Bus 305 Collective Bargaining Exercise
Collective Bargaining Exercise
BUS 305 – Industrial Relations
A critical part of industrial relations is the collective bargaining process. As a class, and individually, we have studied the different stages of collective bargaining, their importance and contribution to maintaining amicable relations between the unions representing employees and ther employers. On March 15, 2013, our class had the opportunity of participating in an exercise that simulated the collective bargaining process. Lisa, Mishal, Cole and I were assigned to represent the union side, Solvent Workers’ Union of Canada (C.L.C.).
This report will be a summarization of the collective bargaining process, focusing …show more content…
particularly on the intra-organizational sub process during the pre-negotiation stage and the distributive bargaining sub process during the ‘establishing the negotiating range’ and ‘narrowing the bargaining range’ stages. The collective bargaining structure was that of a ‘single union – single employer’ where one union negotiates with a single employer that operates at a single location.
Our union team prepared for the collective bargaining exercise by reading all available, relatable material and brainstorming during the pre-negotiation stage.
During the week before the actual exercise, the intra-organizational bargaining sub process was clearly evident as it involved the team setting up objectives, developing a prioritized list of demands, and predicting a variety of outcomes. At the same time, we developed unity for the cause and discussed the importance of each issue that was handed out to us. We did not have any trouble at all in setting up our priorities as a team as each member was open to the other’s ideas. All in all, there was a sense of collectiveness during the pre-negotiation stage. We decided upon the objectives of our team, developed a best-case scenario for the union, and also determined what our bottom line would be. We identified the roles of each other in the collective bargaining exercise. Instead of appointing one member as a chief negotiator, we decided to go with equal participation in discussion by the team …show more content…
members.
Another important development during this stage was our decision of leading with an initial proposal that was more than what we really wanted, to leave room for negotiation and reach a collective agreement that would meet all our actual demands. We also disguised our primary objective, obtaining a 3.75% increase in the wages of all employees, which was the most important point for the employees we were representing. We believed that this would allow us to negotiate upon the holidays, and the other bargaining issues. Other components on the union team sheet and the joint fact sheet allowed us to develop our priorities in such a way that if any expectations were left unmet, we would still have met the most important needs of the union and employees. This concluded the intra-organizational sub process within the pre-negotiation stage of our union team.
Once the union team and management teams introduced themselves to the other participants, it was verbally confirmed that each would bargain in good faith. Bargaining in good faith, as our textbook defines, is the “expectation that during the collective bargaining, parties will bargain honestly and with the intention of achieving a collective agreement” (McQuarrie, p.622). Some basic bargaining procedures and processes were then discussed and agreed upon by the two parties. Upon completing the formalities of introduction, the management team took the initiative by inquiring about the union demands. As had been planned during the pre-negotiation stage, our team presented mostly slightly inflated demands, which included a 5% wage increase and a ten-day increase in paid holidays. As expected, the management team then countered with a very low offer for wage increase and paid holidays.
In this ‘establishing the negotiating range’ stage, we had believed that the management would also present some of its demands that might be of importance to them such as installation of the fume extractor plant or their right to fire workers at free will, which were of moderate or low priority to us. We had imagined these items to facilitate integrative bargaining, in which “both sides try to resolve issues by identifying common interests and thereby influencing joint gain” (McQuarrie, p.317). However, the management was unwilling to reveal any information regarding the purchase of a fume extractor or the expansion of the cafeteria or sanitary facilities. Our team, wanting to use our time efficiently, and keeping in mind our desire to bargain in good faith, presented our preferences regarding the cafeteria and sanitary facilities, with $50,000 allotted to the two areas. On these two issues we were able to engage in distributive bargaining, in which “two sides compete with one another over the division of limited resources” (McQuarrie, p.317).
By this time in the exercise we had taken a couple of caucuses, and although we were bargaining in good faith I remember telling my team, “I have a feeling that they have more money, we just have to bring it out.” Although we were all actively participating in the exercise, nobody was feeling frustrated or unable to continue bargaining.
