring out what direction to take, at least in theory. All too often, though, these decisions are made behind closed doors, by vendors, consultants, and managers. Worker input is too late to matter, and is usually undertaken simply to "bring workers on board," rather than to really consider their needs. Once choices are made, workers are left in the thin end of the funnel, with no room to maneuver. This is particularly true of large technology projects that involve major capital investments; these become "points of no return."

This means that worker and union awareness of potential changes in technology is absolutely essential, as is preparation for these changes. The presence of technology vendors or consultants at the worksite might indicate that new systems are being considered. But union advocates should also be on the lookout for broader signals: state and federal legislation often drive technological changes. The 1996 federal welfare-reform law required computerized tracking of child support payments, while federal job-training legislation passed in 1998 required multiple entities to collaborate, and encouraged them to provide some services electronically. Both of these laws have opened up huge markets for private technology vendors.

In today's era of rapid change and technological innovation, a reactive role for unions is dangerous. Existing labor/management committees, quality initiatives and contract negotiations can be good vehicles both for getting information on plans for new technology and for protecting workers' interests. However, absent clear contract language giving unions a place on decision-making bodies, management will assert its prerogatives and force workers into a reactive mode.

The same goes for training opportunities, displacement protections, and other tools to help individual workers navigate the tricky waters of workplace change. These must fought for at the bargaining table, and spelled out in writing, in order to guarantee that workers' interests are not abandoned.

Conclusion: Dealing with change is an ongoing process, requiring a new level of union activism.

Technology does not spring to life fully formed, but is designed and put to use in ways that have far-reaching implications for workers and society at large. New systems and structures are much more likely to function well when workers are involved in creating them. Workers can also use technology to bolster union goals, from providing information on employers to setting up two-way communication networks.

In government, information technology can be misused, and can be a driving force toward privatization, de-skilling, and other damaging trends. These trends not only harm workers but also reduce the quality of public services while exacerbating the "digital divide."

Unions and workers must be aware of the potential for changes in their institutions, and must insert themselves into the early stages of decision-making, both formally and informally. The best way to do this is by winning strong language at the bargaining table, before a crisis occurs.

Bargaining offers opportunities to secure explicit safeguards related to workplace change, including recognition of the union's input into the process, concrete opportunities for workers to be trained, and enforceable protections in case technology does displace workers. Overall, technology and new forms of work organization lead to both dangers and opportunities for labor.

For more information or assistance in dealing with technology issues, contact the Department of Research and Collective Bargaining Services or call (202) 429-1215.

Print Version