Rethinkins the Role oi Collective By DALE YODER and PAUL D. STAUIX5HAR Dale Yoder is Professor Emeritus at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. Paul Staudohar is Professor of Business Administration, California State University, Hayv/ard. COLLECTIVE BARQAINING is the key feature of industrial rela-tions systems in democratic countries, wheTe it is provided for and encouraged by law. In collective bargaining, representatives of labor and management negotiate the wages, hours, and working conditions for designated groups of employees. Conventional approaches to negotia- tion regard it as an adversary proceeding, with each side contending for a greater share of the economic pie. Models explaining the role of collective bargaining have therefore concentrated on this conflict of interests. The purpose of this article is to suggest a model for T«vising the traditional bargaining role in the United States.^ First, the adversary and cooperative approaches to negotiations are outlined to illustrate their differing emphasis. Second, the environmental setting of collec- tive bargaining, which influences the appropriateness of negotiating model and potential outcomes, is examined. Next, the adversary and cooperative approaches are reviewed in terms of their impact on results to the society and economic system. And, last, a synthesis, based on a suggested modification of existing practice, toward creating a more rational approach to collective bargaining for the future is presented. The environmental setting influences the two principal approaches to collective bargaining—adversary and cooperative. The adversary relationship, geared toward conflict, prescribes the acquisition, pres- ervation, and protection of wage and nonwage objectives through negotiations. The stance in negotiations is effectuated through offensive tactics calculated to force the adversary to grant concessions and defensive tactics to prevent the adversary from gaining concessions. In contrast, the cooi>erativ€ model focuses on measures designed to increase employee morale and productivity. This approach invites the parties to go beyond the usual provisions of the negotiated agree- ' Portions of this article are based on ideas found in the authors' recent book. Personnel Management and Industrial Relations, 7th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982), which also includes references to other discussions of each of these models and their strengths and weaknesses. © 1983 by Date Yoder and Pout D. Staudohar Collective Bargaining 311 ment to establish policies, programs, and procedures to solve problems of mutual interest. Instead of conducting negotia- tions in an atmosphere of crisis confron- tation, the parties recognize and accept eacb other as partners in a cooperative venture. Rather than view negotiations as a contest in which the "smart player" wins, the parties pool their creative resources to devise new arrangements for work in which bo ...

1. Rethinkins the Role oi Collective
By DALE YODER and PAUL D. STAUIX5HAR
Dale Yoder is Professor Emeritus at the Graduate School of
Business, Stanford University. Paul Staudohar is Professor of
Business Administration, California State University, Hayv/ard.
COLLECTIVE BARQAINING is the key feature of industrial
rela-tions systems in democratic countries, wheTe it is provided
for and
encouraged by law. In collective bargaining, representatives of
labor
and management negotiate the wages, hours, and working
conditions
for designated groups of employees. Conventional approaches to
negotia-
tion regard it as an adversary proceeding, with each side
contending
for a greater share of the economic pie. Models explaining the
role
of collective bargaining have therefore concentrated on this
conflict
of interests.
The purpose of this article is to suggest a model for T«vising
the
traditional bargaining role in the United States.^ First, the
adversary
and cooperative approaches to negotiations are outlined to
illustrate
their differing emphasis. Second, the environmental setting of
collec-

2. tive bargaining, which influences the appropriateness of
negotiating
model and potential outcomes, is examined. Next, the adversary
and
cooperative approaches are reviewed in terms of their impact on
results
to the society and economic system. And, last, a synthesis,
based on
a suggested modification of existing practice, toward creating a
more
rational approach to collective bargaining for the future is
presented.
The environmental setting influences the two principal
approaches
to collective bargaining—adversary and cooperative. The
adversary
relationship, geared toward conflict, prescribes the acquisition,
pres-
ervation, and protection of wage and nonwage objectives
through
negotiations. The stance in negotiations is effectuated through
offensive
tactics calculated to force the adversary to grant concessions
and defensive
tactics to prevent the adversary from gaining concessions.
In contrast, the cooi>erativ€ model focuses on measures
designed
to increase employee morale and productivity. This approach
invites
the parties to go beyond the usual provisions of the negotiated
agree-
' Portions of this article are based on ideas found in the authors'
recent book.

