The Problem Of Distributive Bargaining

Collective bargaining is a negotiation process between employers and employees on the terms and conditions of work which form the enterprise agreement (Natalie 2010, p.199). Good faith bargaining on the other hand, generally refers to duty of the parties to meet and negotiate at reasonable time with willingness to reach an agreement on matters within the scope of representation (Riley 2012, pp.22-29). According to Fair Work Act 2009 “To bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hour and other terms and conditions of employment”.

Negotiation is a fundamental form of dispute resolution involving two or more parties (Michelle, M.2003). Negotiations can also take place in order to avoid any future disputes. It can be either an interpersonal or inter-group process. Negotiations can occur at international or corporate level and also at a personal level. Negotiations often involve give and take acknowledging that there is interdependence between the disputants to some extent to achieve the goal. This means that negotiations only arise when the goals cannot be achieved independently (Lewicki and Saunders et al., 1997). Interdependence means the both parties can influence the outcome for the other party and vice versa. The negotiations can be win-lose or win-win in nature.

When it came to creating a collective bargaining agreement section for employee safety, the main challenge was the initial confusion on where negotiations were to take place for both the Union and Company sides. From here the friction that existed had to do with what costs should be allotted for boots and gear and whether or not these items should be simply provided by the company or a certain amount allotted for employees to purchase the necessary items themselves. Having been part of the Union side, when it came to the Company side, it appeared as though they were able to create a good draft of what they would like the collective bargaining agreement should look like for this section. They tried to appeal to the Union, while still being able to maintain company interests. This enabled them to come to a group decision in a timely

The objective underlying the Fair Work Act 2009 was to “get the balance right” (Smart Company, 2010 ; Forsyth, 2005) between fairness and flexibility in Australian workplaces while getting rid of the harsher aspects of Work Choices which preceded it. The Fair Work Act sought to restore collective bargaining in the Australian workplace relations system, including enhanced rights for union involvement and, most importantly, the good faith bargaining requirements.

Reflect on the negotiation exercise that you participated in. In particular, analyze the facts, tools, mistakes, insights, emotions, and goals from the exercise. Turn in this learning journal within one week of the negotiation exercise.

I fully agree with your post. I like how you stated that despite even though each party may not get all the things they want and request however, being willing to compromise is what is important to good-faith bargaining. Essentially, good-faith bargaining commonly refers to the duty of the parties to meet and negotiate at reasonable times with willingness to reach an agreement on matters within the range of representation; however, neither party is required to cop out or agree to any proposal.

Negotiation is one of the most common approaches used to make decisions and manage disputes. It is also the major building block for many other alternative dispute resolution procedures. According to Christopher W (2012), negotiation is the principal way that people redefine an old relationship that is not working to their satisfaction or establish a new relationship where none existed before. Because negotiation is such a common problem-solving process, it is in everyone 's interest to become familiar with negotiating dynamics and skills. This section is designed to identify what worked well and not well in the negotiation. In addition, to present strategies that generally makes the negotiation more efficient and improvement in the next

Negotiation is one important part of both the professional and personal life in our everyday situations. It is critical for people to resolve disputes, distribute limited resources, and/or create something new that neither party could achieve on his or her own. Negotiations can range from coordinating project timelines with clients to asking for a raise to discussing holiday plans with family members.

It occurs in profit or non profit organizations, government sectors, dealing among nations and also in our personal situations such as salary package, house purchase, marriage, divorce and etc. The strategy to use can either be distributive or integrative depending on the situations and the outcomes that the party want out from the negotiation.

Whether it is at work, church or in our private relationships, negotiations are a necessary tool for reaching an agreement. They are made by discussing each parties point of view with the aim being to reach an agreement that is mutually beneficial. For the most part, negotiation is the process by which those people involved successfully adopt or abandon their respective position through the use of positional bargaining. There are different types of approaches for the negotiation process - some hard and others soft in their manner of approach. The desired outcome of

Distributive bargaining is a very important negotiation skill. Used as the core of the core of an negotiation, distributive bargaining is defined as, “a negotiation method in which two parties strive to divide a fixed pool of resources, often money, each party trying to maximize its share of the distribution” (Michael R. Carrell, 2008). Within the distributive bargaining process, the two parties involved have to negotiate over a set of assets in which one person looses and the other gains. This is why Distributive bargaining is also called Zero-sum. Carroll explains that distributive bargaining is called a zero-sum process because one party looses whatever amount is gained by the other” (Michael R. Carrell, 2008).

Distributive negotiations occur when parties negotiate over one single issue. It involves sharing a fixed amount of resources. Everyone tries to make a good effort in order to get a bigger piece of the pie. Distributive deals are a win – lose situation, where one side stands to win while the other one loses out. You might want to hold back information, while trying to get information from the other party. By doing this, you get to see how much they are willing to give up. You might want to let them know about other alternatives you have, but save your best alternative to the end, because it is the bottom line. Distributive negations have a tendency to be competitive, and a party always views another party as a competitor. Although its competitive nature, all parties negotiate on friendly terms. A good example of when a distributive negotiation is used is when we buy a car. We are friendly and competitive, both

“Negotiation is the process of communicating back and forth for the purpose of reaching a joint decision.”

Value is created in negotiations through the cooperative process of integrative bargaining. This process involves building a foundation of trust by openly communicating the underlying interests of the disputing parties, not necessarily meaning the disclosure of the entire game plan in order to invent solutions (Donohue, 1981). The interests are a negotiator’s fears, concerns, and unmet needs. The interests of the parties involved (the headmaster, board of trustees and faculty members) were consulted before the initial arguments were presented encompassing common ground issues about the school, profitability index and the safety regulations. As such, screening the priorities of each party to the negotiation will more likely reach

Gershenfeld & Kochan, 2004, Friedman, 1993, Post, 2009). However, this also can lead to each party viewing the other as dishonest, affecting what is already frequently viewed as an adversarial relationship.