By Robert Ovetz

Open bargaining is becoming more widespread as more unions like one of my own adopt it. As it does, we should not take for granted that conservative leadership is willingly going to allow the rank and file to obtain more power at the bargaining table. Open bargaining, which allows the rank-and-file to participate in bargaining sessions,  is a threat to both conservative leadership and the boss.  

I have just participated in some of the first sessions of open bargaining of one of my unions. Open bargaining didn’t come from above. It took the rank and file several years of persistent demands to open it up to any member who wanted to participate. 

Bargaining was opened up this summer during reopeners although the bargaining team is still led by the same clique of tenured professors in a union in which the majority are lecturers. 

Open bargaining is gaining popularity around the country for good reason. It makes leadership’s giveaways transparent to all. It shows that polite collaboration with the boss, or what is called “interest-based bargaining,” has been a losing strategy for a half a century. Sometimes the ones who are most polite with the boss later end up working for the boss.  

Being in the room isn’t enough. Members should have copies of all draft proposals and counter-proposals before they are presented to democratically debate, discuss and decide on what we want. Long before bargaining even begins there needs to be an open process by which member committees write the proposals rather than the leadership passing them down as faits accomplis. 

Allowing member committees to write the proposals not only makes for better outcomes but it is also an organizing tool. The more members engage in the process of running their union, the more committed they are to take escalating action to fight the boss and win. 

Open bargaining flips the power dynamic in our unions by transforming the bargaining team from leading the membership to the members leading the bargaining team. 

Whether open bargaining is just for show or actually allows the rank and file to lead is critically important. Draft copies of changes to the CBA from both sides should be provided in advance to all members attending the bargaining session and changes made to the text in real time for all to see. 

Some states’ public-sector labor laws consider ground rules, or how both sides will bargain, a mandatory subject of bargaining. If so, the boss may demand bargaining sessions be closed as a way to force the union to impasse. If the leadership agrees to closing it to keep bargaining going it will be a sign of weakness to the boss. Any limits on open bargaining must be debated and voted on by the rank and file in open bargaining.  

Moving to open bargaining is a small step to democratizing our unions and empowering the rank and file. If the same leaders who have delivered terrible CBAs in the past remain in charge of bargaining they could attempt to sideline or lock out members from having real power in the negotiations to set the priorities for bargaining.  

There are several ways they might do that. The leadership may limit who can speak during bargaining to themselves. They might also prohibit the other members of the formal bargaining committee from speaking during negotiations and continue meeting in small committees.  

Empowering salaried staff to speak for the membership during bargaining is problematic. Even the best intentioned staff have separate interests from the members. They may want to protect the union that pays their salaries. Staff with close relationships to leadership may work to keep them in office to protect their jobs. One way this can happen is by supplying research to the leadership that is not shared with the membership during open bargaining.  

Members know their interests better than staff because we get up every morning, go to work and suffer the abuses of the boss. While there might be an acceptable argument for limiting which members can speak, there is absolutely no justification for silencing members while empowering staff. 

If your union has caucuses, staff that serve the leadership at the expense of the rank and file are serving the leadership caucus.  

That can be a hard line to walk for some staff. According to Kevin, a longtime union organizer in the Pacific Northwest, “a staffer should NOT involve themselves in or influence rank and file caucuses.” 

The reason, Kevin told me in an interview, is that “staff should amplify the voices of members in the room. The power at the table comes from member voices NOT staff voices.”  

Once there is a new proposed CBA, every member should get a copy and have time to read, discuss, debate and decide how to vote. The CBA should be openly debated by representatives of both the Yes and No sides. Both sides should be able to freely distribute their analyses to every member. To keep their hands off the scale, the leadership should make no recommendation for ratification and the ballot should be written with neutral language.  

However the members vote, the final results should be published showing how many voted, the final votes for Yes and No, and the turnout and results by workplace. Publishing these details allows the leadership to hear back from the membership to learn where the union is weakest and lacks support so outreach can take place there if there is a second vote.  

If leadership tries to ram through an unpopular CBA, the opposition can campaign as the democratic alternative. Next time there is a leadership vote, the membership will remember their betrayal and vote for your caucus. That is what transformed the Chicago Teachers Union, UAW and the Teamsters. 

Open bargaining is an important step to democratizing our unions but it is not enough by itself. My union may now have open bargaining but the members still do not vote for the statewide leadership. Open bargaining is the first step, not the last. 

Demand open bargaining, show up and keep pushing the process until you become a rank-and-file-led union capable of fighting the boss and winning. 

Robert Ovetz belongs to faculty unions at each of the institutions where he teaches. He is editor of “Workers' Inquiry and Global Class Struggle,” and the author of “When Workers Shot Back” and most recently “We the Elites: Why the US Constitution Serves the Few.” Follow him at @OvetzRobert