3. Personnel Management and Industrial Relations, 7th ed.
(Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982), which also includes references to
other discussions of
each of these models and their strengths and weaknesses.
© 1983 by Date Yoder and Pout D. Staudohar
Collective Bargaining 311
ment to establish policies, programs, and
procedures to solve problems of mutual
interest. Instead of conducting negotia-
tions in an atmosphere of crisis confron-
tation, the parties recognize and accept
eacb other as partners in a cooperative
venture. Rather than view negotiations
as a contest in which the "smart player"
wins, the parties pool their creative
resources to devise new arrangements
for work in which both parties share
in financial rewards.
Tbe adversary and cooperative ap-
proaches can produce similar results
in negotiations. For example, eitber
form may end in financial gains for
employees. But often tbe results are
contrary in that tbe adversary approacb
is more apt to end in strikes and bitter
feelings among tbe participants. Througb
application of pressure, unions may
achieve generous wage increments. But
they may jeopardize future growth and

4. ability of management to compete in
domestic and foreign markets. In these
situations botb sides can wind up losing
in tbe longer term.
Specific tactics and results of tbe ad-
versary and cooperative approacbes will
be examined in greater detail below.
Prior to tbis examination, it is useful
to explore the cbanged environmental
setting because this is the key to deter-
mining the propriety of choices between
the two models. It appears that revi-
sions in this environmental setting can
make strict application of eitber tbe
pure adversary or cooperative approacbes
inappropriate. This suggests tbe need
for a revised model tbat fits the needs
of the environmental setting more closely.
Environmental Setting
Major components of the environ-
mental setting include factors such as the
law, industrial context (e.g., private or
public employment), labor force trends.
worker attitudes, union and manage-
ment philosophies, past relationships
of the parties, and profit/budget status.
Tbe legal framework for collective bar-
gaining rests largely on statutory law.
Under the National Labor Relations Act
workers in private industry have the
right to join unions, negotiate contracts,
and engage in pressure tactics. Separate

5. statutes apply to government workers,
who often have the same bargaining
rigbts as private employees except for
tbe rigbt to strike. Otber statutes,
specifying conditions such as minimum
wages, equal employment opportunity,
and employee safety, may exert a sig-
nificant impact on collective bargaining.
These statutes are generally interpreted
and enforced by administrative bodies,
sucb as tbe National Labor Relations
Board for private industry, and tbe
courts.
Although the legal framework is an
important determinant of the structure
and practice of collective bargaining,
it is generally consistent with application
of either the adversary or cooperative
models. However, other aspects of the
environmental setting, which have
changed in recent years, indicate that
application of the adversary model in
pure form is untenable.
For instance, the shift in private
industry to greater emphasis on white-
collar and service jobs and away from
blue-collar employment bas taken large
portions of workers out of tbe orbit
of union influence.^ Stagnation of em-
ployment in tbe beavily unionized public
sector, after years of rapid growtb, bas
also caused union influence to diminish.
Reliance on the adversary model in the
face of this tilting of the power scale

6. in management's favor does little to
provide these industries with the vitality
needed to survive and regain momentum.
° Se« Dale Yoder amd Paul D. Staudohar,
"Assessing the Decline of Unions in the U. S.,"
312
The Personnel Administrator, Vol. 27, No. 10
(October 1982), pp. 12-16.
May, 1983 • Labor l a w Journal
Heavy doses of cooperation between
labor and management are called for.
The slowdown in rates of productivity
growth among U. S. workers points to
a need for greater expenditures to
modernize industry, train employees,
and take advantage of technical inno-
vation. Cooperation today by labor and
management toward achieving this bal-
ance could help restore the American
edge in production that will justify
greater economic benefits to all in the
future. Training programs to increase
employee output can be encouraged
and made more effective through co-
operation rather than opposition in the
adversary mold.
Worker attitudes, especially among

7. the young, have changed. They sug-
gest increased emphasis on improve-
ments in the qualitv of work life. Work
must be more meaningful to allow people
to discover and develop their potential
as human beings. Labor-management
cooperation promotes opportunities for
individual growth and development and
thus accommodates revised worker at-
titudes.
Philosophies of union and management
practitioners have a significant influence
on collective bargaining. Union leaders
in the United States have long had a
"business unionism" philosophy in which
bargaining focus concentrated on the
bread and butter issues of increasing
wages, shortening hours, and improv-
ing working conditions. Management
practitioners have gone along with this
philosophy, provided it did not cut too
deeply into profits. It does not appear
necessary for the philosophy of labor
and management in the U. S. to change
radically, except that economic gains
in the future should be expected to
come more from accommodation than
confrontation.
Historic relationships of the parties in
bargaining influence their stance in con-
temporary negotiations. If confiict and
strikes have typified their past dealings,
agreement on contract terms may be

