COLLABORATIVE BARGAINING IN OHIO PUBLIC SCHOOLS:AN ANALYSIS OF ITS USE AND PERFORMANCE

P. ANDREW JEWELLOhio State Employment Relations Board

FRITZ FEKETEOhio Education Association

BETSY CINADR MCCAFFERTYOhio School Boards Association

INTRODUCTION

Collective bargaining is an ever evolving process. While most employers and labor

unions still follow the traditional, positional approach to labor negotiations, the

collaborative model is attracting a great deal of interest. Nowhere in Ohio's public sector

is this more evident than in school districts. As school boards and employee

organizations operate in an increasingly complex environment, many have begun to move

away from traditional confrontational labor relations and have adopted what is viewed as a

more cooperative approach to negotiating labor agreements.

Traditional (Positional) Negotiations

Traditional negotiations are often premised on a "we" versus "they" mentality

between employers and unions. Traditional or distributive collective bargaining is

comprised to a large degree of the following factors or steps: 1) When traditional

negotiations commence, each side exchanges positions in the form of opening proposals.

2) Final contracts are reached through the use of positioning, caucuses, chief

spokespersons, compromises, and sometimes impasse or concerted action. 3) When a

settlement is reached, the parties may feel that they did not get enough or that they gave

away too much during the negotiation process. To some participants, a compromise is

1

considered a loss even if other bargaining objectives are met. Either side may lose, and it

is possible that neither will be satisfied with the bargaining outcome.

Dissatisfaction with traditional negotiations has led labor and management to try

alternative models. Collaborative bargaining, one of these alternatives, has had many

names, such as "Win-Win," "principled," "mutual gains," and "interest-based." The

interest-based bargaining (IBB) model is currently the most common method used for

collaborative bargaining in public schools.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN TRANSITION

Historically, collective bargaining has followed the adversarial, positional model. Private

sector labor negotiations have long been dominated by the use of economic power to

determine bargaining outcomes. The threat of a strike or the ability to withstand a work

stoppage played a key role in the collective bargaining process.

As public employees gained bargaining rights, positional bargaining prevailed as

the predominant method for negotiating labor contracts. Though the right to strike was

often largely controlled, or eliminated altogether, labor and management came to rely on

various impasse procedures, which generally culminated in some manner of third party

intervention, to fashion a final agreement. Even where strikes were allowed, the reliance

on bargaining power was used to achieve favorable outcomes.

Interest-Based Bargaining

In the 1960's Walton and McKersie1 drew attention to the fact that all negotiation

outcomes are achieved through a combination of "distributive," or positional, means and

2

"integrative," or interest-based, efforts. Collaborative bargaining theorists and

practitioners have attempted to reduce, if not completely eliminate, the positional aspect of

traditional contract negotiations, and, instead, focus on interests in achieving a settlement

that is mutually beneficial to both parties.

Interest-based bargaining was first developed in the 1970’s by Jerome Barrett2 of

the U.S. Department of Labor. The work of Fisher and Ury3 in the 1980's further

contributed to the understanding and development of interest-based principles.

METHODOLOGY AND INTENT

During the summer of 1996, staff of the Ohio Education Association (OEA), the

Ohio School Boards Association (OSBA), and the Ohio State Employment Relations

Board (SERB) began discussions which centered around the impact of collaborative

bargaining in school districts. Anecdotal evidence gathered from labor relations

practitioners representing both management and labor, seemed to suggest that the

collaborative model of collective bargaining is being used with increasing frequency in

Ohio’s school districts. Further, there appeared to exist some contradictions in terms of

satisfaction with the process itself as well as its outcomes. Through the discussions it was

determined that the time was right for a comprehensive study of school district bargaining

in order to provide an empirical foundation to the existing anecdotal evidence.

A survey was constructed for the purpose of measuring the use of both procedure

types, positional or collaborative, and the level of satisfaction associated with the

respective procedures. The survey includes: perceptual measurements of quality of labor-

3

management relations before, during, and after collective bargaining; views regarding the

distribution of bargaining power between the parties; identification of specific techniques

or practices used in to negotiate labor agreements; estimates of the duration of the

collective bargaining process; perceptions concerning bargaining outcomes; and, levels of

satisfaction with the contract and the procedure used to reach the agreement.

Sample

There are approximately 900 public education bargaining units in Ohio. These

bargaining units include K-12 teachers, education support staff, and higher education

faculty. OEA mailed the survey to the entire population of its 729 local affiliates, and

OSBA, likewise, mailed the survey to administrators and managers representing the same

public education bargaining employers. A total of 1,500 surveys were sent to labor and

management representatives from the 729 OEA bargaining units.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES

Of the 1,500 surveys sent out, there were 724 surveys completed and returned.

