Traditional Bargaining

Traditional Bargaining

• Professional negotiators are used by both parties.
  A term for management and one for labor.
• Formal process used with caucuses and proposal/counter proposal format.
• Large number of issues (over 5) with little or no perspective.
• Conflicts and disagreements are approached from an adult/child perspective.
• Negotiations regarded as necessary evil.
• Everything approached as win/lose situations.
• Process is tedious, lasts month/years with a lot of posturing.
• Often includes mediation and fact-finding, etc.
• Two different reports from two different bargaining groups

Adversarial relations lead to:

• Loud/visible posturing between groups
• Name calling.
• Energy spent on justifying differences.
• Public relations problems from upset organizations, students, parents and community.
• Residual bad feelings left after settlement.

Collaborative Bargaining

• Management and Association work as one team with professional negotiators as consultants to be used if needed.
• Single group with informal process used with joint brainstorming and problem-solving caucuses.
• Generally small number of issues (3-6) working from highest priority.
• Concepts and problems discussed without initial written proposals.
• Conflicts which arise are seen as opportunities for group understanding and problem-solving from an adult/adult perspective.
• Negotiations approached as an on-going opportunity to improve long-term relationships. Everything approached as win/win solutions.
• Once common report from the collaborative bargaining team.
• Process can take many days over many months with working through to consensus.

Cooperative relations lead to:

• Recognition and focus on common goals
• Sense of “team” among participants
• Feelings of goodwill and appreciation among bargaining unit members
• Mutual sense of accomplishment
• Adapted from William Segura and Jerry Stiner (1987)