8. more difficult to reach. Parties whose
backgrounds are not so characterized can
more readily move toward the cooper-
ative model.
Approaches
Tactics relied on by the parties in
an adversary relationship are calculated
either to increase the ability to inflict
damage on the opponent (offensive
factors) or to enhance one's own ability
to withstand pressure from the other
FIGURE 1
OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE FACTORS IN
THE ADVERSARY APPROACH
Union
OFFENSIVE
Strike
Slowdown—mostly public employees
Sickout—^mostly public employees
Picketing
Secondary boycott
Management
Lockout
Layoff
Disciplinary suspension
Withholding benefits
Fines
Union

9. DEFENSIVE
Management
Strike fund
Financial aid from other unions
Welfare, e.g., food stamps
Arranging loans for strikers
Helping striker* find temporary jobs
Collective Bargaining
Strike insurance
Mutual aid
Stockpiling
Use of supervisors to perform work
Hire strikebreakers
313
side (defensive factors). Figure 1 illus-
trates offensive and defensive tactics for
labor and management.
The result of using an adversary ap-
proach to collective bargaining often
involves economic loss to both sides. In
the event of a work stoppage or lock-
out, wages are lost by workers and sales
and profits by firms. In government
employment, the public experiences loss
of services, inconvenience, and perhaps
even hazards to health and safety. De-
fensive tactics rarely provide adequate
protection for employees or employers.

10. While one party may come out ahead
of the other in a "win-lose" situation,
both sides as well as society usually
suffer if there is prolonged conflict.
When a cooperative approach to col-
lective bargaining is taken, the parties
seek to create mutually beneficial solu-
tions to common problems. Negative
tactics are replaced by accommodation,
cooperation, trust, and resjjeet. In con-
trast to an adversary proceeding, a
different set of objectives emerges. In
particular, focus is on ways to improve
employee morale and productivity, as
illustrated in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2
THE COOPERATIVE APPROACH—IMPROVED
MORALE AND PRODUCTIVITY
JOINT LABOR-MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Morale
Job enrichment
Better quality of work life
Promotion from within
Improved communication channels
Employee participation in decisions
For the individual employee, improve-
ments in morale can enhance personal
satisfaction with work, relations with
other workers, and sense of self-worth.
For groups of employees, improvements

11. in morale promote feelings of cohesive-
ness, group interest, and identification
with the mission of the group. The
benefits of higher productivity enable
increases in wages. They provide firms
with an edge in competitive markets and
govemment employers with an opportu-
nity to cut costs or improve levels of
public service. In short, emphasis on
the cooperative approach can produce
a "win-win" outcome to collective bar-
gaining.
Productivity
Reduced turnover
Reduced absenteeism
Elimination of restrictive work rules
No-strike clause
Grievance arbitration
Synthesis for the Future
In the past, management has pre-
ferred the adversary approach because
of fears that collaboration with unions
would reduce management authority and
impair efficiency. Unions have viewed
the adversary approach as consistent
with their role as bargaining organi-
zation and defender of their constitu-
ency.* These perceptions and their ac-
companying strategies are deeply rooted
in the American tradition of collective
bargaining. Therefore, no matter how
appealing a pure cooperation model may
seem in theory, it can rarely be accepted

12. in toto from a practical standpoint.
Instead, what appears to be emerging
in some industries is a new model that
' J a c k Barbash, "The American Ideology
of Industrial Relations," Proceedings of the
1979 Annual Spring Meeting, Industrial Rela-
314
tions Research Association, ed. by Barbara
D. Dennis (Madison, Wis.: IRRA, 1979), pp.
4S3-4S4.
May, 1983 • Labor Law Journal
combines elements of the adversary
and cooperative approaches. This syn-
thesis recognizes the essential competi-
tion between labor and management
for shares of the economic pie but
maintains an attitudinal structure and
commitment to cooperation in creative
programs that increase the overall size
of the pie. Instead of not being consid-
ered at all or being very much in the
background, joint labor-management
programs to raise employee morale and
productive efficiency are made a center-
piece of negotiations.
A key challenge of current collective
bargaining is to adjust to, one, the