This represents a response rate of approximately 50 percent of those surveys mailed.

Given the high level of participation, the authors feel that the research findings are

representative of bargaining conditions throughout Ohio's public school system.

Most negotiation efforts, 63 percent, are still conducted using the traditional,

positional method of bargaining. However, over one-third, 37 percent, of the respondents

indicated having used a collaborative procedure to negotiate the most recent collective

bargaining agreement.

4

The survey results further suggest that collaborative bargaining may eventually

replace the traditional procedure as the preferred method among Ohio schools. Where

indicated, 56 percent of respondents stated that they either intend to use or would like to

use a collaborative procedure for the next round of negotiations. Among those who used

positional bargaining for the most recent set of negotiations, over one-quarter expressed a

desire to follow collaborative principles for the next bargaining round. Only four percent

involved in collaborative bargaining indicated that the parties will return to the positional

method for the next set of negotiations.

The reason for the growing interest in collaborative negotiations is evident. Quite

simply, when compared to positional bargaining, collaborative efforts produce much more

positive results.

Overall, a majority of survey respondents view the relationship between labor and

management as constructive. Over half, 55 percent, of all participants categorized the

relationship between the administration and the unit prior to entering the last set of

negotiations as at least somewhat cooperative. Only one-third reported the pre-

negotiation labor-management relationship to be adversarial. Also, more than 60 percent

characterized the tone of the most recent contract talks as cooperative. Less than 30

percent indicated an adversarial bargaining environment existed.

It was further found that most respondents also hold a favorable view concerning

the quality of the most recent collective bargaining agreement as well as the procedure

used to negotiate the contract. 70 percent of all respondents indicated they were at least

somewhat satisfied with the quality of the contract. Most, 62 percent, felt the outcome of

5

negotiations was mutually beneficial to both parties. Over two-thirds of the participants

expressed some level of satisfaction with the bargaining procedure that was used to

negotiate the agreement.

While on balance the survey group provided largely positive feedback concerning

bargaining and bargaining relationships, stark differences appear when responses are

broken down by the type of bargaining procedure followed (see Table 1).

Where positional bargaining was used, less than half of the participants

characterized the tone of the most recent negotiations as at least somewhat cooperative.

Also, only one-third of positional bargainers felt that the last negotiations had a positive

impact on labor and management relations. On the other hand, where collaborative

bargaining occurred, the vast majority of respondents felt that both the tone of

negotiations was at least somewhat cooperative and that these negotiations at least

somewhat enhanced overall labor and management relations. Moreover, collaborative

bargainers were much more likely to express satisfaction with both the final contract and

the negotiation procedure than were those who followed the traditional approach to

bargaining.

It is generally accepted that collaborative bargaining is more likely to be used

where a good labor-management relationship existed prior to negotiations. The survey

findings are consistent with this view. The pre-negotiation relationship was considered as

at least somewhat cooperative by 63 percent of collaborative bargainers. Where

positional bargaining occurred, 50 just percent of respondents felt a cooperative

relationship between the administration and the association existed prior to entering

6

contract negotiations.

However, a constructive relationship is not necessarily a prerequisite for utilizing a

collaborative bargaining model. Rather, collaborative bargaining may actually help to

improve confrontational relations. For instance, only 20 percent of positional bargainers

who viewed pre-negotiation relations as adversarial, indicated that the tone of contract

talks was at least somewhat cooperative. Where a collaborative procedure was used, 57

percent of those who considered pre-negotiation relations to be adversarial felt bargaining

took place in a cooperative manner.

The survey also revealed that views of association representatives tend to be less

upbeat than those expressed by school administrators. However, as Table 2

demonstrates both employer and employee representatives offered much more favorable

perspectives when negotiations were conducted collaboratively than for those where

positional bargaining occurred.

