 Good afternoon. I'm Gaylord Jones, and welcome to Dimension, a weekly look at the issues behind the issues which saved the quality of our life here in Waldenville. Now, as you know, the city has recently negotiated a contract with its employees. For a while it appeared almost certain that there would be no agreement and that there would be a strike. However, good sense has prevailed and through the use of a mediator, the strike was averted and the contract, which is satisfactory to both sides, was signed just a few days ago. Now, today in our studio we have with us some of the principal participants in that negotiations. And since the issues of that negotiation are a vital concern to all of us here in Waldenville, and since the collective bargaining process is apparently becoming critical to the well-being of our city, I thought today we would explore that process. I have asked our guests to be candid. I have asked them to share with us thoughts they might usually keep for themselves. Because it's important that the citizens of this community understand the delicacy and the dynamics of a labor negotiation, they have agreed to be open. They have the greed to let us come inside the process with them and see for ourselves what really goes on in negotiation. Our guests today are Mr. Thomas Callaway, Director of Personnel and Labor Relations. Mr. Callaway was the Chief Negotiator for the City. And Ms. Patricia Martin, the Chief Budget Officer for the City, who with the others was a member of the Management Negotiating Committee. From the other side of the table we have Mr. Joel Murphy, who was Chief Negotiator for the Employees. And Mr. Ted Daniels, President of the Local Union and a member of the Union Negotiating Committee. Now gentlemen and Ms. Martin, let me pose your question here. Collective bargaining seems to me to be an adversary process and this suggests to me that someone wins and someone loses. Yet after disagreeing violently on several issues, in fact nearly going out on strike, now you claim an agreement is satisfactory. Who lost? Who won? Mr. Callaway. Mr. Jones, let me correct some things you said. First, the process is not an adversary process. We were not fighting each other. We were strongly advocating our different positions. It might have looked adversary but it was not. We were trying to establish how we shall share in the decisions about the terms and conditions under which our employees work. You see, the process is not as simple as you've indicated Mr. Jones. We discussed dozens of issues, many interwoven and quite complex. There were some issues about which I personally would have preferred a different outcome. And I'm sure there are some issues that Mr. Murphy would have preferred a different resolution. It's not a question of winning or losing. It's a little bit like a marriage. You have to give and take a little here and there to keep the total relationship healthy. You accommodate because in a relationship like ours, unlike a marriage, there is no divorce. It's very rare that a collective bargaining relationship is ever dissolved. I have this image of you people sitting around the table behind closed doors, essentially horse trading. Not at all. In fact, if my membership thought that, I wouldn't be president of our local for very long. Going back to your image, when we think about negotiation, we almost always think about two groups sitting across the table from each other arguing for or against some point. What most people don't realize is that only a small portion of the process takes place at the table. If you think there's disagreement at the table, you should see the disagreement that goes on within each team when away from the table and how much negotiation takes place within each team. For example, before we could present a proposal to the union, our committee had to attempt to reach a consensus and being human beings that's sometimes not so easy. Remember when we were discussing our money proposal? We just haven't got the money. Look Pat, if we're going to get a three-year contract, we're going to have to pay for it somehow. It's that simple. You gave them their uniforms. You're giving them that $10,000 increase in major medical insurance. And you're thinking of giving them that educational incentive. Now that's new money. Where do you think it's coming from? Mayor Hobson, please. Jim, this is Tom. Things look fairly good. We've got a number of issues settled, like, well, like overtime traded off predictably for temporary transfers. Pretty soon, Jim, we get a feeling that a long-term agreement is possible. But it's tied to cola, you know. I think we can get a multi-year agreement, but I just, I've got to know if we can bend that far. Yes, Mr. Mayor. I still expect that revenues for the next three years will increase at about 2% per year. We can spend no more than 4 million per year for the next two or three years. Now that includes wages and fringes. If my projections are correct and there are no unexpected changes, that means 13% the first year, something less the second and third year. Now, Mr. Mayor, wages are only a part of the cost of their demands. We've got insurance, educational incentives. These cost money, too. Yes, Jim. 5% a year for the time being and no cost of living. And remember, Tom, then you better be ready for a fight on residency. So, what's the deal? The mayor says no cola. Good. They're not going to buy it. Crying out loud, Tom. We're not running a supermarket here. We're supposed to be negotiating a contract. And anyway, we're the buyers in this thing. We're buying their labor, and that is all. You were paying too damn much. You see, a bargaining committee is made up of individuals. Each of us have our individual feelings and knowledge of the issues. It takes a while to reach an accord even within your own team. Well, is it necessary in the process that there be a complete agreement within