Labor Negotiations Essay

Many times, the process of collective talk terms agreement (CBA) negotiations is referred to as beingness an art. Although it is control by various prod laws and there argon multitudes of theories that claim to have established best practices in the field, e actu solelyy negotiation simply has too many unique variables to consider to ever be approached as anything much(prenominal) than an art. Even in the short span in which new negotiations ar required to overstep an updated contract, too many changing factors on some(prenominal) sides of the table be apt to make the extrapolation of iodine bargaining scenario to the next inefficient and ineffective. in that location is no one-size-fits all approach. What worked best in one character could potentially fail with dire consequences in another.To attempt to define, or stock-still identify a unified component to the process would be futile. People, personalities, economics, demographics, policy and law argon not static, n or are needs, wants, c one timepts, trends or priorities. legerdemain and intimidation during negotiations is commonplace, and unfortunately sometimes holds more relevancy than fact. For these reasons,it is important for weary negotiators to be able to forecast the worst, unless hope to ultimately achieve a best case scenario. The final, ratified contract is employ to both parties, and hopefully in the end, it represents what is best for all involved. There are many potential stakeholders depending on the industry, barely in the case of the community of benignant Ridge, it is the students and that ultimately have the most to lose. This can intimately be forgotten when bargaining teams self-interests take hold.Deciding on the appropriate bargaining techniques and strategies requires a real well-thought out, careful approach. Whatever approach is used has to take into account the past, current and future needs of both parties, and has to be based on an accurate analysis of ex ternal and internal data, as well as governmental considerations. Successful negotiators must be adaptable and flexible in their thought processes and behaviors, and must be willing to compromise as situational needs dictate. As several different personality types compete and interact, even within the confines of one bargaining team, negotiations can be a very daunting process. in all of this is important to keep in mind as we examine and analyze the case of the community of Pleasant Ridge.Bargaining StrategyA bargaining strategy should only if be determined once all of the relevant, factual information has been reviewed. That is not to say a strategy cannot be changed depending on circumstances once negotiations begin, but it is useful to set the tone for negotiations and help insure a mutually understood strategical concept among bargaining team members. Recent labor relations practice has moved away from traditional adversarial bargaining, or zero-sum bargaining, and has focu sed more on interest-based bargaining, or win-win bargaining. According to Cutcher-Gershenfield, A close look at the interest-based experiments in labor relations reveals that adversarial institutional patterns have often been rejected in favor of more collaborative, problem-solving techniques without a full appreciation of the underlying reasons for the establishment of the original institutional patterns. (1996, 323). In theory, kind with interest-based bargaining is presumed to be agreement of the parties to a ratified contract that both can live with (Kearney, 209, 134) not winning in the sense that one partyultimately prevails over the other on any occurrence issue. In the case of Pleasant Ridge, there is no single reason to preclude interest-based bargaining as an effective strategy.As the Pleasant Ridge board of Education ( maturate) and the Pleasant Ridge Classroom T apieceers insure (PRCTA) commence negotiations over a new CBA, it is important to note that both parties are in a relatively good position. From a fiscal standpoint, the school is doing well. scholar enrollment is increasing, local property revenues are increasing and State Revenues are expected to increase for the upcoming school year. While none of these items are guaranteed, barring any unexpected national, state or local semipolitical catastrophes, short-term projections should remain pretty accurate and consistent. This may place the Board at a slight disadvantage during negotiations when considering ability to pay, particularly considering the PRCTA social stations apparent adversarial position. It serves to underscore the richness of the Board to sincerely attempt to negotiate a finalized contract during the premiere steps of the process. In comparing lucres, hours and working conditions, the PRCTA is not far off when it is reviewed against comparable to(predicate) teachers confederations. Even when considering labor markets that are competitive in the pertinacious r un, however, the over-all analysis should include information about employer attributes because labor markets do not adjust instantaneously (Eberts and Stone, 1985, 274).The consequences of ignoring district-specific information are potentially serious, according to Eberts and Stone (1985, 