Communicating Through a Labor Dispute Without Making It Worse

I remember the email.

Can you be on site at our office for three full days to help us draft talking points for communicating during a labor dispute at the (unnamed) plant?

I was wading into an ocean I’d never experienced: labor relations communications.

Thankfully, I was in good hands with the company’s director of supply chain comms.

What she showed me was essentially a playbook of talking points.

Here is what we said during our last negotiation with a different plant. All you need to do is replace the details of the last negotiation with the specifics of the current one.

Got it.

The Audience is Never Just the Union

People on both sides of a labor dispute are a spectrum.

It’s emotional.

Some plant employees just want to avoid a lockout and keep feeding their families.

Others want more money and benefits.

The union tries to back everyone into the same corner.

Some people at corporate don’t agree with the company’s tactics. Some do. Some have been through it and can see both sides.

Which explains the playbook the supply chain director showed me.

It’s a living document that has been honed over the years.

Feedback from plant managers after live employee meetings didn’t go well. Corporate lawyers who pushed back. Communications leaders who found a middle path with a message.

Firm Without Contempt

In the five or so years I had direct experience with labor relations in manufacturing, it was always the union side that went rogue and (sometimes) immature.

The company always held it together.

I recall lockout protests outside of the annual meeting that resembled a football tailgate, complete with risque signs (some of which were truly funny).

But it was emotional.

And emotion in situations like these – right or wrong – usually never wins.

The Cadence Problem

A professional hockey coach once asked me, Who do you think is more important? The players or the owners?

It’s a great question.

My answer after years of being in sports, too, is that the owners win.

If they don’t put up the money, don’t build it, it doesn’t exist.

The players are important. Very important. Just like the line workers.

But – if the owner isn’t seeing the results they desire, if the market has changed, the owner has the upper hand.

And that playbook is sitting there, ready to be tweaked and deployed. Usually in response to a media story sparked by an emotional union reaction.

The company simply reinforces its facts.

The cadence here is important: the union usually communicates more frequently. The company simply waits for a union flare up and trots out the playbook.

Working With Legal Without Writing Like Legal

This is the fine art in all of this.

Making the playbook human.

Which was my task for those three days. It was interesting to enter this world with fresh eyes. I knew the objective, so I was curious to learn how the company tip-toed.

Legal says you can’t say this because of x, y and z.

Corporate comms says, okay, then writes it a different way that is still technically legal, but still as human as possible.

I wrote earlier this year about how to make corporate storytelling more interesting.

It is the job of corporate communications and human resources to try to inject some humanity wherever they can, especially in labor disputes.

Because, let’s be honest: it’s David v. Goliath.

You can still be on Team Goliath while also recognizing David as human.

Respect can soothe disagreement if the words allow it.

It’s a needle that needs more threading.

Key points

• A labor negotiation playbook is a living document, honed over years from plant manager feedback, lawyer pushback, and communications leaders finding a middle path.
• The audience in a labor dispute is a spectrum, not just “the union” — plant employees, corporate staff, and leadership all hold different views.
• The company’s posture stays firm without contempt, while the union side tends to communicate more often and more emotionally.
• The core skill is making legally-approved language sound human — writing something technically legal that still carries humanity.
• Emotion, right or wrong, usually doesn’t win in these situations.

Common questions

Q: What is the “playbook” mentioned in the article?
A: It’s a living document of talking points used in past labor negotiations. As the author describes it, you take what was said during the last negotiation with a different plant and replace the details with the specifics of the current one.

Q: Who really makes up “the audience” in a labor dispute?
A: It’s not just the union. It includes plant employees who just want to avoid a lockout, others who want more pay and benefits, and people at corporate — some of whom agree with the company’s tactics, some of whom don’t.

Q: Does the company or the union communicate more often?
A: The union usually communicates more frequently. The company simply waits for a union flare-up and trots out the playbook, reinforcing its facts in response.

Q: How does corporate communications work with legal on this?
A: Legal tells comms what can’t be said because of legal risk, and corporate comms then finds a different way to say it — still technically legal, but as human as possible.

Q: What’s the author’s overall philosophy on labor negotiation communications?
A: You can still be on “Team Goliath” while recognizing “David” as human. Respect can soothe disagreement if the words allow it.