How to use this toolkit
- Learn the basics of bargaining — models for bargaining, team roles, and key terms and subjects
- Learn how to prepare for bargaining — create goals, establish priorities, survey members, and more.
- Learn how to conduct a bargaining session — tips for negotiating record keeping, listening skills, writing counter proposals, and more.
- Learn about the steps for finalizing a bargaining agreement.
Bargaining Basics
Bargaining Basics
Are you ready to learn how to successfully bargaining? Start by checking out all of the bargaining basics. In this section, you'll learn the pros and cons of different bargaining strategies and styles; the different roles that make up a bargaining team; and important bargaining terms and subjects.
Bargaining Strategies & Styles: Pros and Cons
Characterized by opposing “positions” on issues, compromises, formal nature, more confrontational.
Pros
- Time-tested
- Well-defined
- Easier to hide bottom line
- Preserves roles on skills of participants
- Dependent on skills of
players
Cons
- Tends to become “game"
- Confrontational
- Produces “winners” and “losers"
- Dependent on skills of players
An approach that utilizes “problem solving” methods to come to agreement.
Pros
- Requires trust of parties
- Bases decisions on research vs. emotions
- Usually attempted only with outside training for both parties
- Can eliminate confrontation
- Can work well for limited areas of bargaining
Cons
- Requires trust of parties
- Extremely dangerous if not handled correctly
- Requires agreement on “problem” – often disadvantaging the union
- Bottom lines are stretched
- Can create confrontation if/when process is abandoned
- Management always has an “ace” regarding cost
- Does not work for benefit bargaining
- Requires oversight by trainers
- Eliminates team communication
- Supersedes local goals
This style is similar in purpose to collaborative. T-S is more goal oriented with the parties agreeing on the goal or solution rather than the problem to be solved.
Pros
- More narrowly focused
- More positive approach
- Requires mutual training/trust
- Allows for more varied approach to different issues
- Can limit the scope
- Eliminates positioning
- Total disclosure of information
Cons
- Process vs. product
- Co-opting can occur
- Relationship becomes more important than the contract
- Requires trust
- Supersedes local goals
- Requires oversight by trainers
- No side-bars
As a strategy, expedited bargaining usually involves limiting the number of issues to be discussed. A form of this can also involve setting a timetable for negotiations including mediation and fact-finding.
Pros
- Works will when there are few contested issues
- Can be helpful as a successor to a difficult round of negotiations
- Generally limits the problems to be faced
- Eliminates board “shotgun” approach
- Gets to the real issues
- Can result in fast settlement
- Acts to “cut the BS”
Cons
- Can prematurely expose your bottom line
- Priorities are revealed
- Timetable can be limiting on creativity
- Timetable can cause impasse
- Eliminates ability to pick up “peripheral” issues
- Can actually lengthen bargaining time
- Can force hasty decisions
This tool can be used either as a total approach or through grouping issues. The title is indicative of the concept. Issues are “packaged” or grouped and must be agreed to or rejected as such.
Pros
- Allows the bargainer to offer value for value
- Restricts the respondent to issues of your choice
- Allows the bargainer to “test the waters”
- Gives flexibility to the proposing party
- Aids in avoiding impasse
- Controls the flow
- Can pull in peripheral issues
Cons
- Can be too restrictive
- May result in forcing other party into rejecting issues that they otherwise might agree to
- When overused, becomes meaningless
- Can cause “gotcha’s”
- May cause board to reply in kind, tying basics (salary, fringes) into agreement on rollbacks
This approach is generally accomplished by the spokespersons meeting with the authority to TA.
Pros
- Eliminates grandstanding
- Encourages frank exchange
- Easier to explore options
- Can/should be off-the record unless successful
- Requires trust
- Ca cut to the chase
- Usually quieter
Cons
- “Working without a net”
- Requires trust
- Can lead to internal problems/mistrust on team
- “Meeting of the minds” difficult to prove
- Misunderstanding may not surface until later
An even simpler form of expedited bargaining. In this format, usually only salary is discussed, everything else remaining status-quo.
