Bargaining Models

Conventional:

Characterized by opposing “positions” on issues, compromises, formal nature, more confrontational

PROS

a. Time-tested
b. Well-defined
c. Easier to hide bottom line
d. Preserves roles on skills of participants
e. Dependent on skills of players

CONS

a. Tends to become “game”
b. Confrontational
c. Produces “winners” and “losers”
d. Dependent on skills of players

Collaborative/Win-Win/Interest Based:

Approach which utilizes “problem solving” methods to come to agreement.

PROS

a. Requires trust of parties
b. Bases decisions on research vs. emotions
c. Usually attempted only with outside training for both parties
d. Can eliminate confrontation
e. Can work well for limited areas of bargaining

CONS

a. Requires trust of parties
b. Extremely dangerous if not handled correctly
c. Requires agreement on “problem” – often disadvantaging the union
d. Bottom lines are stretched
e. Can create confrontation if/when process is abandoned
f. Management always has an “ace” regarding cost
g. Does not work for benefit bargaining
h. Requires oversight by trainers
i. Eliminates team communication
j. Supersedes local goals

Target-Specific: 

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

a. More narrowly focused
b. More positive approach
c. Requires mutual training/trust
d. Allows for more varied approach to different issues
e. Can limit the scope
f. Eliminates positioning
g. Total disclosure of information

CONS

a. Process vs. product
b. Co-opting can occur
c. Relationship becomes more important than the contract
d. Requires trust
e. Supersedes local goals
f. Requires oversight by trainers
g. No side-bars

Expedited: 

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

a. Works will when there are few contested issues
b. Can be helpful as a successor to a difficult round of negotiations
c. Generally limits the problems to be faced
d. Eliminates board “shotgun” approach
e. Gets to the real issues
f. Can result in fast settlement
g. Acts to “cut the BS”

CONS

a. Can prematurely expose your bottom line
b. Priorities are revealed
c. Timetable can be limiting on creativity
d. Timetable can cause impasse
e. Eliminates ability to pick up “peripheral” issues
f. Can actually lengthen bargaining time
g. Can force hasty decisions

Package Proposals:

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

a. Allows the bargainer to offer value for value
b. Restricts the respondent to issues of your choice
c. Allows the bargainer to “test the waters”
d. Gives flexibility to the proposing party
e. Aids in avoiding impasse
f. Controls the flow
g. Can pull in peripheral issues

CONS

a. Can be too restrictive
b. May result in forcing other party into rejecting issues that they otherwise might agree to
c. When overused, becomes meaningless
d. Can cause “gotcha’s”
e. May cause board to reply in kind, tying basics (salary, fringes) into agreement on rollbacks

One on One/Extended Sidebar: 

This approach is generally accomplished by the spokespersons meeting with the authority to TA.

PROS

a. Eliminates grandstanding
b. Encourages frank exchange
c. Easier to explore options
d. Can/should be off-the record unless successful
e. Requires trust
f. Ca cut to the chase
g. Usually quieter

CONS

a. “Working without a net”
b. Requires trust
c. Can lead to internal problems/mistrust on team
d. “Meeting of the minds” difficult to prove
e. Misunderstanding may not surface until later

Simple Contract Extension:

An even simpler form of expedited bargaining. In this format, usually only salary is discussed, everything else remaining status-quo.

PROS

a. Eliminates benefit bargaining
b. Eliminates rollback requests
c. Focuses on ability to pay
d. Quick resolution
e. Works will during bond elections, etc.

CONS

a. Eliminates all other issues
b. Can polarize parties
c. Needs “opt out” clause
d. Can cause unrealistic expectations
e. Can result in ignorance of important issues
f. May be contrary to member priorities