Why it pays to be a Mentsh
Jerry Paul Sheppard, PhD

(The opinions expressed here are solely my own
and do not reflect any official position of the university.)

When I was a boy growing up in Philadelphia, my parents frequently told me to “be a mentsh” when I was getting out of hand. For those of you unfamiliar with the word, it comes from the German meaning: “man.” The plural is German as well: mentshen. Of course, my parents used it in the Yiddish context – ‘a decent person,’ ‘a gentleman’ or a ‘good and proper person’ would be a better translation. You, know, the kind of guy that shakes hands after a hockey series, with the Cup at stake – even if they were beating-up each other for the last seven games. I saw quite of few mentshen shaking hands in 1974/1975 (when the Flyers won the cup) and 1976 (when they did not).

However, this is not a note about hockey, but about being a mentsh. This note is about knowing when to stop beating on someone and shake the other guy’s hand. Heck, even the baddest of the Broad Street Bullies, even Dave ‘The Hammer’ Schultz, wouldn’t keep punching a guy after he was out cold.

The Flyers haven’t won a cup since 1975 – maybe that’s why I became an academic who studies failure – though, its business failure. So thirty years, an MBA, a PhD, a dozen refereed articles, and a text book later, I am in the land where so many of those mentshen came from (and Bobby Clarke is still in Philly). So, of course my academic background has turned to the question of a failure of sorts at a Canadian company. The company did not fail but it was surprised that one of its major efforts turned out in such an unexpectedly undesired way that one had to ask, ‘What went wrong?’

On October 10, after almost 12 weeks of lockout, Telus and the Telecommunication Workers Union (TWU) came to an agreement that would have sent 14,000 unionized employees back to work – contingent upon ratification by TWU rank and file. The union executive endorsed the tentative agreement and all seemed well. Rumours leaked out (most substantiated by multiple sources) – Telus was spending a million dollars on welcome back parties, trucks were being spruced-up with new bigger signs, the CEO had opened Champaign to celebrate, etc. The strike would soon be over, replacement workers that were at Telus started planning their journeys to the Gulf coast to repair their hurricane damaged systems. Managers, who had been working 72 hours a week for months, were, to say the least, relieved. Three weeks later, the deal was off – by a mere 53 votes. If a mere 27 voters had voted yes instead of no, the outcome would have been altered.

What happened? Why was the company so sure the offer would be ratified? Why did the union’s rank and file reject the offer?

Regarding the company thinking the vote would be Yes, I believe two things happened. One, Telus thought this was just another business deal, there was offer and acceptance of a contract and since TWU’s representatives agreed to sell it to the members, it will pass – it seemed a done deal. Two, Telus thought it was dealing with another business organization – i.e. a hierarchical organization that, like their own, was run from the top-down. Those in positions of authority were the leaders, and where they led, those beneath them would follow. Indeed, many organizations are run by the iron rule of oligarchy – a few willing people who are willing to do the work run the show. Yet, in even with the presence of the iron rule of oligarchy, the TWU was a Union, and as such was governed by certain democratic rules and principles that made it, at least to some degree, an organization controlled from the bottom-up.

Regarding the Union, there were basically two things that happened. One (and it was my first impression that this was what may have won the day for the no vote) was that the agreement was a terrible one from the Union workers' perspective. Yes, the union officers tried to sell it, holding the position that it was the best they could do under the circumstances. But really, it was no better than the offer the company had tried to impose three months earlier. The agreement basically allowed the company to move any operations offshore that could be moved out of Canada. The agreement virtually allowed contracting out of nearly any operations that were left. The company had complete leeway regarding any union workers the company wanted to keep – meaning those close to retirement could be laid-off at will with no preference given to their seniority or years of service. Finally, if you objected, the agreement required the company allow you to file a complaint.

Was this a case where a well informed electorate looked at, really read the document, said ‘this stinks,’ and voted it down? Being a democratically minded fellow, I would love to think so, but the academic inside me kept saying that if that were the case, the no vote would have been higher. This brings me to the second thing that I think happened. I think we can apply what I will call (there is probably another name for this in another discipline) the Perversity Principle. This principle can be broken down into two parts (1) the harder you push down on people the harder they push back and (2) the hand that feeds often gets bitten.

In the ‘harder you push’ case, TWU members were not involved in what we think of as a normal strike where folks slog along a picket line in quiet desperation. The company was active on numerous levels against the union. These seemed to be extraordinary activities: the company tried to shut down a union related web site, hired labour dispute security specialists (or in union parlance, ‘goons’) to intimidate picketers, verbally antagonized union picketers, lured union workers back to the company (an act for which the union is willing and able to eject members and fine them up to $25,000), and fired union members (in violation of Canadian labour law). These moves seemed to strengthen the resolve of many Union members rather than weaken them. In other words, from the union members’ perspective, it would have behoved the company to act like a mentsh rather than an antagonistic bully.

To the best of my knowledge, Telus’ predecessor, BC Tel had never successfully fired a union member during a strike (i.e. such fired members had always gotten their job’s back shortly after the work stoppage ended). So insisting that workers remain fired would make no sense since it is likely that they would be able to get their jobs back. However, Telus CEO Darren Entwistle insisted that 47 fired workers would not be hired back. Union President Bruce Bell offered amnesty against fining of hundreds and hundreds of TWU members that had crossed the picket line if Telus would hire the 47 back. Essentially, a let’s shake hands and let bygones be bygones attempt. You know, the kind of thing a mentsh would do. Entwistle declined. If each of these members had cast a yes, instead of a no vote, then the entire decision to go back to work would have been altered. Of course, such a vote change from these people was unlikely. However I know of members that voted no only because the company was refusing to allow these people back – there were likely at least 27 of these votes – all the difference needed. The reason for the continuing strike lies therefore on the feet of the company CEO because, and this is my opinion only, I believe hubris overran sound decision making – in other words, in this instance, it would have paid to be mentsh.

Regarding the notion that the hand that feeds often gets bitten, the union, following rules for due process, had not fully ramped up its tribunals to eject members crossing the picket lines. Many picket line crossing members were allowed to vote. To the best of my knowledge Telus made certain that such members would be given the time to go down and vote. My take is that in the company’s view these were the people that had stuck by the company and would surely vote for what the company wanted – a yes vote.

What picket line crossing employee in their right mind would vote yes on the agreement? If the agreement gets voted down, these employees get to keep collecting high rates of pay with tonnes of overtime. A no vote insures that such employees also avoid having to deal in the workplace with the scorn of union members who stayed on the picket line. If you are crossing the picket line and you vote yes, you not only lower your take home pay, but reduce your level of comfort in the workplace. In addition, if the union were successful in imposing fines, those crossing the picket line would need the extra funds just to pay the fine – a condition that could have been alleviated through an amnesty the union offered to management. Finally, if you’re a Union employee that’s going to be fined and the company could have prevented that, but chose not to, then why would you feel any obligation to support them? Again, it would have paid the company to act like a mentsh and support the workers who had supported them. All Darren Entwistle had to do was be a mentsh.

Not as many people remember Dave ‘the Hammer’ Schultz as remember Wayne Gretzky, ‘The Great One.’ Schultz never won a Lady Bing for gentlemanly conduct, Gretzky won five. With all due respect, Dave now does motivational speaking and coaches minor league hockey. Wayne now gets paid millions to sell Fords and coaches major league hockey. It pays to be a mentsh.

Dr. Jerry Paul Sheppard, PhD
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Faculty of Business Administration
Simon Fraser University