|
Media Articles on Law Firm Interest-Based
Bargaining
Catherine E. Sullivan August 2002 Abstract Collective bargaining is the process in which management and
unions negotiate labor contracts. The traditional approach to labor
negotiations is viewed as adversarial or confrontational collective
bargaining. This approach is based on the assumption that the
fundamental interests of both parties sharply conflict with one
another. The outcome of parties negotiating contracts in this style is
viewed as either winners or losers. Up until 1993, adversarial bargaining was the style of negotiating labor contracts used in San Francisco between the hotel industry and the union, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees (HERE) Local 2. At that time, HERE was considered one of the most confrontational unions in the country. Desiring an end to adversarial labor relations with HERE, 11 major hotels formed the San Francisco Hotels Multiemployer Group in 1994 with the goal of promoting labor-management cooperation. This group approached HERE seeking cooperation with a new concept to labor negotiations. They proposed an interest-based bargaining approach to labor negotiations, one in which both sides would undertake a preliminary, non-binding joint study before contract negotiations commenced. The belief was that an interest-based bargaining approach to contract negotiations would strengthen the relationship between the two parties by focusing on common interests instead of conflicting interests. With both parties in agreement, the process of interest-based bargaining began in 1994 resulting in a dramatic and successful shift in the process of negotiations. This paper examines the subject of collective bargaining focusing on the history of this process and the various attitudes toward bargaining that influence negotiating styles. Also examined is the implementation of interested-based bargaining between the San Francisco Hotels Multiemployer Group and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees, Local 2
Collective bargaining is the process in which
employers and unions meet to negotiate over wages, hours and working
conditions. There is a long history of laborers organizing collectively
in the United States. As early as 1799, instances of collective
bargaining occurred when laborers in the Philadelphia shoe industry,
known as cordwainers, met with master shoemakers and formed a trade
agreement to increase wages. Around this same time, printers,
carpenters and tailors in New York and Philadelphia organized societies
with the intent of improving wages, benefits and hours (Madison 57).
The success of these groups was often brief, but nonetheless, their
collective bargaining activities served as precursors to organized
labor unions. Although there are early examples of collective
bargaining in American history; laborers, for the most part,
experienced intense opposition from employers. In 1806, eight Philadelphia shoemakers were on trial, referred
to as the Cordwainers Conspiracy Cases, for criminally conspiring to
raise their wages. The charge, based on English common law and
interpreted by the courts, "held that any combination of workmen for
their personal benefit necessarily aimed at the injury of their
employers was therefore illegal" (Madison 4). It was the belief that
what was legal for one person was illegal for a group of people.
Laborers acting as individuals were free to bargain for an increase in
wages with their employers. The courts, ignoring the fact that laborers
bargaining collectively wielded more economic power, ruled it an
illegal act of conspiracy to bargain collectively. Although the
Cordwainers Conspiracy Cases proved a disastrous blow to
early-organized labor, laborers continued to organize in defiance of
the conspiracy doctrine. Experiencing an upsurge in organized labor activity,
particularly that of the rail strike of the 1890's, employers again
found remedy in the courts to control labor activity. The increase of
court ordered injunctions was instrumental in gaining ground for
employers but injunctions were, in fact, nothing new in the arena of
labor disputes. Injunctions had been issued for centuries in England
and America and proved effective against organized labor. The
injunctions issued prior to the 1890's were legally questionable since,
"In most cases, they were issued to prevent strikers from committing
acts already prohibited by criminal laws" (Rayback 204). The
injunctions issued in the 1890's were based on firmer legal ground as
they were used to prevent violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
passed in by Congress in 1890, which outlawed obstruction of interstate
commerce and trade monopolies. Injunctions were also issued to protect
private property. Private property, in this legal sense, is in the form
of probable expectancies meaning an employer's future relations with
employees or customers. The Supreme Court case decision during that
time, In re Debs, dealt a crucial blow to labor as it significantly
increased judicial power to restrict organized labor activity, ". . .
sanctioning the concept that conspiracy in restraint of trade was not
only a criminal but a civil offense, thus widening the possible
judicial use of the old doctrine of conspiracy as it applied to labor.