Table 1. Comparison of Response by Procedure Type

Percent Favorable Responses

Response Item Positional Collaborative

Tone of negotiations 45 86

Impact of negotiations on relations 33 70

Satisfaction with contract 61 83

Satisfaction with procedure 56 87

Table 2: Comparison of Employer and Association Responses By Procedure Type

Percent Favorable

7

Employer Association

Response Item Positional Collaborative Positional Collaborative

Tone of negotiations 51 87 36 84

Impact of negotiations on relations 36 73 30 65

Satisfaction with contract 61 84 60 81

Satisfaction with procedure 56 90 57 83

The research also suggests that collaborative bargaining can reduce the influence of

power. It is commonly accepted that collective bargaining outcomes are more favorable to

the side that possesses greater power. Among survey participants, only 39 percent of

those involved in positional negotiations who perceived their side as weaker were satisfied

with the quality of the collective bargaining agreement. Just 36 percent of these

individuals felt that the final contract represented a mutual gain for both parties. On the

other hand, 62 percent of collaborative negotiators who identified the other side as being

more powerful were satisfied with the contract and 58 percent indicated that a mutual gain

was achieved.

While one might assume that it would take more time and effort to reach a

consensus than it does to fashion a compromise, another benefit of collaborative

bargaining is that it is often faster than the traditional method. Irrespective of procedure

type, for the majority of negotiations the parties met between three and ten times.

However, over a quarter, 26 percent, of positional negotiations required more than ten

bargaining sessions before reaching a final agreement. Where collaborative bargaining

occurred, only 15 percent of negotiations took in excess of ten meetings. Additionally, 14

percent of collaborative negotiations were completed in less than three sessions. Only 7

8

percent of contract talks were finalized this quickly when the traditional procedure was

followed.

Additionally, 27 percent of collaborative negotiations were finished in less than one

month's time, and just eight percent extended to six months or longer. Where positional

bargaining was employed, only 10 percent of negotiations were completed in less than a

month, while 26 percent took at least six months.

Though the research shows that collaborative bargaining appears to offer many

advantages over the traditional approach, there are those who would question the results

arguing that the opinions of collaborative negotiators are influenced by their idealistic view

of the process. Without delving into the merits of this argument, the research was

designed in such a way so as to reduce the possibility of error associated with participant

personal bias.

Each survey participant was asked to identify techniques, practices, or principles

that were used during the most recent contract negotiations. Some of these

characteristics are associated with positional bargaining and others are typical of

collaborative negotiations. The following items were included on the survey:

9

Exchange of initial proposals.

Exchange of counter-proposals.

Identification of each side's interests or

concerns regarding issues on the table.

Packaging of items for resolution.

Information sharing between the

parties.

Use of caucuses.

Brainstorming at the table for ideas to

resolve issues between the parties.

Selection of a chief spokesperson for

each side.

Use of a neutral facilitator throughout

negotiations.

Compromise on initial positions to

resolve issues.

Agreement on options that met the

interests of both parties.

Consensus between the parties in

decision making.

Exchange of initial and counter proposals, packaging items, use of caucuses,

selection of a spokesperson, and compromise are considered to be representative of

positional or traditional bargaining. Identification of interests, information sharing,

brainstorming, use of a neutral facilitator, agreement on options, and consensus in

decision making are elements of a collaborative, or interest-based style.

These characteristics can be used to demonstrate that bargaining rarely occurs in a

"pure" procedural form. As Table 3 shows, many characteristics frequently cross

bargaining model lines. Over half of the time that collaborative bargaining was said to

have occurred, initial proposals were exchanged, caucuses were used, or compromises

on initial positions were reached. Among positional negotiations, the following

collaborative characteristics were found among the majority of survey responses:

identification of interests, information sharing, and agreement on options that met the

interests of both parties.

No collective bargaining procedure is likely to be either entirely collaborative or

entirely positional. Rather, as the data show each individual set of negotiations almost

certainly contains elements of both, even where one style is predominant. Like that

pictured below, bargaining procedures are best viewed as falling on a continuum.

Positional ------------------------------------------------------------------ Collaborative

At the extremes of the continuum are the theoretical "perfect" bargaining models.

Typically, the format of negotiations will lie somewhere between the two extremes.

By using the characteristics included in the survey, a scale was developed to

measure the overall level of positional/collaborative bargaining that took place for each set

of negotiations. A value of either negative one (-1) or positive one (+1) was assigned to

each of the twelve items listed. If an item viewed as positional was indicated, or where a

collaborative measure was not used, then a (-1) was assigned. Conversely, a (+1) was

assigned where a collaborative element was present or a traditional one absent. From

this a cumulative score was calculated. An illustration of this process is provided in

Example 1. As the example shows, with the exception of "packaging items" all of the

characteristics associated with positional bargaining were used during the negotiations.

The only collaborative techniques employed were "information sharing" and

"brainstorming." Accordingly, the cumulative score was less than zero. This means that

positional characteristics were predominant in this particular set of negotiations.

