Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the use of interest‐based bargaining as opposed to traditional adversarial bargaining when negotiating collective agreements in unionized libraries.

This paper explores existing theory, research and practice on the use of interest‐based bargaining in labor negotiations. It accomplishes this goal through a review of relevant literature and case studies, concentrating on practical application in a typical library labor environment. Two specific implementation models are described and the benefits and limitations of interest‐based bargaining are presented, supported by evidence from multiple examples.

Interest‐based bargaining offers significant benefits to organizations that adopt this approach when negotiating collective agreements, including improved working relationships between management and workers and longer term solutions to problems and issues. Library managers in unionized libraries could realize these benefits by implementing interest‐based bargaining strategies in coordination with a supportive union.

There is very little literature dealing with interest‐based bargaining in a library environment, so extrapolations from other industry examples have been used to illustrate the strengths of this approach.

Given the potential benefits of using collaborative negotiation approaches, and the increasing adoption rate in other labor industries including comparable public sector organizations, libraries have much to gain by investigating this option as either an alternative or an adjunct to traditional adversarial collective bargaining.

The paper presents a solid case for exploring the use of interest‐based bargaining in a library context.

The purpose of this paper is to draw on previous research and propose a framework for evaluating interest‐based bargaining (IBB) around three criteria: efficient, amicable and wise, where mutual gains are not self‐evident.

This paper reviews both survey and case study research on IBB in the USA and Canada. Based on trends discerned in the data, the paper uses the three criteria to present research and propositions on evaluating the IBB process.

IBB connects front stage acts by negotiators during collective bargaining with backstage environments and fosters collaboration hinging on dialogue across competing values involving online and offline processes during negotiations. Where mutual gains are not self evident, there these findings underpin criteria for evaluating the IBB process’s potential to serve enduring values of industrial democracy and employee voice and the newer values of collaboration and partnership in strategic decision making.

The amicable criterion predisposes the framework favorably towards amicable relations, which creates a favorable bias within the framework towards the IBB process when compared to other bargaining processes. There is a need for updated quantitative data on IBB trends at a national level, similar to the three FMCS surveys last reported in 2004, and a need for institutional linkages that will increase case study research on IBB, similar to recent research on Kaiser Permanente.

Negotiators, trainers and policy makers will gain from the criteria listed here to evaluate IBB where mutual gains are not self‐evident.

The framework presented in the paper advances an original framework to evaluate IBB.

The purpose of this article is to understand better how specific conditions such as the degree of trust developed from previous negotiations, the level of expertise/style demonstrated by the negotiators, the clarity of the bargaining issues and the ability of facilitators to use problem solving‐based techniques affect the success of an integrative collective bargaining process.

The researchers propose that cooperation may be affected by specific conditions. These key conditions were used in the analysis of two Canadian public sector collective bargaining experiences where two of the authors served as consultants and lead negotiators within the British Columbia public sector.

Based on the analysis of two public sector collective bargaining experiences, it is suggested that ensuring the clarity of the bargaining issues was an important catalyst in moving the bargaining agenda forward. In addition, the previous negotiations and the expertise/style of the negotiators were important in the fragile level of trust which developed. No one condition was responsible for the success of collective bargaining. Rather, various conditions are jointly important and supportive to the overall success of the collective bargaining process.

As a limitation, this research is exploratory in nature and cannot be generalized to other collective bargaining situations. However, the case studies and its subsequent analysis are intended to provide a template for expanded study of collective bargaining and the mutual gain process by suggesting that the process (medium) surrounding the intervention is as important as the intervention itself.

For practitioners, particularly labor relation specialists, the article provides a suite of conditions and practical strategies that may influence the cooperative nature of bargaining within their respective organization.

This case study paper provides a conceptual framework for both scholars and practitioners to deconstruct and analyze inter‐organizational dynamics within a collective bargaining process.

Collective bargaining significantly impacts education policies, especially at the school district level. Its reach extends to consequential issues such as teacher evaluation and pay, to name a few. Because of this close link, education stakeholders disagree about the role of bargaining in education. On the one hand, some argue for the complete elimination of bargaining rights of teachers. This, according to some, will allow administrators the freedom to implement necessary reforms without the obligation to negotiate with unions. On the other hand, some note that collective bargaining provides a channel for teachers to voice their expertise in education. Under this view, bargaining is an essential component of advancing policy initiatives. Regardless, because collective bargaining is a creature of state statute, any modifications to those rights must occur by operation of law. Put another way, the law concerning collective bargaining plays a pivotal role in moderating the influence of unions and administrators regarding education policy. Given this interrelationship, a thorough exploration of the issue is warranted. Accordingly, this chapter will: (1) discuss the historical and legal framework of collective bargaining in public education; (2) highlight the ongoing debate regarding the appropriate role, if any, of it (and unions) in education policies; (3) identify significant changes to collective bargaining statutes that have occurred or have been proposed; (4) suggest recommendations to policymakers and leaders that will assist them in understanding both the potential and the limits of collective bargaining in improving schools.