Pros
- Eliminates benefit bargaining
- Eliminates rollback requests
- Focuses on ability to pay
- Quick resolution
- Works will during bond elections, etc.
Cons
- Eliminates all other issues
- Can polarize parties
- Needs “opt out” clause
- Can cause unrealistic expectations
- Can result in ignorance of important issues
- May be contrary to member priorities
Important Bargaining Terms
From "AAA" to "Work Action," bargaining comes with its own vocabulary. We've compiled the words and terms you should know before you get started.
Subjects of Bargaining
| Subject Type | Definition | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Mandatory | “ …wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment…” “Except as otherwise provided in” the law. | Wages, hours, terms, conditions of employment |
| Prohibited | Subjects that are illegal to bargain. The parties can not bargain about prohibited subjects of bargaining EVEN IF BOTH OF THEM WANT TO. Can’t be enforced even if the parties agree to something. | No use of paid sick leave for pregnancy disability, Provisions that would violate any law, Specific subjects listed in the law |
| Permissive | Subjects of bargaining allowed by the law, but the law does not require either party to bargain. Either party may refuse to discuss a permissive subject of bargaining. | Seniority for non-bargaining unit members, Definition of Bargaining Unit, Everything else |
Bargaining Preparation
Bargaining Preparation
Negotiated Agreement Checklist
The purpose of this resource is to provide negotiators with a basic checklist of contract provisions. Some may not be applicable to your bargaining—it is not intended to cover all bargaining situations at all times.
Before you begin negotiations, we suggest you use this to review your contract to spot any provisions that need revision. We also strongly advise you to use it with the assistance of your UniServ Director.
Sample Bargaining Surveys
Surveying your members to find the priority issues and their bottom line on specific issues is an important part of the bargaining process. Use one of our four sample surveys to get started.
Priorities . . .
- Should be confidential
- More immediately attainable than goals
- Must be realistic
- Move from general areas to specifics
Goals
Priorities
Six Tips for Writing Proposals
1. When drafting proposals, be as specific as you can be.
2. Submit each proposal on a separate sheet of paper to aid with organization in upcoming sessions.
3. Provide the Article number and title and the specific section(s) proposed for change.
4. When proposing changes to existing language, copy and paste the text you want to change from the old contract. Use the strike through and underline functions to show text to be deleted and text to be added.
5. When proposing a new article or section, write it exactly as you would like it to appear.
6. Always include a rationale with your proposal. Rationale is a requirement of meeting the standards under state law for bargaining in good faith. This may be written or spoken, but easier to prove if it is in writing.
During Bargaining
During Bargaining
Ground Rules for Negotiations
Generally speaking, the fewer ground rules you can make, the better off you will be. Nail down the process you will use but keep your options open.
- Written ground rules are a voluntary subject of negotiations. Get what you can and move on.
- Avoiding bad ground rules is more important than having good ground rules.
Suggested Subjects
Ground Rule "Don'ts"
Listening Skills
Listening is a crucial part of bargaining. It requires a willingness not to do all the talking, acceptance of the person to who you are listening, and making listening an active part of communication. Effective listening begins with an understanding of the principles of how people communicate.
The Seven Critical Principles of Communications
What is listening?
- Selective hearing
- Organizational selectivity
- Distractions
- Understand
- Grasp
- Comprehend
- Preconception
- Act of appraising
- Assumptions
- Does not have to lead to action
- Should imply warmth, receptivity
- Non-judgmental
Tactics for Bargainers
Finalizing Bargaining
Finalizing Bargaining
Information on how to effectively communicate as you near the end of your bargaining period.
Tentative Agreements and Caucus
When both parties have reached an agreement on a specific proposal, or specific portion of a proposal, or on the entire package, they have reached a tentative agreement. If you can get your employer to sign off and date parts of the overall package every time you have reached a TA, it “settles” that portion of the bargaining so that it can’t be used as a hostage in exchange for other items later, unless both sides mutually agree to such an exchange.
