When we contemplate the involvement of unions or labour in general in governance, not all things are totally one view or the other. It depends on the context.

When an organisation is planning (from the top) radical change, then it makes sense to seriously engage with people within (and outside of) the organisation to ensure that what is desired is achievable. That involves engagement and/or participation with people who know about the practicalities and operational aspects of the issue being considered and with those who may be impacted by it.

There is little doubt that engagement with the organisation's 'rank and file' can make life easier in the long run, even if in the short run there will be complications and tensions.

Sometimes it makes pragmatic sense to have unions participate in an initiative and sometimes it doesn't. If you don't involve them, then a change initiative becomes more dependent on effective communications and feedback and more susceptible to resistance, work disturbance and even sabotage. If you already have a toxic relationship between management and labour, then that will probably endure. If you do involve them, then a change initiative becomes more inclusive and traditional change management processes flow more reliably. Yet ultimately, it's horses for courses.

Where an organisation has successfully engaged with labour in the past and bona fides has been demonstrated by both parties, then it will be easier to engage again for mutually beneficial outcomes. Where an organisation and union or labour have had problematic experiences in the past then re-engagement and trust will be more difficult to establish.

All of these issues impact governance - not so much its process (since governance is a process or set of processes) but rather what the organisation through robust governance is meant to deliver.