There was a sense of disbelief, and we were truly shocked by the management’s low offers pertaining to the wage increase and paid vacation days. Therefore, we decided that we would stick to our demands, and this led to distributive bargaining settling in upon the ‘establishing the negotiating range’ stage. Classic signs of distributive bargaining began to occur in the ‘narrowing the bargaining range’ stage. With the management team not budging too much from their initial offers, as both parties were attempting to maximize their own gains. It became apparent that the issue at hand was the budget itself. Instead of divulging into the terms of bargaining, both parties were bargaining the budget at hand. While our team believed the figure to be closer to the $300,000 mark, a figure estimated by our sources, and management not moving too far from their initial offer, we began getting closer to a final offer. Like typical distributive bargaining though, there was not a single spokesperson for each side (McQuarrie, p.321), our bargaining activity was turning into more of a search to see how much money management was willing or able to spend, and
with our union team finding the managements offers ridiculous. Anti-trust, which is a characteristic of distributive bargaining, began settling as the union team questioned the good faith of the management team debated the idea of Boulwarism, a bargaining tactic of “presenting a single offer and refusing to negotiate any further” (McQuarrie, p.622). I guess this situation can also be related to attitudinal structuring, since both teams were beginning to develop anti-trust attitudes to each other. Even though this was the first time we had come across each other, attitudinal structuring, which essentially has everything to do with previous relations between the two parties, can be expected to impact any future bargaining sessions we might have with the same party, developing a lack of trust and emotional hostility towards each other. Distributive bargaining continued for a major chunk of the time we had for collective bargaining. I recognized and admired the unity in the management team as neither budged from their budget even though our union team, which was equally unified, was pressurizing them to quite an extent. Countless arguments continued as the union team presented offers constantly rejected by the management and vice versa. It became evident creating a common ground between the two teams was needed before a strike or lockout erupted.
As the clock continued to tick, the time for collective bargaining was slowly disappearing. This brought about seriousness on both sides of the table, which facilitated bargaining regarding the budget, and other issues being negotiated. Rather than narrowing the bargaining range, it was more characterized by widening of the managements budget. As the onset of the crisis stage took place, the union team enjoyed a sense of satisfaction that at least, it had been successful in increasing the management’s budget, however, a lot was still to be discussed. Eventually, it was a combination of substitutions and compromises on each party’s behalf, which are the characteristics of integrative bargaining. Therefore, unlike distributive bargaining, which played a greater role in the previous stage; integrative bargaining was more prevalent in this stage.
Eventually, both teams agreed upon the following terms:
3.75% wage increase for all employees.
Additional 3 days to the current 2 weeks of paid vacation for current employees. New workers would receive only 2 weeks of paid vacation
The installation of a $50,000 fume extractor plant.
Sanitation improvements at the plant that must be completed before the end of the 4-year collective agreement.
The implementation of a 90-day probation period for new workers.
Currently employees will be contracted, and as such will be re-contracted prior to hiring new workers.
The creation and implementation of an organizational committee that will deal with gross misconduct in an appropriate manner.
In the concluding stage of ratification, it was evident that both teams were happy to finally reach a collective agreement, which overpowered any hostility we felt against each other. The management team was happy because they had arrived at a deal that they thought was good for them. They also revealed that they truly did have a limited budget and that our demands greatly surpassed said budget. We on the union team were fairly satisfied with the result as we felt we had succeed in providing the employees with their most important needs
Looking back, I found the collective bargaining exercise extremely helpful in understanding the doubts, frustrations, and victories that can be experience during this process. I found stage of narrowing the bargaining range very interesting as it can set up the mood of the rest of the bargaining process. Bargaining in good faith was also very crucial to understand that although management and unions can be seen as opposing side, they must come together and co-operate with each other in order to reach a collective agreement.
References:
McQuarrie, F. A. (2007). Industrial Relations in Canada. John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd.