274). To push an employer into economic oblivion as the result of unrealistic contract demands could have disastrous consequences for all involved. While the memberships concerns are very important, they must keep in mind their best interests in finalizing a contract with hardly a(prenominal) to no concessions speedily. It is up to the PRCTA to educate their members on the long term affects their present actions may have. Additionally, in a world of economic uncertainty and increasing demand for education reform, the PRCTA is better suited to act quickly so that commonplace image and political forces have less likelihood of effecting policy change forwards they have a ratified contract. A rat ified contract provides strong protections for union members against ever-changing political forces.Bargaining Position of the Board campaign negotiations can be a strategic nightmare fraught with competing priorities and concerns from every affected player. For the community of Pleasant Ridge, the primary considerations of the Board and the PRCTA during negotiations will predominantly revolve more or less advancing self-interests, whether they impact external stakeholders or not. That is an almost inherent aspect of the process. Public and political sentiment may or may not be secondarily considered, and will certainly be impacted, but those concerns typically do not guide the negotiations process. Kerchner and Koppich argue in their article, Negotiating What Matters Most Collective Bargaining and Student Achievement, that it is in the public interest for teacher unions and school districts to negotiate student achievement goals even though neither may want to do so. (2007). Whi le morally laudable, realistically this will most plausibly never happen outside of the legal environment, and is way beyond the scope of this analysis. Contract length could be the most important protection the Board could achieve.A 2 year contract would be very undecomposed for the Board, because it removes the dangers of devising accurate pecuniary projections too far in the future. It would also allow the Board more flexibility in bargaining positions that are tied to economics because they would not be invested in a lengthy contract should political or economic factors significantly change. Aside from a two year contract, the Board should support a 3% raise the first year of the contract, and a 3% raise the second year, conditioned on the promise of the PRCTA memberships public support for the upcoming millage. This would get the PRCTA membership very close, if not above, a competitive market salary within their own comparable communities at a relatively quick rate, while bolstering the financial position of the Board to be able to employ future contractual raises should the millage be approved. Additionally, the Board will not incur all of the increased cost of implementing the salary increases all in one year, making it more palatable for the school district in general, while not simultaneously rendering the budget unsustainable.The Board should also support agreement to dish out tenure in the 3rd year on the condition of the elimination of the one year wage payout provision. Not only does this achieve comparability within the comparable community context, it serves as a immense future economic win for the Board. In the event layoffs become necessary, the burden of paying out a years salary toany tenured teachers would be an undeniable savings should the school district experience tough economic times. Since decreasing the phase size to 25 would increase the number of teachers required, it would be more fiscally responsible for the board to lea ve this item status quo.The Board could add an amendment allowing for the hiring of teachers aides should the classroom population exceed 25, but it shouldnt be an initial position. If push comes to stuff and this single item becomes a deal-breaker, the Board and the PRCTA could revisit the issue at 27 students, as long as an agreement could be achieved with a provision requiring no additional teachers or classroom space. There is no guarantee that the student population will continue to increase, so agreeing to this item could have causeless financial consequences later. It is never outside the realm of reality that one teachers salary could designate the difference between balancing and not balancing the budget.Reasonable Settlement for the UnionIn determine the reasonableness of a settlement for the PRCTA, several factors should be considered. Typically, wages are at the forefront of union demands, and the fact that the Board is willing to raise salaries to levels above the co mparable communities the PRCTA selected should speak volumes. That alone may be decorous to achieve ratification. In addition, the PRCTA needs to consider the effects of having an justice decide their fate. If the Board is being reasonable in their proposal, there is no reason to chance the final decisions in the hands of an individualistic who may or may not agree with position of the PRCTA. The Board has not requested concessions, comparable wages have been beared, and other positions lean toward the comparable communities of the union. In a fact-finding or arbitrament