Collective Bargaining Case Study

Collective Bargaining Case Study

Introduction

The following exercise answers a series of questions pertaining to collective bargaining as exemplified in a case study of Sunbelt City whose city council is having negotiations with the union that cares for the welfare of its police officers, Police Benevolence Association (PBA).

Question 1: What was the relationship like between city management and the unions? Were there any problems with this relationship? The relationship between city management and the unions is generally frosty. This is because they keep pulling in different directions in the different decisions that the city management has to make. The unions involved here are those that have been formed by public servants such as police officers as well as employees who are drawn from the department of solid waste and public works. The problem with this relationship is that the city management has intentions of cutting its costs of operation by minimizing the money it spends on the employees represented by these unions. The unions on the other hand are unwilling to yield to any reduction in the members’ remunerations and workforce numbers. The fact that the city management has an upper hand further strains this relationship as some of the options it brings to the table are more of retaliatory as they seem to almost intend to ‘punish’ the workers for disagreeing. These contentious options include privatization of these services and this implies the outsourcing of these services to private enterprises.

Question 2: What was the collective bargaining process like? What was effective in this process? What should have been done differently?

The collective bargaining process was difficult as neither side was willing to cede any ground with respect to the matter of cost reduction measures by the council. The council representative went to the negotiation table with the proposal of a two tiered contract that would be more demanding on new employees. The option of privatization was also presented strongly with backing facts. The Union on the other hand would hear none of this and resorted to the use of public opinion as a bargaining chip. The two sides’ respective weapons were privatization and public opinion of the council and union respectively.

Hard bargaining was not effective in this process because it led to a stalemate in which both parties were hesitant to compromise on their positions. To achieve a different result, the council representative would have proposed early retirement for some of the senior officials. In this scenario the city council’s burden would only be to convince the public of the integrity of the city’s security apparatus. The fact that the ramifications of this options were fewest makes it the least controversial option.

Question 3: Was hard bargaining the best choice in this situation? Why? Were there any other options that could have been considered?

Hard bargaining was the best choice in this situation. In light of the fact that the unions went ahead to use public sympathies to argue their cause. This means that soft bargaining would have led them to make unrealistic demands that are too costly for the council to afford. The other options such as privatization would have been cruel for the employees as they would have most likely lost their jobs or gotten employed at much lower rates and had less of a voice than they do in unions. As a result, collective bargaining was the best alternative for the council representative in these negotiations.

Question 4: What were some of the challenges faced to reaching an agreement? Are these challenges normal?

Some of the challenges that were faced in the negotiations include the effect of public opinion, the possibility of demotivating the employees and also the victimization of the council representative. The representatives of the union have more access to the public since they represent the greatest majority of individuals in the argument. Given that the employees are more lowly in comparison to the council members, it was fairly easy for the union to vilify the council and more specifically the representative in the eyes of the public. These challenges are normal as unions are known for employing this tactic (Riccucci and Ban, 2002).

Question 4: What personal and public factors must be considered when determining which course of action to take?

Some of the public factors that need to be considered prior to the making of a decision include the population of the city. This is important because it can be used to project the tax figures that are expected. The state of affairs with regard to security, environmental protection and public works also need to be considered under public factors as these give an indication of the demand that exists for manpower and thus the justification for demands made by the unions being compared to the obligations and capabilities of the city management.

The personal factors that need to be considered include the safety of the council representative’s name and standing in the society due to the contentious nature of the negotiations. If an unpopular decision is made, there is a chance that this will be associated with the working of the negotiator. The onus therefore falls on the negotiator to emphasize that he or she is acting as a representative of the council.

Reference

Riccucci, N., & Ban, C. (2002). Public personnel management.