BUS 305 – Industrial Relations
A critical part of industrial relations is the collective bargaining process. As a class, and individually, we have studied the different stages of collective bargaining, their importance and contribution to maintaining amicable relations between the unions representing employees and ther employers. On March 15, 2013, our class had the opportunity of participating in an exercise that simulated the collective bargaining process. Lisa, Mishal, Cole and I were assigned to represent the union side, Solvent Workers’ Union of Canada (C.L.C.).
This report will be a summarization of the collective bargaining process, focusing …show more content…
particularly on the intra-organizational sub process during the pre-negotiation stage and the distributive bargaining sub process during the ‘establishing the negotiating range’ and ‘narrowing the bargaining range’ stages. The collective bargaining structure was that of a ‘single union – single employer’ where one union negotiates with a single employer that operates at a single location.
Our union team prepared for the collective bargaining exercise by reading all available, relatable material and brainstorming during the pre-negotiation stage.
During the week before the actual exercise, the intra-organizational bargaining sub process was clearly evident as it involved the team setting up objectives, developing a prioritized list of demands, and predicting a variety of outcomes. At the same time, we developed unity for the cause and discussed the importance of each issue that was handed out to us. We did not have any trouble at all in setting up our priorities as a team as each member was open to the other’s ideas. All in all, there was a sense of collectiveness during the pre-negotiation stage. We decided upon the objectives of our team, developed a best-case scenario for the union, and also determined what our bottom line would be. We identified the roles of each other in the collective bargaining exercise. Instead of appointing one member as a chief negotiator, we decided to go with equal participation in discussion by the team …show more content…
members.
Another important development during this stage was our decision of leading with an initial proposal that was more than what we really wanted, to leave room for negotiation and reach a collective agreement that would meet all our actual demands. We also disguised our primary objective, obtaining a 3.75% increase in the wages of all employees, which was the most important point for the employees we were representing. We believed that this would allow us to negotiate upon the holidays, and the other bargaining issues. Other components on the union team sheet and the joint fact sheet allowed us to develop our priorities in such a way that if any expectations were left unmet, we would still have met the most important needs of the union and employees. This concluded the intra-organizational sub process within the pre-negotiation stage of our union team.
Once the union team and management teams introduced themselves to the other participants, it was verbally confirmed that each would bargain in good faith. Bargaining in good faith, as our textbook defines, is the “expectation that during the collective bargaining, parties will bargain honestly and with the intention of achieving a collective agreement” (McQuarrie, p.622). Some basic bargaining procedures and processes were then discussed and agreed upon by the two parties. Upon completing the formalities of introduction, the management team took the initiative by inquiring about the union demands. As had been planned during the pre-negotiation stage, our team presented mostly slightly inflated demands, which included a 5% wage increase and a ten-day increase in paid holidays. As expected, the management team then countered with a very low offer for wage increase and paid holidays.
In this ‘establishing the negotiating range’ stage, we had believed that the management would also present some of its demands that might be of importance to them such as installation of the fume extractor plant or their right to fire workers at free will, which were of moderate or low priority to us. We had imagined these items to facilitate integrative bargaining, in which “both sides try to resolve issues by identifying common interests and thereby influencing joint gain” (McQuarrie, p.317). However, the management was unwilling to reveal any information regarding the purchase of a fume extractor or the expansion of the cafeteria or sanitary facilities. Our team, wanting to use our time efficiently, and keeping in mind our desire to bargain in good faith, presented our preferences regarding the cafeteria and sanitary facilities, with $50,000 allotted to the two areas. On these two issues we were able to engage in distributive bargaining, in which “two sides compete with one another over the division of limited resources” (McQuarrie, p.317).
By this time in the exercise we had taken a couple of caucuses, and although we were bargaining in good faith I remember telling my team, “I have a feeling that they have more money, we just have to bring it out.” Although we were all actively participating in the exercise, nobody was feeling frustrated or unable to continue bargaining.
