When boards turn over the reigns of their nonprofit to a paid executive it is hopefully accomplished with a clear theory of change, mission statement, statement of strategic interests (goals) and values. These are the fundamentals an exec needs in order to manage in the best interest of an organization's "owners", in this case, the board.
While money is always a contentious topic particularly with execs believing that boards should do something about getting money when there's not enough to pursue the strategic direction and board's believing they have hired an exec to do the same, how money is spent is or can be equally contentious. Of course if strategic priorities are clear (fully informed and in pursuit of a theory of change) this should not be a problem but boards don't necessarily comply as clearly.
One topic boards also do not often "put out there" is the subject of unions. The corporate folks on a board will likely say "oh no - locks us in and we can't escape" while the non-corporate folks will say, particularly according to stated values, this is a right and just thing to support. And there you have it - not clear.
But once the topic is broached by staff, there's no avoiding the conversation. Boards - this is really your conversation - you must work with management to understand how the organization will go forward with a union. Not easy but necessary particularly when nonprofits rely so much on impermanent funds. But hey, the for-profits have the same challenge - sales are never guaranteed but they are the source of all payments.
Much to ponder. The Chronicle of Philanthropy covers this topic this month. It's a good generative conversation for boards should this day not have arrived for their nonprofit.
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/here-come-the-nonprofit-unions
Charity workers want better pay, benefits, and equity, but contract talks can be contentious. Is there another way? Plus: See the rest of our <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/issue/2023/01-10">January issue</a>, posted online today.