HOME | POLICIES | FAQ | CONTACT  
Program on Negotiation Clearinghouse
Your cart is empty

Resources
Sign In
Returning users may sign in. Registering with the Clearinghouse offers several benefits, including:
  • Save your customer information for quicker shopping.
  • View your order history.
Collective Bargaining at Central Division
ROLE SIMULATIONS
Collective Bargaining at Central Division

Lawrence Susskind, Charles Hecksher, Elaine Landry
 
 
Per participant (Non-Profit/educational)$3.00
Per participant (For Profit)$4.00
Teacher's Package (Download Below)$0.00
SPANISH Per Participant$4.00
Soft copyHard copyWhat to Order?

Download a review copy

Be the first to write a review

SCENARIO: The union and management bargaining teams for American Phone Company are preparing for upcoming negotiations. The last round of negotiations in 1986 was disastrous; there was a strike and relationships were damaged. The leadership on both sides would like things to go better this time around and has said that they want to work toward a more cooperative relationship. Trust between the two groups has eroded over the years, however, any attempts to employ a mutual gains approach here is not necessarily met with enthusiasm by their constituencies. The negotiations revolve around three issues likely to be on the table in 1989: wages, employment security and medical benefits.

MECHANICS: Individuals should be given at least 30 minutes to read general and confidential material. Internal group negotiations and preparations should take 60-90 minutes. External negotiations between management and the union can take 60-90 minutes.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

  • For all parties:
    • General Information
    • Inventing Options for Mutual Gain--Instructions

  • For Union Members (L. Rigley, A. Jones, and M. Bemis):
    • Union Fact Sheet

  • For Management Members (K. Lewis, R. Gentry, and J. Evans):
    • Management Fact Sheet

  • Confidential Instructions for Internal Team Negotiations:
    • Union Representatives:
      • M. Bemis, President of the Local
      • A. Jones, Staff Member of the International Union
      • L. Rigley, Regional Representative of the International Union

    • Management Representatives:
      • J. Evans, Manager of Large Business Services
      • R. Gentry, Head of the Benefits Department
      • K. Lewis, Division Manager of Labor Relations

  • Confidential Instructions for Identifying Interests:
    • Union Representatives:
      • M. Bemis, President of the Local
      • A. Jones, Staff Member of the International Union
      • L. Rigley, Regional Representative of the International Union

    • Management Representatives:
      • J. Evans, manager of Large Business Services
      • R. Gentry, Head of the Benefits Department
      • K. Lewis, Division Manager of Labor Relations

  • Teacher's Package:
    • All of the above

PROCESS THEMES: Agenda control; Caucusing; Competition v. Cooperation; Consensus building; Interest, dovetailing; Issue control; Joint gains; Options, generating; Packaging; Recurring negotiations

MAJOR LESSONS:

There are often legitimate differences within bargaining teams. These internal conflicts ought to be worked out before serious bargaining begins as unresolved internal conflict can create problems when it comes time to ratify carefully crafted draft agreements. This exercise creates the opportunity for participants to practice techniques and strategies of managing internal team conflict.

In most collective bargaining situations, each side begins by staking out its position. Both usually do this before they even hear what the concerns are of the other side. This often leads to the process of trading concessions which results in minimally acceptable outcomes. To achieve maximum joint gains it is necessary to focus instead on listening to the interests of the other side before staking out opening positions. The best techniques for probing interests can be studied.

Using statements developed during the session on probing interests, the best ways of inventing options for mutual gain and the power of creative options can be explored.

The significance of relationships can be studied in the context of negotiation strategies. The impact of existing and future relationships on implementation can be explored.

Issues of representation can be examined, since each of the players represents a group or institutional constituency. Each representative has a mandate which aids or constrains his or her ability to negotiate.

This game allows the players to explore the influence of threats and promises on the behavior of other parties.

The game raises questions of relationship, precedent and reputation. All sides have important long-term interests.



Time required2-3 hours
Number of participants2
Teams involvedNo
Agent presentNon-lawyer
Neutral third party presentNone
ScoreableNo
Teaching notes availableNo
To search for other role simulations by attributes, use our role simulation advanced search tool.
Search

ADVANCED SEARCH >>
Topics
Arbitration

Business

Community

Consumer

Education

Environment

Ethics

Facilitation

Family

Government

High School/Young Adult

International

Intra-organizational

Law

Mediation

Medicine/Health

Multidisciplinary

Pedagogy

Prisoner's Dilemma / Game Theory

Psychology

Public Disputes

Technology

Reviews

Current Reviews: 0
Write a Review
PRIVACY POLICY Phone: 800-258-4406 (from within the U.S.) or 781-239-1111 (from outside the U.S.)
E-mail: chouse@law.harvard.edu
Copyright © 2004 The President and Fellows of Harvard College