There was a sense of disbelief, and we were truly shocked by the management’s low offers pertaining to the wage increase and paid vacation days. Therefore, we decided that we would stick to our demands, and this led to distributive bargaining settling in upon the ‘establishing the negotiating range’ stage. Classic signs of distributive bargaining began to occur in the ‘narrowing the bargaining range’ stage. With the management team not budging too much from their initial offers, as both parties were attempting to maximize their own gains. It became apparent that the issue at hand was the budget itself. Instead of divulging into the terms of bargaining, both parties were bargaining the budget at hand. While our team believed the figure to be closer to the $300,000 mark, a figure estimated by our sources, and management not moving too far from their initial offer, we began getting closer to a final offer. Like typical distributive bargaining though, there was not a single spokesperson for each side (McQuarrie, p.321), our bargaining activity was turning into more of a search to see how much money management was willing or able to spend, and
with our union team finding the managements offers ridiculous. Anti-trust, which is a characteristic of distributive bargaining, began settling as the union team questioned the good faith of the management team debated the idea of Boulwarism, a bargaining tactic of “presenting a single offer and refusing to negotiate any further” (McQuarrie, p.622). I guess this situation can also be related to attitudinal structuring, since both teams were beginning to develop anti-trust attitudes to each other. Even though this was the first time we had come across each other, attitudinal structuring, which essentially has everything to do with previous relations between the two parties, can be expected to impact any future bargaining sessions we might have with the same party, developing a lack of trust and emotional hostility towards each other. Distributive bargaining continued for a major chunk of the time we had for collective bargaining. I recognized and admired the unity in the management team as neither budged from their budget even though our union team, which was equally unified, was pressurizing them to quite an extent. Countless arguments continued as the union team presented offers constantly rejected by the management and vice versa. It became evident creating a common ground between the two teams was needed before a strike or lockout erupted.
As the clock continued to tick, the time for collective bargaining was slowly disappearing. This brought about seriousness on both sides of the table, which facilitated bargaining regarding the budget, and other issues being negotiated. Rather than narrowing the bargaining range, it was more characterized by widening of the managements budget. As the onset of the crisis stage took place, the union team enjoyed a sense of satisfaction that at least, it had been successful in increasing the management’s budget, however, a lot was still to be discussed. Eventually, it was a combination of substitutions and compromises on each party’s behalf, which are the characteristics of integrative bargaining. Therefore, unlike distributive bargaining, which played a greater role in the previous stage; integrative bargaining was more prevalent in this stage.
Eventually, both teams agreed upon the following terms:
3.75% wage increase for all employees.
Additional 3 days to the current 2 weeks of paid vacation for current employees. New workers would receive only 2 weeks of paid vacation
The installation of a $50,000 fume extractor plant.
Sanitation improvements at the plant that must be completed before the end of the 4-year collective agreement.
The implementation of a 90-day probation period for new workers.
Currently employees will be contracted, and as such will be re-contracted prior to hiring new workers.
The creation and implementation of an organizational committee that will deal with gross misconduct in an appropriate manner.
In the concluding stage of ratification, it was evident that both teams were happy to finally reach a collective agreement, which overpowered any hostility we felt against each other. The management team was happy because they had arrived at a deal that they thought was good for them. They also revealed that they truly did have a limited budget and that our demands greatly surpassed said budget. We on the union team were fairly satisfied with the result as we felt we had succeed in providing the employees with their most important needs
Looking back, I found the collective bargaining exercise extremely helpful in understanding the doubts, frustrations, and victories that can be experience during this process. I found stage of narrowing the bargaining range very interesting as it can set up the mood of the rest of the bargaining process. Bargaining in good faith was also very crucial to understand that although management and unions can be seen as opposing side, they must come together and co-operate with each other in order to reach a collective agreement.
References:
McQuarrie, F. A. (2007). Industrial Relations in Canada. John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd.