If employers had always treated all their employees fairly andpaid equitable wages and provided good benefits, there would havebeen no need for labor unions. But they didn't. Not by a long shot!So unions came on the scene to collectively represent workers.Speaking with one strong voice gave employees the clout they neededto get management's attention. As unions became more powerful, theyalso became more successful in helping to improve the lot ofunderpaid, overworked employees. The need for unions to representemployees and make sure they get a fair shake from management isnot nearly as great as it was in the days of sweatshops,ridiculously low pay, horrible working conditions, and no benefits,Some unions have done such a good job that if they were honest withthemselves they would admit that there is not much more they can doother than continue to monitor the situation on behalf of theirmembership. Before labor and management got to the point it is attoday, there were plenty of black marks on both sides of thenegotiation table. For example, some companies refused to bargainin good faith. Others did everything they legally could to keep theunion out. Still others worked equally hard to break the unionalready in place. In more than a few cases, compensation packageswere offered that were, to put it mildly, insulting. In countlessways, union employees were treated like second-class citizens. Asolid union member could forget about ever being promoted into theranks of management. On the other hand, some union leaders startedto forget who they represented and gave themselves fat salaries,bonuses, and lavish perks that in some well-documented cases evensurpassed those of top management. They began to think they shouldbe running the company. Others got greedy and made demands sooutrageous that the package that would satisfy them would also putthe company out of business. That happened on more than a fewoccasions. When Eastern Airlines announced they were going bellyup, a striking picketer threw down his sign and yelled, "We won!"Won what? Thousands of jobs were eliminated overnight. Which bringsme full circle to the current union-management situation unfoldingstill one more time at the CUNA Mutual Group's Madison, Wisconsinheadquarters. We could fill the pages of this publication withdaily, blow-by-blow accounts of "He said," and " she said." It'salready starting to get nasty. Claims and counter claims arebeginning to sound a bit outlandish. Credit union people arestarting to take sides. Which side often depends on an observer'spersonal situation and attitudes towards CMG and unions in general?Because CMG has carved out a huge niche for its self, being soclosely allied with all the other state, national, andinternational credit union groups, they are a major newsmaker inthe credit union world. So Credit Union Times will cover them attimes like these when they are sparring with the union. Thatcoverage on our news pages will of course be objective and unbiasedand not take sides. (For a comprehensive report on each side'sposition, see the May 5, 2004 story by editor Paul Gentile.)However, in my opinion, as always happens in these situations,credit unions can end up as the biggest losers. The dailynewspapers in Madison are once again having a field day with thestrife. The image of credit unions and those organizationsrepresenting them is again taking a beating and causing confusion.(The union keeps referring to CUNA Mutual, as CUNA and sloppyreporters don't pick up the error.) It is impossible not to noticethat both sides can and are making an argument for their case. Inthe process, however, both sides are also making foolish chargesand counter charges and employing questionable tactics like theunion already filing a complaint with the NRLB. CMG refuses toacknowledge that the person representing them is part of theproblem. He is intensely disliked by the union and comes to thebargaining table with a lot of easily documented anti-unionbaggage. CMG refuses to allow him to talk to our reporters and willnot provide a photo of him. CMG also gets uncomfortable whenobservers comment on the fact that they have hired law firms withunion busting reputations. One of these firms played a key role ingetting former CUNA Managing Director (President) Orrin Shipe firedduring CUNA's one and only strike. CMG wants more control overdecisions affecting their employees than they now have. They seethis as a bottom line issue. The union continues to act like aneighborhood bully. Its representatives are so busy arguing for aneven sweeter sweetheart deal that they forget to listen. A 37-hourworkweek with two daily paid breaks in a first class cafeteria andfree underground parking seems pretty cushy. The union refuses tobelieve that the overall pay and benefits package offered to themis above average for the area. In today's world, bankers' hours forthat kind of pay with 35 paid days off seem like a heck of a dealto comparable workers in Madison. But to hear the union rep talk,its members are working for minimum wage with few benefits underterrible working conditions for an organization that has a pot ofgold at the end of the rainbow. I understand that the currentdisagreement is between CUNA Mutual Group and OPIEU and that onlythey can resolve it. But what is obvious to me is that both sidesneed to get the job done as soon as possible for the overallbenefit of credit unions in Madison, Wisconsin and throughout thecredit union world. If either side refuses to budge to reach areasonable compromise, and a nasty strike becomes the next step,nobody will eventually be declared the winner. But there will be alot of losers. And management, labor relations will take a stepbackwards. Comments? Call 1-800-345-9936, Ext. 15, or Fax561-683-8514, or E-mail [email protected].