A disquisition on the ‘Stovepipe Program’
Like moths to a flame, conflicts are a necessary component of human relationships, to which workplace relations are not immune. The workplace houses a gamut of individual interests that are bound to clash. From the way a colleague opens the door (you’d be surprised at certain pet peeves that some people have) to the usage of unprofessional email salutations all the way down to employment termination. The workplace clashes range from personal interests to aggregate interests to financial interests among a list that is supposedly endless. Well, the stovepipe program is not for the resolution of pet peeves, or is it? This piece outlines and discusses the stovepipe program.
It is an employment dispute resolution system agreed upon prior to a dispute by parties, between the employer and employee usually, that utilises arbitration administered by neutral institutions. The 21st-century workplace, particularly the big corporations, has shifted its recourse from reactionary measures like resorting to litigation to proactive measures where disputes are mutually deliberated upon and wisely so. For context, eLawForum, a premier business-to-business exchange for legal services, estimates that the total cost of litigation spent by Fortune 500 is to be $210 billion, equivalent to one-third of the after-tax profit of the Fortune 500, in the past 8 years thereby dwarfing CEO compensation. So much for so little; what is at best integrated reactionary measures such as the ombudsman program and open-door policies were subsequently popular as compared to proactive measures like the stovepipe. However, these integrated reactionary measures have one problem in common. Structural bias is a general concern for the employee where these measures are utilised. The reason being both the systems are financed by the company itself, and consequently, the company’s interest in the scheme of things may surpass that of the claimant. The thought of it might just be likened to reporting a culprit to himself, more often than not he’d take his own side! Moreover, the satisfactory resolution of conflict may engender a sense of fairness that structural bias incinerates: that the claimant has been heard, treated with respect, and interests met or at worst acknowledged.
In considering dispute resolution generally, it could be administered by one sole party, by the two parties, or by a third party. The first two measures are designed and masterminded by one of the disputing parties. The other party may not feel a sense of fairness in this process compared to the remaining parties. Alternate Dispute Resolution methods such as mediation generally fall within the purview of the second measure in which case both parties shoulder the responsibility of resolving the dispute to a neutral third person. Both the parties can easily succumb to the resolution achieved faster because of the inclusivity it affords. The third measure allows parties to submit their dispute to a neutral party for resolution like the stovepipe program.
The institution that administers this resolution may or may not be privatized. An example of a public institution is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which hears cases related to employment disputes in America. While an example of a private institution is the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, their Administered Employment Arbitration Rules go so far as necessitating the arbitrator to justify the rationale behind the decision arrived at. While the success of this program in workplaces is debatable, however, in theory, it best serves commercial needs of expediency.
One last feature about the Stovepipe program; remember Santa Claus and the myth that he gets into the house on Christmas eve through the chimney, also called stove pipe? The stove pipe is a long pole that only filters out smoke and that is how tight and confidential the Stovepipe Program is considered to be; nothing can go in or out. Except, of course, Santa.