Important collective bargaining is to the resolution of differences between unions and management

/in /by

We have seen how important collective bargaining is to the resolution of differences between unions and management. Achieving consensus between the two parties is a long and taxing process, often leaving both sides feeling bitter and cheated. Rarely does a collective bargaining session leave both sides feeling good about the overall outcome of the negotiations. Collective bargaining also requires a great deal of preparation and the willingness to be flexible on the issues under debate.

This exercise introduces the collective bargaining process and the difficulties that can arise from the advancement of differing agendas by two parties. This is a team exercise, and each team should attempt to represent its side in good faith and with as much realism as possible. The discussion will probably center on reactions to the different situations presented in the exercise.

 

 

 

Exhibit 13.3.1                Baseball Player’s Briefing

 

You represent the National Baseball Player’s Union (NBPU). All players from all Major League teams must belong to the union and pay annual dues. Therefore, you represent 700 active players plus players who have paid dues but are currently in the minor leagues and the interests of retired players nationwide. Your primary goals in the negotiation’s salary, pension benefits for retiring players, term requirements for benefits, and revenue-sharing issues. The environment with the owners has been difficult in the past. Your union has been forced to strike on three occasions, and lockouts by the owners have occurred on five occasions. The primary issues have shifted over the years, but bargaining has always been fierce, and resentment has been high. The owners average a personal wealth of $450 million. Gross revenues from all ballparks average $45 million in ticket sales, $18 million in concession sales, and $42 million in merchandise sales. This does not include licensing rights, city parks, television rights, and other sources of owner income. As the players, the centers of attention, you simply want your fair share of the pie. Your agenda for the coming negotiations is as follows:

  • An increase in the minimum salary from $750,000 to $1,000,000 (citing the similar raises the Canadian Hockey Alliance and the World Roundball Federation both received in their most recent contracts).
  • A decrease in the minimum Major League service to earn a pension from five years to three years.
  • A decrease in the no-trade rule from 10/5 to 7/3 (currently, a player who has been in the majors for 10 years and with the same team for 5 can veto being traded elsewhere).
  • An increase in pension benefits for retired players from 25 percent of the minimum salary to 50 percent of the minimum.
  • The ability for “marquee” players (i.e., All-Stars, MVPs) to negotiate revenues into their contracts (i.e., a percentage of the ticket sales, etc.) without having to wait for them to be offered by the owners.

Questions:

 

  1. What were the terms of the final agreement negotiated between the two sides?
  2. What were the difficulties that arose while trying to reach an agreement?
  3. What role can you see the mediator playing during bargaining of this type?
  4. During collective bargaining, discussions can become heated. Did this occur during the exercise and, if so, how was this resolved?
  5. In the future, what techniques for bargaining might both sides try to better gain their objectives?