It meant that thereafter labor activities could be forestalled by civil
action" (Rayback 206). Not until Congress passed the Wagner Act in 1935, officially known as the National Labor Relations Act, were unions given the legal sanction to bargain collectively. The passage of this act was made possible by a pro-labor Congress. The Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is based on one central idea titled, Rights of Employees:
Aware of the fact that employers were adept at interfering
with labor organization, Congress included additional provision in the
National Labor Relations Act to prohibit employer obstruction of the
law. In Section 8(a) five unfair labor practices were set forth which
employers were not allowed to engage. Among some of the practices ruled
unfair, employers were prohibited from discriminating against union
employees and interfering with the formation of labor organizations.
Additionally, provision (d) requires further protection of organized
labor activities by requiring employers an obligation to bargain
collectively in good-faith. Finally, to enforce the law, the National
Labor Relations Board was established to conduct hearings on charges of
unfair labor practices and to issue decisions subject to the appeal of
the federal courts. The NLRA, along with the Norris LaGuardia Act of
1932, which denied federal courts the right to forbid strikes and
peaceful picketing, had a significant impact on union growth, "The
labor movement as a whole grew from 4 million in 1935 to roughly 16
million in 1948, testifying to the impact of the Wagner Act" (Herman
43). Responding to employer demands to repeal the Wagner Act, The
Taft-Hartley Act, officially known as the Labor-Management Relations
Act of 1947, was passed under a Republican controlled Congress.
Employers asserted that the Wagner Act was one-sided since, ". . . the
law gave no protection to the employer, the public, or even the
employees in a fight between two unions" (Herman 43). As the Wagner Act
provided union protection from employers, the complex Taft-Hartley Act
served to protect all parties from the acts of both unions and
management. Regardless of the various controlling aspects of the
Taft-Wagner Act, unions finally gained the legal right to bargain
collectively after 1935, increasing economic power and the ability to
negotiate better wages, benefits and work rules for it's members. Chapter 2 The lengthy legal opposition to collective
bargaining in the United States directly affected the development of
collective bargaining attitudes and approaches toward negotiating.
Illustrating the attitudes that have evolved, four types of bargaining
attitudes are presented in Collective Bargaining and Labor Relations,
Herman (1998). These styles are termed: conflict, power, accommodation,
and cooperative bargaining. As indicated by the term conflict, this attitude toward
bargaining is a result of a strong employer opposition to the mere
existence of the union. Employers engaged in a conflicted relationship
with unions will attempt to prevent unionization by legal and illegal
tactics. If a union is successful in organizing, the employer will
negotiate only because it legally must and generally, will limit
negotiating to the narrowest possible scope. Power bargaining is similar to conflict bargaining in that
employers oppose unionization. Employers try to keep unions weak and
defensive but do not go so far as to interfere with unionization.
Examples of tactics used by employers to achieve this goal are
operating during strikes and hiring employees to replace strikers.
Employers and unions involved in power bargaining relationships are
centered on the threat of union strikes. In this relationship, "The
unions may build large strike funds, engender antagonism toward the
employer among members and the public, apply political pressures, or
strike in disregard of the public interest" (Herman 69). The purpose of
such tactics on both sides is to demonstrate strength in positions. Cooperation bargaining goes one step further in that it brings
union representatives and its members directly to the negotiating
process. Normally, union representatives negotiate at the bargaining
table while members wait for the results. With the cooperative
approach, line-workers and other employees are brought into the
negotiation process with employers. These joint efforts between
employers, union representatives and union members are viewed as
problem solving teams capable of resolving complex work issues. Although accommodation and cooperation bargaining may seem the
most reasonable and advantageous approach to collective bargaining for
both employers and unions, the laws controlling collective bargaining
tend to foster conflict and power bargaining. "Although no consensus
exists on this issue, unions and their supporters argue that there are
a number of areas in which both federal and state laws advance conflict
and power bargaining rather than promoting accommodation or
cooperation" (Herman 70). One example of the law fostering conflict and power bargaining
is in the protection of strike activities. Union advocates believe that
the law governing these activities actually discourage mutual
acceptance of strike pressures. The Taft-Hartley Act Section 7 and
8(b)(1) gives employers, seeking to avoid strike pressures, protection
of law as it limits picketing and allows hiring outsiders to fill a job
vacated by strikers. Another provision of this Act, drafted with the
intent of protecting unions makes it an unfair labor practice for
employers to dominate labor organizations. Employers seeking a
cooperative approach to bargaining by encouraging joint employer-union
committees may face opposition from unions claiming this an unfair
