Bargaining Models

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