scenario, the Board would doubtlessly be able to find comparable communities supporting their position. According to Crawford, final offer arbitrations distinguishing feature is that it threatens bargainers with a settlement determined by the relative desirability to the arbitrator of their final offers. This creates incentives for bargainers to move their final offers closer to what they think the arbitrator w ants, even if they are uncertain of his wishes (1981, 207). In the Pleasant Ridge scenario, the position of the Board is more than reasonable, and should ultimately be accepted as such by the PRCTA, rather than advancing to fact-finding or final offerarbitration. Fact-FindingThe consequences of stand are evident in the amount of private and public resources spent on civil litigation, the costs of labor unrest, the psychic and pecuniary wounds of domestic strife, and in clashes among religious, ethnic and regional groups. (Babcock, Lowesenstein, 1997, 326) Should the parties reach impasse and the matter be referred to fact-finding, the Fact-Finder should make a recommendation based on the school districts current and project future financial position (ability to pay), the current political environment as far as public education policy is concerned, and to a lesser extent, should consider the proposals in comparison to those of comparable communities. In making a settlement recommen dation, the Fact-Finder should find the initial position of the Board to be quite consistent with that of the PRCTA, as well as quite generous and reasonable. It is almost certain that a Fact-Finder would agree with the Boards position on wages and tenure.It is reasonable to think that he or she would agree on tenure, but possibly decrease rather than eliminate the year of salary payout, unless they considered a layoff situation a financial hardship. If the Board could successfully present that as a business case, a Fact-Finder may agree. With regard to class size, a three to five student decrease should not present a significant enough business case to cause the school district to absorb an increase in additional breeding salaries and roll-up costs. A Fact-Finder should support that item as remaining status-quo. Final Offer ArbitrationThe board would undoubtedly have to go to arbitration to remove the politics of implementing a contract from their hands should the parties not be a ble to reach a settlement. With two of the board members being labor union members, and three endorsed by the Pleasant Ridge Central Labor Union (PRCLU), not going to arbitration would be political suicide. As demonstrated in previous board elections, two members lost to candidates who were endorsed by the PRCLU, showing the capacity that the PRCLU exhibits. Having a neutral party force a contract on both sides would be the only political out the Board members would have. In a final offer settlement package, it is of the utmost importance that both parties consider the mostdesirable benefits that could be achieved, and tailor the final offer package around those.Prioritization of issues is significant, as well as is reasonableness. In the final offer package, it would be incumbent on the Board to submit lower contractual wage increases, potentially to 2% each year of a biennial contract, with class size and tenure remaining status quo, with the elimination of the one-year wage pay out provision. For the PRCTA, it would be beneficial to package a deal containing a 5 year contract with 2% wage increases for each year of the contract. Considering they really have nothing to lose since concessions arent being considered, they should also incorporate the lessen class size of 25 students, and tenure to reflect the 3 year comparable. Even if the arbitrator sides with the Board, the PRCTA hasnt lost anything besides the one-year payout provision. Likely, that is something that will affect very few of the current members.REFERENCESBabcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse The role of self-serving biases. Advances in behavioral economics, 326. Crawford, V.P. (1981), Arbitration and Conflict Resolution in Labor-Management Bargaining. The American scotch Review. 71(2). Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Third Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. 205-210. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (1996). Bargaining Over How to Bargain in Labor -Management Negotiations. Negotiation journal, 10(4), 323-335. Retrieved on March 22, 2014 from http//onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1994.tb00032.x/abstract. Eberts, R.W. and Stone, J.A. (1985), Wages, Fringe Benefits, and Working Conditions An Analysis of Compensating Differentials. Southern Economic Journal. 52(1). 274-280. Kearney, R.C., Labor Relations in the Public Sector, Fourth Edition. CRC Press. 381. Kerchner, C.T. and Koppich, J.E. (2007). Negotiating What Matters Most Collective Bargaining and Student Achievement. American Journal of Education. 113(3). 349-365. Retrieved on March 22, 2014 from http//www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/512736. Walton, R. E. (1994). Strategic negotiations A theory of change in labor-management relations. Harvard Business Press.