labor practice. Unions may choose to restrict member activities with
employers based on the belief that joint activities such as joint
committees increase employer's control over workplace issues. Whether or not conflict and power bargaining is fostered by the laws governing collective bargaining, these laws dictate procedures and methods in which collective bargaining, organized labor, and employer activities can be legally conducted. Conflict and power bargaining are the historical approach to labor negotiations, with industries such the airlines, steel and mining serving as historical examples. Chapter 3 Although conflict and power bargaining have been
the traditional approaches to collective bargaining in the United
States, cooperative bargaining also known as interest-based bargaining,
has gained increasing attention and popularity among lawmakers,
mediators, and employers. Several factors contribute toward this trend
in bargaining including governmental labor studies and changing
economic factors, which increase the need for businesses to maintain a
competitive edge in the marketplace. In an attempt to address current labor conditions in 1993, former Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich announced the formation of the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations. The initial Fact-Finding Report issued May 1994 and the Final Report and Recommendations issued December 1994 (referred to as the Dunlop Report) were instrumental in addressing many issues and providing recommendations to increase, for example, labor-employer cooperation and employee participation in the workplace. The Dunlop Report recommends changes for collective bargaining reporting,
This report supports not only cooperative bargaining and joint employer-labor partnerships but finds that employee participation programs increase productivity, morale and the overall economic health of organizations. A contributing factor to the recommendation for more employee participation programs is the fact that a better educated workforce now demands more say in workplace decisions. The report also supported the continued prohibition of company-dominated labor organization as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. In order to allow for greater employer-labor cooperative relationships and employee participation programs, however, ". . . the Commission recommended that it be an unfair labor practice under NLRA Section 8(a)(1) for an employer to bypass the union or to introduce or manipulate an employee participation program to subvert the collective bargaining process" (Herman 363). A distinction clarifying employer interference with union activity is necessary to protect the rights of labor while allowing for increased cooperation. Economic factors influencing a need for a more cooperative
approach between employers and labor are the increased globalization of
products and services. Competition from nonunion organizations is also
an economic threat, as they tend to operate more efficiently and with
more flexibility within changing economic conditions.
The industries transitioning to cooperative bargaining were not without assistance, however. Many of these industries adopted provisions presented in the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service's 1995 publication, "Guidelines: Innovative Collective Bargaining Contract Provision." The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is a governmental agency created by Congress in 1947 as an independent agency to promote employer-labor relations. The Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978 expanded FMCS's role in employer-labor relations by providing education and training processes with the intent of helping employers and employees build better, more cooperative relations. In addition to the guidelines provided, the FMCS provides training in cooperative or interest-based bargaining. The mission of the FMCS, clearly stated in the publication, "Labor Management Relations for the 21st Century" provides that,
Recognizing a drastic need for change by governmental agencies
and the economic survival of many U.S. industries, the transition to
interest-based bargaining has created a new, less adversarial, trend in
employer-labor relations. Chapter 4 The term interest-based bargaining refers to the style and
attitude toward collective bargaining during the negotiation of labor
agreements between employers and unions. Interest-bargaining also has a
great affect on the overall conduct and attitudes between employers and
unions. Other terms used to describe interest-based bargaining are
cooperative, principled, mutual gains and integrative bargaining. Fisher and Ury provide an alternative solution to positional
negotiations with their principled negotiation method. This method is
based on four basic points: people, interests, options, and criteria.
The first objective is to separate the people from the problem as this
step helps people focus on attacking the problem and not each other.
Interests refer to the process of focusing on common interests of the
parties and not resorting to taking positions. Inventing options means
generating a variety of possible solutions before reaching agreements
and the fourth point, criteria, is an agreed upon objective standard
used in decision making such as market value, law or expert opinion.
The main objective of adopting these four points during negotiations is
to uncover the common interests of both parties, which leads to an
atmosphere of cooperation and trust. Interest-based bargaining, although gaining recent popularity,
is not a late 20th century invention. As early as the 1900s, management
theorist Mary Parker Follett presented the idea of integrative
bargaining, which is also often referred to as mutual gains bargaining.