the bargaining committee? Well, it's necessary that we appear to agree. We had a member of our committee who felt especially strong on the residency issue. When we were in caucus, we went round and round on that issue. If you could have seen those caucuses, you probably would have thought it was a miracle we could be united at the bargaining table. We had just recessed the negotiations and, uh, well, it looks like the employee appeals board and the no strike will trade out. But we're going to have to drop our cost of living proposal. We simply can't get cola. I'm convinced they'll take a strike over it. But what about the three years? And we can't take three years without a cost of living increase? Well, I think, uh, I think they'll come down to two-year contract. We can live with that. So that really just leaves the, uh, educational incentive, contracting out wages and residency is the key issues. Uh, what about the additional holiday? Yeah, that too. Now, uh, I feel we're going to have to make some compromises on residency. I'm not sure I like the sound of that. How's that, Ed? Well, Ted, I've lived on a farm outside of town for 20 years. I put a lot of my life into that place. And there ain't no way, as long as I'm on this committee, that I'll let you sign away my home or my job. Because that's what it'll boil down to if you agree to a residency clause. Now, you either hold ground on this thing or you're going to have to carry me physically from the table. It seems then that the bargaining that goes on at the table is just the tip of the iceberg. When we were negotiating our contract, we weren't negotiating in a vacuum. The whole community was involved. After all, the issues that affect the lives of people throughout Waldenville. Not only did we negotiate within our own committees internally, but there were external pressures, which became a basic part of the negotiation. What pressures? I don't mean this critically, but I think the best example was you. Me? You remember before the negotiations began, you made a radio broadcast. If a rumored walkout of city employees becomes a reality, there may be a lot of people going to the polls to vote against Mayor Hobson, perhaps for the first time in their lives. Last year's strike at General Transistor was long and bitter. Many of our neighbors were financially hurt. But the scars left by the General Transistor strike would be nothing compared to a walkout of city employees. And so the question we must ask ourselves is this. Who owns Waldenville? Is it Jim Hobson and the city council? Is it Joe Murphy and Ted Daniels and the union? Is it those who feel compelled to negotiate our welfare behind closed doors behind our backs? My feeling is that we own Waldenville, you and me, your family and mine. Those who this very night are arming themselves with the issues of confrontation better quiet for a moment the rattling of their sabers and listen to the voice of the people. When you made that comment about a rumored walkout, it directly affected the negotiation. A walkout was the farthest thing from my mind. Of course, our membership had voted us the authority in case we couldn't reach a settlement. But I was told it would be a walkout. Who told you? I hadn't heard about it and I'm president of the local. No matter. It's entirely possible the city included its no strike clause in its proposal as a direct result of your broadcast. No, not really, but it conceivably changed the intensity of our attitude about the issue. In any event, the media represents an important dimension of the collective bargaining process. Undoubtedly, it influences what happens at the table. Should that be? Of course. After all, we are negotiating in public even if we are behind closed doors. We're employed by the people. We're paid by the people. And you have to be responsive to community attitudes and feelings. You said it in your broadcast when you asked who owns Waldenville. What are some other external pressures? I think both sides felt some pressure from the city council, especially about the residency issue. As a matter of fact, it took Sam Stone, the mediator, to figure out a way to help us relieve that pressure. What was Sam Stone's role in the negotiation? A mediator is precisely what the name implies. As an interested yet impartial third party, he helps us to discover areas of agreement we might not be able to find by ourselves. He's a communicator, a sort of diplomatic courier who moves freely from side to side with what we'll call supposals. Suppose you would do this, suppose you try that. Sometimes we're too close to the forest to see the trees. Now the mediator helps us step back a little and take a fresh look at the issues that divide us. You're going to tell us about external pressure. The city council? Now tell me about residency. This thing is one hell of a mess. We've all got a problem on this one. They're asking for a provision in their contract that would assure them the freedom to live anywhere they choose. I'm not so sure that I disagree with them. But the city council is proposing a residency requirement that would make anyone living outside the city either move back in or face the possibility of dismissal. I'll tell you Mr. Stone, I worked most of my life to get a home out there in the suburbs and I wouldn't like coming back. I can't blame these guys but what can we do? The whole thing is a mess. Right now about 30 percent of our employees live outside of the city. If this bill is passed, we're going to have terrible problems throughout our departments all through the city. Sure and I could write the best damn residency clause in the world but then along come the city fathers and legislate away my good faith. How could we ever face them across the table again? The city council being an elected body is simply an extension of the people and the people are and always will be an important dimension of bargaining