Contract Negotiations Without Ill Will

School Administrator, Oct, 1995 by Richard C. Tait

The fifth grade hallway is always crowded at lunch time. Mark had shoved Jack only one time in their heated discussion before Mrs. Jackson, the school's veteran principal, stepped onto the scene. Tempers were flaring and both boys were ready to throw punches, but it appeared no serious damage had been done.

Mrs. Jackson, tapping the wisdom of her 24 years as an elementary principal, had both boys sit in her office so they could cool off. After about 15 minutes, she said, "Let's talk. Let's find out what's bothering you boys, get it on the table, and deal with it!" In her wisdom, she knew if the boys could openly and honestly discuss their problems, they could solve them.

Mrs. Jackson provided a lesson for us as school system leaders. Could this experienced school administrator provide a new technique to solve problems? Is this an isolated case in the annals of daily school operation? We know the answer.

Being open, honest, putting the cards on the table, and talking about problems and concerns are methods that often lead to solutions and peace.

But if life can be this simple, why can't labor and management issues be dealt with in similar fashion? Why do we need to push, flex our muscles, argue, hire the big guns, make power plays, and think that the only way we can solve labor disputes is by being the toughest kid on the block? It's time we took a lesson from the behavior that we expect from our students and look for an alternative model for handling labor-management contract issues!

Informal Nature

Picking up on an idea started in a neighboring school district many years ago, our district initiated a collaborative, contract-bargaining program known as informal bargaining. It involves a win-win philosophy that treats all members of the negotiating teams with respect and dignity and relies strongly on the element of trust.

The process has no room for grandstanding, threats, or games. It strives to reach a contract resolution based on fairness, honesty, and understanding--the same areas we expect from our children when they disagree.

Some basic understandings help make the process work. The parties understand that even though the district has beginning and ending dates on its master agreement, the contract always is open to negotiation. If approved by the board and teachers, the contract can be modified at any time. This allows concerns to be addressed as immediately as possible, instead of waiting until the end of the contract period.

An additional component to the success of this program is the amount of side bargaining that is expected to take place. The interaction among and between any and all bargaining members keeps the line of communication open--constantly trying to solve real issues, looking at costs, or trying to determine whether the board is really listening or trying to understand a staffing problem.

Selection Process

The selection of negotiating team members for both sides is done a little differently than in most adversarial bargaining programs. In past years, teachers as a group selected three of the seven board of education members they wanted to negotiate with, while the school board selected four teachers it wanted to negotiate with. The superintendent automatically serves as the board's fourth member.

During this past year's negotiation session, the teachers selected their own team members and the board allowed the teachers to select the board team members. The entire theory is based on a collaborative effort of having a total negotiating team that feels comfortable in working and communicating with each other.

Once the informal team members have been selected, the teachers' union discusses its needs and concerns with the association membership. This information then is compiled, tabulated, prioritized, and used as a platform for discussion during the first meeting with the board's informal team.

During the initial negotiation meeting, the teacher team and the board team talk about issues and concerns that both sides would like to see addressed as well as what the ideal contract could look like and what the board feels might be something reasonable the district could live with or accept as an economic package.

At a second informal bargaining meeting, the teachers present their official proposal. The entire document is reviewed step by step, answering questions of board members and the superintendent.

During the final meeting of the informal teams, the board team accepts the teacher's proposal or offers a written counterproposal to the teacher team. Regardless of how the teacher team feels about the board's counterproposal (should a counter be presented), both the teachers' contract proposal (showing staff the actual offer their team made to the board), and the board's contract proposal are presented to the entire teaching staff.

If the board's counterproposal is not ratified by the staff, contract negotiations can and may return to a more traditional, adversarial, bargaining process. If the teaching staff's failure to ratify the proposal is tied to one or two small issues, some fine tuning of the proposal may be needed to reach an acceptable ratification vote.