In her work concerning negotiations between unions and management, she
addresses the fact that traditional collective bargaining agreements, "
usually are the results of compromise." She furthers that, "Compromise
means a giving up of something, whereas integration implies an attempt
to satisfy the needs of both sides" (Herman 182). Other business theorists, such as authors Walton and McKersie,
have furthered the concept of integrative bargaining, publishing their
groundbreaking work in A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations in
1965. Labor negotiations, according to Walton and McKersie are
categorized into four subprocesses. The first two subprocesses,
distributive and integrative bargaining, are addressed in this paper. Distributive bargaining, also referred to as conflict, power
and adversarial bargaining, is a hypothetic construct referring to the,
"attainment of one party's goals when they are in basic conflict with
the other party's goals" (4). The basic conflict is in the distribution
of available resources or "what game theorists refer to as fixed-sum
games," in which, "one person's gain is a loss to the other" (4). Integrative bargaining, on the other hand, is different in
that the goals of one party are not fundamentally in conflict with that
of the other party. Walton and McKersie further state that,
"Integrative potential exists when the nature of a problem permits
solutions which benefit both parties, or at least when the gains of one
party do not represent equal sacrifices by the other" (5). One of the
real challenges of negotiation is when employers and unions are unable
to recognize that the problems they bring to the negotiating table may
be of common interest. Problems of common interest can be resolved with
a win-win solution. Adversarial bargaining tends to divide parties into
either winners or losers. The work of labor negotiation theorists, such as Walton and
McKersie, tends to be very complex and involved drawing upon
mathematical bargaining models and game theory. It is important to
include these concepts, however, as they are important to understanding
the topic of interest-based bargaining. In any literature written about
labor negotiations, collective bargaining and bargaining styles,
academic theory is present and clearly the foundation of more recent,
popularized methods of negotiation. Chapter 5 Until the early 1990's, employer-union relations
in the San Francisco hospitality industry was characterized by an
intensely adversarial relationship with strikes and grievances serving
as the normal course of resolving labor disputes. Due to many factors
threatening the success of the industry during this time, several
hotels formed the San Francisco Multiemployer Group with the purpose of
creating an atmosphere of cooperation and trust with the union, Hotel
Employees and Restaurant Employees (HERE) Local 2. This group was
eventually able to enlist the full support of HERE Local 2 and the
implementation of interest-based bargaining between the two groups
dramatically changed the collective bargaining process and nature of
the 1994 and 1999 labor agreements. Many factors threatened the financial health of
the San Francisco hospitality industry in the early 1990's. In addition
to over building and high mortgages, a city-wide recession was a
contributing factor to the loss of profitability in the industry with,
"40% of all 70,000 jobs lost due to the recession in the nine-county
Bay Area since 1990" (Burstiner 2). Another threat to the industry was
competition from a growing trend of new, non-unionized hotels that
operate without restrictive work rules, better serving the changing
needs and preferences of customers. Even the method used to resolve
labor disputes, with strikes, grievances and arbitration serving as the
means for conflict resolution also contributed to the declining
economic health of the hospitality industry. These traditional methods
of conflict resolution significantly drained industry resources and
further hindered the morale of both parties, steering them away
productivity and profitability. The first step toward interested-based bargaining
between these two parties was on the part of the Hotel Multiemployer
Group. After concluding that a more cooperative approach was essential,
this group approached the union (HERE) for support suggesting the
participation in a non-binding, preliminary joint study project. In his
article, "Negotiating Trust in the San Francisco Hotel Industry, "
attorney and labor negotiator Stuart Korshak, states that the purpose
of the preliminary study project was, ". . . to develop a mutual vision
statement that would replace the unilateral one the hotels had
developed earlier, as a shared vision was essential to achieving real
change" (Korshak 3). In addition to assisting with initiating the
preliminary joint study project, Korshak sought assistance from the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Korshak secured a
substantial grant to fund the joint study project as well as
interest-based training for both parties. A team of labor experts
including industrial psychologists and economists were recruited for
this project to advise and serve as facilitators. With full agreement from HERE, the preliminary
joint study project began with three individual sessions for managers,
union representatives and union line-workers. They studied models of
companies that have successfully implemented joint labor-management
interest-based bargaining. They learned that, ". . . each successful
example of change involved recognizing the legitimate role of all the
stakeholder in the process of change, including the worker and their
unions" (Korshak 5). Korshak further noted that the hotel industry
managed with an authoritarian, top-down system with little worker input
and involvement served as an impediment to real change. Through this process, which is unlike the