Table 3: Frequency of Characteristic By Bargaining Procedure Used

Percent of Respondents

Characteristic All Responses Collaborative Positional

Initial Proposals 80 53 96

Counter-Proposals 70 38 90

Identify Interests 75 92 65

Packaging Items 48 33 56

Information Sharing 78 91 71

Use of Caucuses 79 67 86

Brainstorming 55 83 37

Chief Spokesperson 53 37 64

Neutral Facilitator 8 23 0

Compromise 64 56 69

Agreement on Options 69 86 57

Consensus 54 83 37

The range of scores falls between (-12) and (+12). The former represents a

bargaining process where all positional elements were present and all collaborative

characteristics were absent. The latter indicates the converse. Of course, the items

included in the research are not an exhaustive list of bargaining characteristics.

Example 1

Characteristic

Procedure

Associated With

Used During

Negotiations

Value

Assigned

Initial Proposals Positional Yes -1

Counter-Proposals Positional Yes -1

Identify Interests Collaborative No -1

Packaging Items Positional No +1

Information Sharing Collaborative Yes +1

Use of Caucuses Positional Yes -1

Brainstorming Collaborative Yes +1

Chief Spokesperson Positional Yes -1

Neutral Facilitator Collaborative No -1

Compromise Positional Yes -1

Agreement on Options Collaborative No -1

Consensus Collaborative No -1

Cumulative Score: -6

However, for the purposes of this study a cumulative value of (-12) is considered a

"perfectly" positional procedure, while a total of (+12) is deemed to represent a "perfectly"

collaborative bargaining process. The following is a distribution of cumulative scores:

Cumulative Score-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 +2 +4 +6 +8 +10 +12

Total Responses 9 21 54 88 104 151 87 59 37 42 45 22 6

Twice as many scores are less than zero (423) than are greater than zero (211).

This suggests that negotiations using predominantly positional techniques outnumber

those utilizing a prevalence of collaborative characteristics by a margin of two-to-one.

However, as can be seen very few cumulative scores are found at either extreme.

Only two percent of the negotiations fall under the category of either perfectly positional or

perfectly collaborative. Where positional characteristics prevail; that is, a cumulative score

of less than zero, 81 percent of negotiations have combined values falling between (-2)

and (-6). Almost two-thirds of collaborative negotiations (cumulative score greater than

zero) are found in the (+2) to (+6) range. Furthermore, about a quarter of the time where

a certain bargaining procedure was identified as having been used, the associated

characteristics were not predominant.

What this proves is that while a round of negotiations may be labeled as following a

certain procedural model, these models can be, and generally are, altered to fit the

dynamics of a particular bargaining environment. Collaborative bargainers will at times

use positional tools that they are most familiar and comfortable with. And, those involved

in traditional negotiations may employ, as a matter of practicality and common sense,

some collaborative characteristics.

The bargaining scale can be used to further compare the performance of positional

and collaborative bargaining, while at the same time dealing with the issue of participant

bias. This is done by looking at study results based on relative placement on the scale.

That is, we can determine if perspectives with regard to labor and management relations,

the quality of the contract, and the level of satisfaction with the bargaining procedure

change as the continuum moves from perfectly positional to perfectly collaborative.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The research found that collaborative bargaining is widely used, and is gaining in

acceptance. This means additional training and increased awareness of the collaborative

process will be necessary to accommodate the increased demand for its use. Although

this process may not be useful in all circumstances, there is reason to believe that this

model will continue to gain acceptance among labor practitioners.

The reason for this belief is that when compared to traditional bargaining,

collaborative efforts result in contracts viewed as more favorable, and mutually beneficial,

by representatives of both labor and management. Moreover, when collaborative

bargaining occurs the following results: there is greater satisfaction with the procedure; the

level of cooperation that takes place during negotiations is higher; and, the impact of

bargaining on overall labor-management relations is more constructive.

This study provides clear evidence that collaborative bargaining offers promise as

an alternative to the traditional method of negotiating labor agreements. Only time will tell

if this promise will be fulfilled. However, whether viewed as preliminary or conclusive, the

evidence strongly suggests that collaborative bargaining warrants consideration by labor

relations practitioners who represent public schools, other public sector jurisdictions, and

private industry as well as a potential tool for achieving mutually beneficial bargaining

outcomes through cooperative efforts.

References

11 Walton, Richard E. Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. 1965.

2 Barrett, Jerome. “Labor-Management Cooperation in the Public Service: An Idea Whose Time Has Come”(Public Employee Relations Library, No 63)

3 Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in. Penguin USA. 1991.