Bargaining Simulation

The collective agreement bargaining simulation was a success. Factors within our control, such as thorough research and creative strategies, to factors outside our control, such as personalities of opposing members and their knowledge of the issues discussed contributed to the overall success. Frankly, we were amazed at our ability to solve arguments and work under pressure; however, there were some areas where we could have handled better. Overall, the interaction between management and union team was constructive and collectively we reached a common goal.

Before the simulation, we knew this was a distributive bargaining. Therefore, we tried to incorporate interest-based bargaining where we can reduce conflicts by focusing on interests instead of positions and attempt to find a settlement that produces gains for both parties. In order to establish a cooperative relationship, we gave in to their initial demand of 11 paid holidays. The reason behind this was to demonstrate we are knowledgeable of the industry trends and at the same time hoping there may be some momentum built up by settling. Furthermore, because paid holiday is one of the less significant issues. By giving that up, we hoped they would later give in to our other valued demands. However, were disappointed and frustrated as the union team continued with their high demands.

The relationship quickly shifted to accommodation where there was only a moderate amount of respect between the two of us accompanied by limited trust. Although, we would ultimately go back to cooperative relationship, this shift provided evidence to another factor, which was personality of all the members.

There werenÐŽ¦t any authoritarian personality types; people were friendly, trusting and cooperative. No one tired to dominate. Both team tried to bargain in good faith. This was evident through the effort of conveying a clear message across the room. At first, the union team did not understand what we meant by indexing to real rate. We kindly explained how the wage increase would be calculated with respect to the inflation and nominal rate. The union team, on the other hand, had to change their calculation method for it was difficult for us to communicate with different terms.

Another strategy that was adapted to reduced conflict was constantly changing the issues being discussed. For example, whenever, we realized we were bumping heads with the union team on seniority, we would move on to the monetary package of issues. The union team would also do the same. This had reinforced that we maintain an interest-based bargaining and thus, made us more efficient.

Some aspects of our strategy provided us with certain advantages. First, we did a more thorough research. The union team tried to show us that the cost of living in Prince George and Vancouver were similar, such as stating that the majority of the Prince George employees had longer commutes. However, we refuted their argument by making them aware of the lower cost of gas, which was currently 10 cents cheaper, and the higher cost of housing and apartments in Vancouver. Indeed, we were very assertive on this matter, and provided strong evidence to warrant our convictions. With data to back up our claims, it was easy for the union team to stay objective and understand the issue from our perspective.

Second, we were direct and firm with our views. Sometimes, we would not respond with a counterproposal until the union team come up a more reasonable offer. In the case of length of agreement, the union team was asking for a 5.5% increase in wages for a one year contract, with the reason that our wages were significantly lower than the average. We defended our position by pointing out that our company was producing low-end furniture, with the