traditional approach of determining interests separately and in secret,
the joint study project reached a consensus on several points before
bargaining. First, they concluded that less restrictive work rules
would better serve their hotels and restaurants and an increase in
training was necessary to implement them. Secondly, they determined
that the sick-pay system wasn't working and thirdly, the grievance
system that was in place needed restructuring as well. Korshak
concludes, "Most importantly, both sides agreed that the very process
of employee involvement teams engaging in a joint search for solutions
to workplace problems was itself a powerful tool for building trust and
creating meaningful change in labor-management relations" (5). With several key issues, or common interests,
identified as problems by the joint study committees, labor
negotiations began in 1994. The Multiemployer Group initiated
negotiations with an unprecedented first move. In order to foster
goodwill, the multiemployer group made a full disclosure of their
financial condition and profitability. In traditional adversarial
bargaining, full financial disclosure is very guarded and in worst-case
scenarios, a union demand rather than a gesture to promote trust. Next,
formal joint-bargaining sub-committees or fact-finding teams were
formed to further address the problems previously identified. "Using this strategy, we were able to develop
joint proposals in all of these critical areas that the study phase had
identified as problems. Instead of unilateral proposals that are dead
on arrival, these were joint proposals that both sides understood and
took ownership of from the very beginning" (Korshak 6). The final phase of labor negotiations, in which
both parties finally agree upon the issues negotiated, has
traditionally been very difficult and the point in which strikes have
occurred. Tension between the parties escalates when the final division
of the economic pie is at hand. In this case, because the union had
been so actively involved in the solution process, the Multiemployer
Group persuaded the union to take a huge surplus of cash it had build
up and invest in programs such as employee training. In his article, "A
Labor-Management Partnership," Korshak stated, "As a result, the
Multiemployer Group's overall settlement package in 1994 was well under
what it would have otherwise been. For their part, the workers got a
wage increase of 3% or more per year" (26). Korshak contributes this
success to the spirit of cooperation and an air of trust that developed
between these two groups during the joint study and fact-finding phase
of negotiations. In addition to the success of the interest-based
process, an innovative provision called the living contract was
introduced. Normally, contracts are unchangeable until the next round
of negotiations and any attempt to do so, usually results in the
issuance of grievances and arbitration. But in this case, with the
living contract provision, managerial and union joint steering and
fact-finding committees are able to agree upon and adopt workplace
changes as needed. Other positive changes that can be attributed to
interest-based bargaining are an increase in worker morale as
communication with managers has improved, and productivity gains after
training programs are conducted. Customer satisfaction has improved as
well as less restricted work rules allows an increase in meeting
customer needs. Interest-based bargaining proved successful in
negotiating the 1994 and 1999 labor agreements between the San
Francisco hotel Multiemployer Group and the Union (HERE). Key to this
success was a carefully planned transition focusing on the education
and training in the process of interest-based bargaining and
establishing a new sense of trust between the two parties. Chapter 6 Although interest-based bargaining is promoted by governmental
agencies such as the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the
National Labor Relations Board, taught widely by scholars, and a
frequent topic in popular print, not everyone is in favor of this
bargaining style. Some labor negotiators believe that the
interest-based bargaining style is flawed for a number of reasons
including the emphasis on cooperation and full disclosure of
information. Ira B. Lobel makes a strong case suggesting that this style
should not be used to replace the more traditional adversarial or power
bargaining. Lobel, a mediator with over 30 years of experience,
believes that proponents of interest-based bargaining are selling a new
product but, "In reality, it is nothing new, but a rehash and a
reminder of some basic principles of sound and effective bargaining"
(9). Lobel's concern is that people will get lured into thinking that
interest-based bargaining will eliminate conflict and make tough
decisions easy. Conflict, he believes, will always exist in the
workplace, as it is the nature of people to disagree. Conflict, if
handled appropriately by a skilled negotiator can work as an effective
tool during negotiations. In an interview, Gerald Nuijen, former contract negotiator for
the California Teachers Association (CTA), furthered this point. In his
experience with interest-based bargaining, he found the emphasis on the
elimination of conflict was always present. Nuijen states, "Before
negotiations began, we were encouraged to discuss our feelings as if
this was a substitute for stating our positions on issues. This wore us
out, delayed settlements and actually worked to create hard feelings
between the parties". Lobel believes that the stating of positions and
the gradual adjustment of those positions is revealing to both parties.
By negotiating in this way, what is and isn't acceptable to both
parties, becomes clear. In interest-based bargaining, parties may be
mislead about actual solutions considered acceptable by each side.