This chapter addresses a practical industrial relations problem, namely the absence of a monitoring framework to assess and improve labor–management relations in organizations. The authors argue that assessing and improving organizational labor relations requires attention to both vertical and horizontal alignments of labor relations institutions and practices. Vertical alignment refers to the internal consistency across the strategic, functional, and workplace levels noted by Kochan, Katz, and McKersie in their strategic choice framework (1986). Drawing on two “best practice” labor relations cases, Saturn and Kaiser Permanente as well as two original case studies of healthcare organizations, the authors develop the notion of horizontal alignment, i.e., the internal consistency across labor relations processes, substantive issues, and outcomes.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the genesis, operation, and effects of a dispute resolution body known as the National Implementation Body (NIB). The NIB was established by employers, unions, and the State in Ireland and was active between 2000 and 2009. It recorded significant success in resolving major disputes. A distinctive feature of the NIB was its networked character: the body involved key employer and union leaders and senior public servants, who exerted informal pressure on the parties in dispute to reach a settlement either within the NIB process itself or in the State’s mainstream dispute resolution agencies.

The research draws on case studies of disputes and interviews with key members of the NIB.

The findings reveal how the NIB mobilized networks to resolve a series of major disputes that threatened to derail national pay agreements or cause significant economic disruption.

The chapter examines the operation of networked dispute resolution in detail and considers the wider implications of networked dispute resolution in both Continental European and other Anglo-American countries.

Despite the volumes that have been written on America's correctional crisis – the peerless incarceration rate, disproportionate confinement of minority group members and democratically untenable policies of disenfranchisement of people with felony convictions – criminal justice policy has changed little within the past decade or more. An important voice has been left out of these correctional policy formulations – that of prisoners. This paper proposes convict labor unions as one way to address this issue. It utilizes the United States Supreme Court majority's arguments in Jones v. North Carolina to assess the feasibility of inmate labor unions in light of current federal, state and local institutional operations; and provides a very tentative outline of how a prisoners’ labor union could be structured and function – exploring the potential democratic ramifications of such unions for corrections and in broader social policy.

The nature of the negotiated outcomes of the eight issues of the Dayton Peace Agreement was studied in terms of their integrative and distributive aspects. In cases where integrative elements were found, further analysis was conducted by concentrating on Pruitt's five types of integrative solutions: expanding the pie, cost cutting, non‐specific compensation, logrolling, and bridging. The results showed that real world international negotiations can arrive at integrative agreements even when they involve redistribution of resources (in this case the redistribution of former Yugoslavia). Another conclusion was that an agreement can consist of several distributive outcomes and several integrative outcomes produced by different kinds of mechanisms. Similarly, in single issues more than one mechanism can be used simultaneously. Some distributive bargaining was needed in order to determine how much compensation was required. Finally, each integrative formula had some distributive aspects as well.

This research investigates the issues of concern for American film and television (TV) unions, the features of issues, whether issues are threats, opportunities or mixed evaluations, and unions' distributive or integrative approaches to issues (Walton and McKersie, 1965).

The first author interviewed 25 union leaders and used thematic analysis to identify issue characteristics and evaluations of issues as threats, opportunities or mixed. Using language analysis, the authors then connected these evaluations to integrative or distributive approaches.

The findings revealed three larger issues of concern (positioning the union and jurisdiction, shifting patterns of risk and negotiating and enforcing contracts) and five characteristics (locus, boundary, manageability, predictability and scope). These characteristics then determined how interviewees viewed issues as threats, opportunities or mixed evaluations. Three characteristics grouped together to form threats: external locus, indistinct boundaries and low manageability. Indistinct boundaries contributed to assessments of issues as mixed. These issue types, characteristics and interpretations revealed a metaphorical above- and below-the-line differentiation among film and TV unions based on the members continued ownership of their work. With one exception – BTL unions on positioning union and jurisdiction – leaders' language reflected distributive approaches to issues.

This study delves deeper into Walton and McKersie's (1965) classical two-part classification of issues by adding a typology of characteristics and operational definitions to aid in identifying threats, opportunities and mixed evaluations through the novel use of issue analysis in industrial relations.

The purpose of the paper is to call for research on collaboration versus traditional bargaining in labor‐management relationships.

The author draws on his own experience as a union leader involved in conflict resolution.

Research into the area of collaboration versus traditional bargaining in labor‐management relationships would be beneficial.

Research in the area outlined by the author could be helpful to key decision‐makers.