Keep your union out of our Jackson Lab

Your front-page story, “Jackson employees in turmoil,” published June 18, would have better served your readers had it been balanced by an interview with any of the many employees who are quite content to work without the representation of a union. While I empathize with those employees who have been at the receiving end of less than respectful managers or supervisors, I and many of my colleagues enjoy a very fulfilling professional work environment at the lab.

The fact that upper levels of management are taking the union organizing effort very seriously is to their credit, as is the fact that they admit to shortcomings in communicating changes to employees at all levels.

As there are two sides to every story, it is worth noting that communication, if it is to be effective, needs to be two-way. Many employees involved in the union organizing effort state that they are hesitant to voice dissent for fear of losing their jobs. How can management respond to concerns that are not presented to them? Furthermore, how can management be expected to confront issues, make a change, and then be confronted with criticism yet again? Effective two-way communication and responsive change requires that everyone put some solution forward, with the understanding that an employer has work that needs to be done – work which they are willing to pay people to do.

The laboratory owes its employees a paycheck for the work they do – nothing more, nothing less. The fact that employees have benefit options equal to 33 percent of our salaries is part of what makes the lab an attractive employer in this part of the state. These are good jobs! This is sometimes difficult to realize if a person has worked only for The Jackson

Lab and has no basis of comparison.

If I sound a bit angry, it’s also because of my own life experience with unions. My father and brother both worked at the International Paper Co. in Jay when workers there went on strike in 1987. I grew up in a union household. But when the strike occurred, and my dad decided to cross the picket line, he and my brother barely spoke to one another for quite some time. By their very nature, unions create adversarial relationships between employees and employers, and in the event of a strike it can tear a community apart.

Ask anyone living in the Jay-Livermore Falls area, even today, 15 years later, if there aren’t people who are still not speaking to one another. Some say it couldn’t happen here; I say it’s not a matter of if it could, but a matter of when will it happen if the lab unionizes. Nevertheless, I’m also angry because much of this could have been prevented at The Jackson Laboratory if only everyone had the skills to effectively communicate and listen.

Charles Farley [a spokesman for the employees trying to unionize] indicated that the union would only seek a vote from the full work force when they are sure they have enough votes to win. At this point, I can only speak for myself and a few more than a dozen people who share my sentiment, but I’d like very much for the proverbial “silent majority” to speak up and join me in telling union officials: You can pack up and go now. You can’t win here. We don’t need to pay union dues for someone to speak for us. We’ll work out our problems.

Let us get on with the business of research, resources and education that has made The Jackson Laboratory the envy of research institutions around the world.

Melissa Rockwood is a research administrative assistant at The Jackson Laboratory.