Annual Conference of Finnish Association for Administrative Studies

1
Strategic Choices in Collective Bargaining in
the U.S. 1998-2006

• Annual Conference of Finnish Association for
  Administrative Studies
• 2006

2
Collective Bargaining in the U.S.

• Mostly in traditional industry and low-paid
  service sector
• Unionization (Private sector under 10 , Public
  Sector 35 )
• Strong legal background in regulation (NLRA etc.)
• Labor agreements can also be negotiated outside
  collective bargaining i.e. individual bargaining

3
Negotiation Outcomes

• Substantive terms
• Wages benefits
• Work rules
• Employment security
• Social contracts (also referred to as
  psychological contracts)
• Compliance/containment
• Commitment/cooperation
• Commitment/containment

4
Theory of Strategic Negotiations (Walton
Cutcher-Gershenfeld McKersie 1994)

Negotiation Process Forcing strategy Fostering strategy
Bargaining Distributive Integrative
Shaping intergroup attitudes Heighten neg. Intergroup attitudes Form pos. intergroup attitudes
Managing internal differences Promote solidarity (phase of reaching agreement) Seek consensus (selling the deal) Promote broad consensus constructive use of differences in both own and other party
5
-Divided into two negotiation strategies
in collective bargaining Forcing and fostering ?
Although the employer can also use escape as a
strategy (Walton et al 1994)-Critique on lack
of mixed models (Fells 1998)-As a compromise
Mutual Gains Bargaining (Kochan Osterman
1994)
Theory of Strategic Negotiations Its Critiques

6
Qualitative Comparative Analysis (Ragin 1989
2000)

• Uses Boolean algebra to implement principles of
  comparison
• By formalizing the logic of qualitative analysis,
  QCA makes it possible to bring the logic and
  empirical intensity of qualitative approaches to
  studies that embrace more than a handful of cases
  
• The data matrix is reformulated as a "truth
  table" and reduced in a way that parallels the
  minimization
• With Crisp Sets, only values 0 1 allowed With
  Fuzzy Sets all values between 0 1 allowed

7
The Cases

• Ten cases analysed
• (five from public and five from private
  sector)
• 1) United Parcel Service Vs. United Brotherhood
  of Teamsters
• 2) California State University Vs. California
  Faculty Association
• 3) General Motors Vs. United Auto Workers
• 4) Contract Cleaners Association Vs. Service
  Employees International Union
• 5) National Basketball Association Vs. National
  Basketball Players Ass.
• 6) New York City Vs. Uniformed Firefighters
  Association
• 7) Minnesota State Vs. Minnesota Nurses
  Association
• 8) Federal Aviation Agency Vs. Professional Air
  Traffic Controllers Org.
• 9) BF Goodrich Tires Vs. United Steel Workers
• 10) Pittsburgh Board of Public Education Vs.
  Pittsburgh Fed. of Teachers

8
Strategic Pairings
CASE Forcing (Employer) Forcing (Employee) Fostering (Employer) Fostering (Employee) Escape (Employer) RESULT
1 1 0 0 1 0 1
2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0
3 0 0 1 0 1 0
4 1 1 0 0 0 1
5 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0
6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0.5
7 0 0 1 1 0 0.5
8 1 1 0 0 0 0
9 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 1
10 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 1
S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise
9
Connection between Negotiation Strategy and
Negotiated Result

• Result S1 dependent on employee Forcing in cases
  where employer is not Forcing
• When employer is Forcing result is S0 regardless
  of employees strategy
• Exception in Forcing-Forcing results can go
  either way
• Forcing can not lead to S0.5

10
Background Variables (Employee)
CASE Unity Economic resources Campaigning Negative previous experiences RESULT
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 0 0 1 0
3 1 1 0 1 0
4 1 0 1 1 1
5 1 1 0 0 0
6 1 0 1 1 0.5
7 1 0 1 1 0.5
8 1 0 1 1 0
9 0 0 0 1 1
10 0 0 0 1 1
S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise
11
Background Variables (Employer)
CASE Transferability of production Costs of work stoppages Replaceability of workers External pressure RESULT
1 0 1 1 0 1
2 0 0 0 1 0
3 1 1 1 1 0
4 0 1 1 1 1
5 0 1 0 1 0
6 0 1 0 1 0.5
7 0 1 1 1 0.5
8 0 1 1 1 0
9 1 1 1 1 1
10 0 1 0 0 1
S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise S1 Employee winning S0 Employer winning S0.5 Compromise
12
Connection Between Background Variables and
Negotiated Result

• Common for result S1 negative previous
  experiences (employee) potential costs of work
  stoppages
• Common for result S0 unity (employee) external
  pressure (employer)
• Common for result S0.5 unity campaigning neg.
  previous experiences (employee) costs of work
  stoppage external pressure (employer)