If negotiations break down and you go to impasse, items that were TA’d cannot be taken away in imposing the Board’s last best offer. Items that have been TA’d ARE part of the last best offer (LBO).
Caution: Once you TA a portion of the package or the whole package it would be a potential unfair labor practice to try to take back the TA. Therefore, it is imperative to make sure that whatever the team agrees to is something that will be ok with the entire membership.
A caucus is a recess from bargaining at the table. It can serve a variety of purposes: a cooling off period after a heated exchange, a chance for the team and chief negotiator to strategize, share information on what is being seen, heard, or sensed in the room, or to share an idea for a proposal or counter proposal, to consider a proposal from the other side, or as a strategy to give the other side a chance to think or to second-guess themselves, or to second-guess you. A caucus can be called by either side. They should be used as necessary, but as sparingly as possible. You may set a ground rule regarding the length of time or number of caucuses to be allowed, but avoid that if you can agree to keep them to a reasonable length.
SDCL 3-8-2. ...The negotiations by the governmental agency or its designated representatives and the employee organization or its designated representatives shall be conducted in good faith. Such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession but shall require a statement of rationale for any position taken by either party in negotiations...
Requirement that the parties to a contract (such as a collective bargaining agreement) regularly meet and discuss with a willingness to reach an accord on proposed new contract terms. It is an unfair labor practice under SDCL 3-18-3.1 and 3.2 for an employer or employee to refuse to negotiate collectively in good faith.
"Hard bargaining'(taking a strong position on an issue) does not violate the laws, but surface bargaining (meeting and merely going through the motions of negotiations with no intent of reaching an agreement) or a "take-it-or-, leave-it" approach would constitute “bad-faith bargaining” in violation of the law. Additional examples of bad-faith bargaining include refusing to meet, delaying meetings, or failing to give the chief negotiator sufficient authority to make agreements. -Such violations would prompt a ULP.
Impasse, Conciliation, Fact Finding, Imposition, and Unfair Labor Practices
Sometimes, parties are unable to reach an agreement, at least on some issues. When this happens, the parties may continue to bargain to try to resolve the issue. Or, either party may declare an impasse, signaling an end to bargaining. This sets in motion a series of possibilities. After reading through the process described below, many conclude that it simply isn’t worth all the effort if, in the end, the district can simply force its will on the association members. It’s important to understand that this is a process of trying to change behavior and it can sometimes take years because the events that have led to this point have also taken years of built-up frustration. Your local needs to be ready and up to the challenge. If you don’t have long-term support for what might be a long-term process, you may need to work with your UD to organize around this issue and build support for the fight before you jump in head-first. Reasons for seeking this process include:
- Making a statement that members are tired of the way they are being treated. It makes the members feel better because they have taken a stand.
- Trying to change board member attitudes by changing public opinion through the meda generated around this process.
- Trying to change board member actions by developing an aversion to the combative nature of tthe impasse process.
Bargaining Extras
Bargaining Extras
History
Bargaining history is important. It is not a good idea to propose a piece of language and then withdraw it immediately without trying to bargain. It is also not always a good idea to clarify language when there is a positive past practice. The primary reason is to preserve the history.
Example: The contract is silent about step relationships in the bereavement leave article, but the association has always believed step relationships were fully included. Proposing the step relationship in an initial proposal may confirm you believe the language was not clear and that step relationships were not included. Not only does this have implications for bargaining; it can be very damaging to a grievance case.
Research
Good research is the lifeblood of good negotiating. Incomplete, superficial or inaccurate research can lead to disastrous results at the bargaining table.
Not only does poor quality research undermine the confidence of the negotiating team, it can also lead to the defeat of the negotiating team, it can also lead to the defeat of major proposals or bargaining issues.
Example: The Association has submitted a proposal on class size, but after accepting the proposal finds the research upon which the proposal is based is faulty or inaccurate. This could results in the elimination several employees' jobs. Also, the acute embarrassment which this would cause the negotiating team would probably impair the functional effectiveness of the team throughout the negotiations.
Downloads
Use Your Educator Voice.