in the public sector. Well what about the mayor? I understand that he played an important role in the negotiation. Now I think we come to a slightly different dimension. I'd call it the vertical dimension or vertical accountability. I was chairperson of the city committee and I was selected by the mayor. Therefore I was accountable to the mayor and as personnel director of the city I also was responsible for all the people who worked for the city union and management. You have to remember the contract negotiations were going on at the same time the mayor was campaigning for reelection. If the negotiations went badly or there was no settlement it might have affected the election. So I can imagine he put a little pressure on Callaway here. The mayor and I had several discussions prior to and during the negotiations and he had some pretty strong feelings to say the least. Where do you get that walkout thing Tom? Beats me. You know there's been no rumored walkout and even if there were it doesn't necessarily mean it would hurt you at the polls. It might even help show the people you're interested in their welfare. An electorate is an unpredictable thing Tom. A walkout or a walkout rumor is a risk and I don't like to take risks. I don't like surprises. Believe me Jones is just chasing ghosts. Well how does he get away with bull like that? We've got a good contract right now. It's been pretty fair to everyone concerned. I just want to make it better. Do you think they'll go for the three years? Yeah it'll be tough to sell. We've got to have it. I can't run this city if I can't project costs. And now that Gaylor Jones has brought up the issue I want to know strike clause. I don't think that would really be wise. We've never had any trouble. I want it. I want a guarantee of labor peace over the next three years. The people want labor peace and I want it and the city council wants it. And it's your job as head of the negotiating team to get it. I know what we want to get Mr. Mayor. Right now I am more concerned about what we must reasonably expect to give. You're looking for a bottom line Callaway. There's just one line as far as you're concerned Callaway and that's what's best for the people of this city. Now you talk about reasonable expectations. Do you think Daniels and Murphy are going to be reasonable down at the union hall? Well I can see how the city committees must have felt this pressure from above and below. But how about you Mr. Daniels? Did the unions feel the pressure? Sure. The mayor isn't the only elected official in the city. I'm an elected official. I was elected president of the local on the basis of my views on certain issues. Issues that our members feel very strongly about. The membership wouldn't think kindly of me if I were to fail to advocate those views at the bargaining table. Well what about pressure from above? Here it sits. Mr. Joe Murphy regional representative. There are times when the national and the local have differing views on specific issues. In the negotiations just passed we had a difference on how to handle the residency issue. Now to the local membership this was an extremely personal issue and I felt and I think the mediator Mr. Stone felt that personal involvement was leading them where it wasn't wise to go. And as local president I'll catch it from both ends. Top and bottom. I know how you feel Ed and I'll stand by you but I don't think we can win. Murphy doesn't even live here. Where the hell does he get off gambling with my home? I'm sorry Ted. Can't help how I feel. Look Ed, first of all you wouldn't be affected. It's a gamble any way you look at it. Suppose the union goes your way. Suppose you strike. Now put yourself in the place of those people on the city council. They're human beings just like the rest of us and human nature being what it is I think a strike would pretty much guarantee an ordinance. It might make a few of them just mad enough to push through an ordinance to turn your strike sour. Do you think about working together we got a chance? A hell of a lot better chance than if you strike. It would be a strike you just can't win. You guys elected me Ed. I'm not going to go against you no matter what kind of pressure I get from Murphy but I'm asking you give me a chance to work it out. This brings up what is probably a very touchy subject that strikes or the threat of strikes. Now the impression we got here in Waldenville during the negotiation was that the union was going to take its members out on strike if it couldn't get its way. Then your impression was wrong Mr. Jones. Let's get this one thing straight. Most union leaders are not strike happy. Strikes are serious business and no responsible union leader takes them lightly. Most of us have to be pushed into a strike by our members. We resisted. That's right. It's easy to lead people out on strike but it's harder to keep them out and it's not easy to lead them back especially as a united group. You never get everything. How do you explain that after a long hard strike where members have lost maybe a thousand dollars on their paychecks. From the other side of the so-called table let me add this. I've been representing management for a long time in both public and private collective bargaining. There were times when I found it necessary to push unions to the wall to confront them with a hard decision to take less or take a walk. When we reached that point both sides talked pretty tough at the table and we mean what we say but when push comes to shove neither of us wants to put the other into a box we can't get out of. I'm just learning this business but I think I know one thing most negotiations are settled without strikes. Less than five percent of all negotiations involve strikes and even in many of those cases the strike is a way of bringing about an agreement. Every once in a while it seems necessary just to keep everybody honest with each