Power is the essence of collective bargaining. The ability of the TWU Local 100 to obtain what it wants and the ability of the MTA to resist TWU Local 100 demands depends on the relative power position of each side. It is fundamental to understand the process of wage determination in collective bargaining power and the source of power available to the TWU Local 100 and the MTA.
Bargaining power may be defined as one’s ability to induce an opponent to agree on one’s own terms. The origin of bargaining power is twofold. One determinant of bargaining power is the ability of TWU Local 100 to impose costs on the MTA if the MTA does not agree to TWU Local 100’s terms. The second determinant of TWU Local 100 bargaining power is the ability to insulate itself from retaliatory cost-imposing sanctions by MTA. This description of bargaining power suggests that one side’s ability to win its demands depends on how costly it can make disagreement for the other while minimizing its own costs. Much of collective bargaining involves jockeying back and forth between TWU Local 100 and MTA as each seeks ways either to strengthen its own sanctions against the other side or to protect itself from the cost-imposing ability of its opponent.
The single most important source of bargaining power for TWU Local 100 is the threat of a strike while for the MTA it is the ability to resist a strike. A Strike imposes costs on both sides since the MTA management loses its credibility, confidence of New Yorkers as a state agency while we in the TWU lose earnings from work. The relative bargaining power of the MTA in relation to TWU Local 100 hinges on whether the costs of a strike fall more heavily on the MTA management or the TWU Local 100 members.
Questions - 1. How does bargaining power effect the size of the wage increase that TWU Local 100 is able to win from the MTA? What factors increase the TWU Local bargaining power? What factors increase the MTA? 2. What factors influence the size of the TWU Local 100 and MTA initial wage demands in bargaining? How might a skilled negotiator be able to change the other side’s demands to be more in his or her own favor?
Always interesting when you talk about strikes. I think what you said in relation to the cost of a strike could be easily turnd completely around;
ReplyDelete" A strike imposes costs on both sides since the Union loses its credibility, confidence of New yorkers as public servants while the MTA loses earnings from lost revenue."
A good case can be made for either argument.
Being that this is a public forum where MTA types sometimes prowl, I cannot give you my full analysis of a strike.