Parties are encouraged to remain neutral about possible solutions to
problems instead of taking clear positions on issues as they are
discussed. There is also a strong emphasis in interest-based bargaining
to reveal information normally withheld and used as strategy in
traditional bargaining. It is Nuijen's belief that this emphasis on
disclosure often works to the advantage of the employer. In his
experience, employers would often withhold information about upcoming
budgets, pleading ignorance about future fiscal matters. These
employers would then turn around and demand full disclosure from the
union. If the union did not reveal information the employers wanted,
they would claim the unions were uncooperative. Lobel asserts that
revealing all information is not necessary. Information is not the key
to successful labor agreements but dependent instead, upon the skill of
the negotiator. Lobel makes many points about interest-based bargaining vs. adversarial, conflict or power bargaining but his essential point is that, "It is the skill of the negotiator that is key, not the label that is put on the style of bargaining" (15). Skilled negotiators will apply whatever style is appropriate to a given situation and allowing for this flexibility is most important. Conclusion The nature of collective bargaining in the United States has
significantly changed since laborers first attempted to negotiate for
better wages in late 1700's. Employers were openly hostile to laborers
bargaining collectively and legal impediments such as court ordered
injunctions served to limit this process. With the passage of several
Congressional Acts, most notably being the National Labor Relations Act
of 1935, collective bargaining finally became a legal labor activity. Collective bargaining is not only a method in which to
negotiate for better wages, working conditions and benefits, it also
serves as a subject of study among academics, legislators and federal
and state commissions. The purpose of such studies, findings and
recommendations is to promote better methods of negotiating and to
encourage more cooperation from all parties involved. With the added
pressure of global competition in the late 20th century, it became
increasingly apparent that the traditional adversarial style of
bargaining was serving as an impediment to labor negotiations. As an
alternative to adversarial bargaining, interest-based bargaining was
gradually introduced by labor negotiator, lawyers, and promoted by such
agencies as the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services. Proponents of interest-based bargaining believe that this
approach fosters cooperation and trust between parties. To achieve
these goals, parties are instructed to focus on developing common
interests and withholding position taking during negotiations. Other
principles of interest-based bargaining are incorporated in the process
and have contributed to the success of improved employer-labor
relations, and labor agreements. Although interest-based bargaining has grown in use and
popularity, critics of this approach feel that a successful labor
negotiation is not contingent upon bargaining style. It is believed
that the key to a successful negotiation is in the skill of the
negotiator. Critics of this style warn that interest-based bargaining
should not serve as a replacement for other valid styles of bargaining.
Contrary to the critics of interest-based bargaining, this
style of bargaining worked successfully for the San Francisco
Multiemployer Group and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees,
Local 2. Interest-based bargaining dramatically transformed the
relationship between these parties resulting in many changes including
a flexible labor contract. Over a five-year period, these changes
allowed for an increase in hotel productivity and profitability. Interest-based bargaining has worked to transform a
traditionally adversarial relationship between partiesin the San
Francisco hospitality industry to a more cooperative one. This process
of change can serve as an example for other industries desiring an end
to unproductive labor relations. As labor negotiators across the
country become better skilled in the art of interest-based bargaining,
employers and laborers can look forward to playing a greater role in
determining the terms and conditions that affect their workplace. These
participants in the process of collective bargaining would do well to
consider the words of Samuel Gompers, founder and president of the
American Federation of Labor, as they develop the art of interest-based
bargaining: "The labor movement has for its purpose the securing of the
best possible economic and social conditions for the masses and the
attainment of these with the least possible friction, the meeting of
problems as they confront us: the making of the day after this a better
day than the one preceding." Burstiner, Marc. "30,000 Jobs Flee San Francisco; Esodus Hits
Financial District." San Fisher, Roger and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating
Agreements Without Giving Gompers, Samuel. Quotes. 11 Oct. 2002
<http://www.ualocal32.com/Documents/ Herman, Edward E. Collective Bargaining and Labor Realtions.
New Jersey: Prentice Korshak, Stuart R. "A Labor-Management Partnership." Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Korshak, Stuart R. "Negotiating Trust in the San Francisco
Hotel Industry." California Lobel, Ira B. "Is Interest Based Bargaining Really New?"
Dispute Resolution Journal. Madison, Charles A. American Labor Leaders: Personalities and
Forces in the Labor National Labor Management Association. "Fighting Non-Union
Competition At the Rayback, Joseph G. A history of American Labor. New York: Macmillian, 1959, 1966. Walton, Richard E. and Robert B. McKersie. A Behavioral Theory
of Labor United States. Cong. National Labor Relations Act 29 U.S.C.
§§ 151-169. Washington: United States. Cong. Labor Management Relations Act U.S.C.
§§ 141-197. Washington: 1947. 16 Jun. 02 16 Jun. 02
<http://www.nlrb.gov/rr/rr6.htm>. United States. Commission of the Future of Worker-Mangement
Relations. The Dunlop United States. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
Labor Mangement Relations |
| Back |