other. It helps clear the air. So the strike or the fed of strike is really just another means balancing the pressure that each side can exert on the other. This whole pressure thing is pretty interesting. Aside from strikes let's see if I understand these various pressures or dimensions. We have an internal dimension that is the negotiation within each team to resolve the differences within each committee. Then we have the external dimension that's the politics press public and then we've got this vertical dimension the responsibility of each committee person to his constituency and to the chain of command above it. Then my question to all of you has to be this with all these conflicting pressures how can the system possibly work how can you avoid chaos. Well you've answered the question with your question. All those conflicting forces are the very things that make bargaining work because the net effect is to create checks and balances and flexibility leverages moving in every direction at the same time. The result is almost always in one way or another an agreement. If collective bargaining were simply two adversaries coming together with fixed inflexible positions no contract would ever be signed but because each negotiator has responsibilities to so many people his constituencies the community at large we must bend accommodate we become advocates not adversaries because we know we're going to be facing each other across the table again. Once the contract is signed there's a long time to live with it and make it work two years. At the beginning of this program you asked who won and who lost well I think collective bargaining is one of those rare processes where no one really loses or wins totally one day one side may come out better but that doesn't last there's always another negotiation down the pike and of course there are those occasions when both sides may misunderstand each other or when anger or ego went out over good sense but and in those cases both sides are losers. But the contract we signed is essentially what each of us came to the table to get. Oh they'd like to have had the three years I know but they did get two which is better than the old one year term and we'd like to have gotten a little more money for our members but we did get a substantial increase over the old contract. Well what was it like at the table what would our viewers have seen if they'd been able to attend the actual sessions. It's not hard to describe for the most part they would have seen Joe and me discussing and arguing back and forth occasionally Pat or Ted or one of the others would come in with a position to explain or interpret and observer probably would have been bored to death most of the time. Now this horizontal bargaining back and forth across the table is essentially two groups of people attempting to persuade each other that their positions are reasonable and just and that the position of the other is unreasonable and unjust and because each side wants to convince the other side its proposal is more reasonable and more just sometimes emotions rise to the surface rather dramatically. Now what's the problem with the no strike proposal. You know the law in this state prohibits strikes your proposals irrelevant. You know what I'm talking about the slowdown we had last winter. Well did the union cause it or did your management cause it. We had a contract. But did the union sanction this alleged slowdown. Did the union disavow it. I don't believe you were living up to your responsibilities. They about to fire you or something Mr. Callaway. We haven't heard any rumors that you're in trouble. Do you intend to apply for the job Mr. Murphy. We can approach this thing two ways Tom we can we can approach the issues directly or we can sit here and trade insults with each other. Now we've been responsible on this matter and we're still responsible. Let me ask you a rather subjective question. Now this contract negotiations you've just completed seem to be fairly volatile and passions ran high. It could have it could have toppled the city administration. Hundreds of employees could have lost their jobs and yet you seem to be in control. Now wasn't it really just a kind of a charade. Isn't there some alternative. Isn't there some better way to solve your differences. I don't know. I've thought about that. Well we could return to the law of the jungle. And I suppose there might be other ways. The old ways didn't seem to work out very well. One side could impose its will on the other you know like like management did in the old days. But I see collective bargaining as a as a movement away from the despotism the chaos and the violence that wants characterized labor relations. It's the best way we know of coming to some kind of temporary agreements about the circumstances under which people work. What's true it is highly stylized. It's almost a choreography. Yeah I think I think we could describe what we just went through is the choreography of negotiations. It's also a peaceful way of resolving conflict. It's a process of continuing communications and dialogue. This was our fourth negotiation with each other. And I'm sure the next one will be much easier on everyone concerned. Well now I don't know about that. Not unless you have a cost of living increase in your next wage proposal. There will be no cola while I'm with the city. I keep telling you people not to keep getting yourselves in the box you can't get out of. Now look. On this note of harmony we conclude our examination of the dimensions of collective bargaining. I might just add it's a process which seems at once terribly primitive and immensely sophisticated. It's a strange hybrid of argument and eloquence. A verbal brawl, a verbal ballet, passion, reason. It is in fact an example of democracy in action and most important of all it almost always works. Well that's our dimension for today. Have a good week.