Rubber Rooms and Collective Bargaining
14-13. Labor-management negotiations might be characterized as more distributive than integrative. Why do you think this is the case? What, if anything, would you do about it?
Myriads of reasons exist to justify why labor-management negotiations are considered to be more distributive in nature than integrative. Firstly, distributive bargaining is a form of negotiation that endeavors to divide fixed resources, consequently resulting in a win-lose situation (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Markedly, labor unions are tasked with the responsibility of representing workers, including negotiating for the increase in their salaries. One of the overarching tasks of the labor association is to negotiate over the wages of the employees. The money that is set aside is considered as a fixed pie (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Seemingly, the core objective of the labor union representatives is to get as much money as they can for their workers from the various organizations that have employed them. On the other hand, the firm’s management will try to recompense them as little as possible. Thus, the parties have opposing interests. All these are bargaining characteristics of distributive negotiation.
Concerning the latter part of the question, I would prefer adopting the integrative bargaining strategy where both parties would reach a win-win situation. This would be achieved through sharing ideas, which would help to satisfy the interests of both parties. Thus, since the interests are congruent, both sides would end up winning in some areas, and therefore, no party would feel defeated. What is more, the relationship between the parties would be fostered, and hence, it would be long-lasting.
14-14. If unions have negotiated unreasonable agreements, what responsibility does management or the administration bear for agreeing to these terms? Why do you think they agreed?
If the negotiation involving the union representatives and the management results to an unreasonable agreement, the administration will have no choice other than to bear the responsibilities of the outcome of those choices. A perfect example is the case of the California Correctional Peace Offices Association (CCPOA) that reached an agreement that was difficult to sustain (Robbins & Judge, 2019). As alluded, the CCPOA negotiated for the increase of the number of prisons, which in turn resulted in increased expenses for the state. Notably, this government initiative is funded by the citizens through paying taxes. Thus, despite the agreement made by the union being unreasonable, the state administration had the responsibility of ensuring that the long-term agreement was catered for in the financial budget.
I believe that management agreed to unreasonable terms since they had no other choice, especially if the union had issued strike threats if their demands were not met. Thus, the management might not have put into consideration future concerns due to issues that need immediate employees’ attention.
14-15. If you were advising union and management representatives about how to negotiate an agreement, drawing from the concepts in this chapter, what would you tell them?
If I were to advise the management and the union representatives about how to negotiate an agreement, I would encourage both parties always to seek creative solutions to when resolving conflicts. Both parties should give each other a chance to share information. This is a crucial aspect since it would offer a chance for both parties to satisfy their interests (win-win situation) (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Each party should prioritize their grievances and chose their battles wisely. Moreover, they should be aware of the issues that they can compromise, especially if they are not worth being included in the negotiation. Besides, they should share information openly whilst maintaining trust and honesty (Robbins & Judge, 2019). This would ensure that no party would suffer in their long-run relationship. Finally, if they do not reach a consensus, they should consider involving a third party to help them resolve their conflicts (Robbins & Judge, 2019). The mediator should be impartial.