13. adversary approach of management
seeking "givebacks" or "takeaways,"
where benefits gained in previous con-
tracts are removed or reduced through
negotiation of a new contract, and, two,
the cooperative approach of seeking ac-
commodation, trust, and mutual respect
toward joint labor-management efforts
to increase morale, productivity, and
quality of work life. These two areas
are not mutually exclusive or irrecon-
cilable.
Givebacks, or at least a substantial
reduction in the rate of increase in
financial benefits, are necessary in several
industries. Wage freezes or reductions
have already occurred in segments of the
automobile, airline, meatpacking, rubber,
textile, and trucking industries. More
restraint may be needed. Wages plus
benefits in the automobile industry av-
erage close to 20 dollars per hour, and
about 22 dollars in the steel industry.
These rates, according to various esti-
mates, are seven to eight dollars more
than the average hourly pay of Japanese
workers in these industries. In the past
a wage differential in favor of American
manufacturing workers has been justi-
fied by higher productivity rates, but
the Japanese have caught up on output
per worker.
Collective Bargaining

14. Cooperation goes with the changed
social values and higher educational
levels of today's labor force. People
want work that is more meaningful with
greater opportunities to think and par-
ticipate toward improving the quality of
their work life. Increased dialogue on
these issues between unions and manage-
ment can provide new work methods
that improve productivity.
In the automobile industry new agree-
ments were reached in 1982 to reduce
the employers' labor costs. The automo-
bile companies and the United Automo-
bile Workers Union have established
joint committees for quality circles, job
safety and health, and quality control.
New arrangements, combining adver-
sary and cooperative approaches, are
also emerging in the steel industry and
parts of public employment.
Conclusion
Union-management cooperation is still
distinctly experimental. Skepticism and
cynicism represent a major hazard to all
such plans. Among employers' represen-
tatives and within unions, numerous
participants refuse to believe that the
other party will consistently cooperate.
They feel sure that the program is a
subterfuge that obscures other objec-
tives.

15. Some managers fear that such pro-
grams will be regarded as attempts to
undermine the union and that union
demands will become more difficult.
This is not, however, a necessary or
inevitable result. Both parties can join
in planning such a program. Both man-
agement and unions may be expected to
recognize the multiple nature of loyalties
in employment and hence avoid any ex-
clusive loyalty to management or union.
Although some spokespersons for both
management and unions express their
suspicions of any trend toward more
cooperative collective bargaining, Ameri-
can experience with adversary bargain-
315
ing, es,pecially since the early 1970s,
strongly suggests that the traditional
system is scarred by built-in flaws that
require critical review and revision.
Adversary bargaining and the labor-
management policies it has fostered
have gained a worldwide reputation
for falling productivity, shrinking prof-
its, and rising unemployment. It may
well be time to realize that collective
bargaining is much more than a game
or sport. For a brighter future, we
need more managements and unions

16. with a "will to work together," who
implement a coof)erative spirit to achieve
common objectives, mutual trust, and
enhanced benefits for society.
[The End]
EMPLOYER CAN RECOGNIZE RIVAL UNION
An employer lawfully recognized a union and entered into a
contract
with it despite the presence of rival unions seeking recognition.
None
of the unions had filed a valid representation petition with the
NLRB.
It is the filing of such a petition which imposes the duty of
strict neutrality
on an employer. The Board held that there was no violation of
Section
8(a) (2) of the NLRA where an employer recognizes a union
representing
an uncoerced, unassisted majority before an election petition
has been filed
{Great Southern Construction, Inc., 1983 CCH NLRB jf
15,641).
In this case, the employer had refused to recognize a union
which
had obtained authorization cards from 51 of 65 employees. The
employer
advised all the unions involved to petition for a Board-
conducted election,
but none of them did. Subsequently, the employer recognized
another
union on the basis of authorization cards and entered into a
contract.

17. In the past, the Board has advised employers faced with rival
claims
of majority support to refuse recognition. The employer still
runs the
risk of a violation if it recognizes a union that does not, in fact,
have
majority support. However, there was no evidence of that in this
case,
nor of any unlawful coercion or assistance by the employer with
regard
to the union recognized.
316 May, 1983 * Labor Law Journal
Page 3 of 7
Stat 200 – Quiz 1 Instructor:
Multiple-Choice: Choose exactly ONE answer for each
question.
There are 20 problems for 2 points each for a total of 40 points.
01. A few of the variables for which data were collected in a
certain study include age, gender, income, and number of hours
spent shopping online per month. Which of the variables is
qualitative?
A. Age.
B. Gender.
C. Income.
D. Number of hours spent shopping online.
E. None.
Consider the following to answer the next two questions:

18. The administration of a large university is interested in learning
about the types of wellness programs that would interest its
employees. To do this, they plan to survey a sample of their
employees.
02. Suppose that there are five categories of employees
(administration, faculty, professional staff, clerical and
maintenance) and the university decides to randomly select ten
individuals from each category. This sampling plan is called
A. Simple Random Sampling.
B. Stratified Sampling.
C. Cluster Sampling.
D. Systematic Sampling.
E. Convenience Sampling.
03. Suppose that the university randomly selects a school (e.g.,
the Business School) and surveys all of the individuals
(administration, faculty, professional staff, clerical and
maintenance) who work in that school. This sampling plan is
called
A. Simple Random Sampling.
B. Stratified Sampling.
C. Cluster Sampling.
D. Systematic Sampling.
E. Convenience Sampling.
Consider the following to answer the next two questions:
The box-plots below show monthly sales revenue figures ($
thousands) for a discount office supply company with locations
in three different regions of the U.S. (Northeast, Southeast and
West).
04. Which of the following statements is true?
A. The southeast has the lowest sales revenues.
B. The southeast has the lowest median sales revenue.C. The
west has the lowest mean sales revenue.

19. D. The west has the lowest median sales revenue.
E. None of the above.
05. Which of the following statements is false?
A. The west has the most variable sales revenues.
B. The west has the largest IQR.
C. The southeast has the smallest IQR.
D. The northeast has the most variable sales revenues.E. The
southeast has the least variable sales revenues.
06. The collection of all subjects that are being studied is
A. The sample.
B. The population.
C. Statistical inference.
D. Descriptive statistics.
E. None of the above.
07. Temperature in Fahrenheit or Centigrade scale is an
example of a variable that uses
A. the ratio scale
B. the interval scale
C. the ordinal scale
D. the nominal scale
E. none of the above
Consider the following to answer the next four questions.
Below is a histogram and the five number summary for salaries
(in $) for a sample of U.S. marketing managers.
Min
Q1
Median
Q3
Max
46360
69693
77020

20. 91750
129420
08. The shape of this distribution is
A. symmetric.
B. bimodal
C. right skewed.D. left skewed.
E. normal
09. The most appropriate measure of central tendency for these
data is the
A. Median.
B. Mean.
C. Mode.
D. Range.
E. Standard deviation.
10. The IQR for these data is
A. $83,060
B. $69,693C. $77,020
D. $14,566
E. $22,057
11. Suppose the marketing manager who was earning $129,420
got a raise and is now earning $140,000. Which of the
following statement is true?
A. The mean would increase.
B. The median would increase.
C. The range would increase.
D. Both A and C.
E. All of the above
12. A student earned grades of 78, 78, 91, and 91 on her four
tests. She earned 78 on the final exam and 87 on her class
project. Her combined homework grade was 87. The four tests
count for 40% of the final grade, the final exam counts for 30%,
the project counts for 10% and the homework counts for 20%.
What is her weighted mean grade? Round to one decimal place.
A. 84.2
B. 82.8

21. C. 83.3 D. 84.3
E. none of the above
13. Identify the five-number summary of the following data set:
11, 28, 21, 7, 43, 33, 32, 37.
A. 7, 16, 30, 35, 43
B. 7, 21, 30, 33, 43
C. 7, 11, 30, 37, 43
D. 7, 21, 28, 33, 43
E. none of the above
14. Find the Variance and Standard deviation for the following
sample data:
7.2
7.1
7.4
7.9
6.5
7.2
8.2
9.3
A. Variance = 0.86, Standard deviation = 0.74
B. Variance = 0.74, Standard deviation = 0.86C. Variance =
0.64, Standard deviation = 0.80
D. Variance = 0.80, Standard deviation = 0.64
E. none of the above
15. One of the most widely used measures of dispersion is
A. the mean
B. the range
C. the z-score
D. the IQR
E. none of the above
The test scores of a sample of 40 students are summarized in the
frequency distribution below. Use this information to do the
next two problems:
Score
Student

22. 50-59
5
60-69
8
70-79
12
80-89
9
90-99
6
16. Find the mean.
A 8.0
B 74.5
C 75.5
D 75.3
E None of the above
17. Find the standard deviation.
A. 12.3
B. 12.5
C. 15.6
D. 12.0
E. None of the above
18. A measurement obtained by using all the data values for a

23. specific population is called
A. A variable.
B. The mean.
C. The standard deviation.
D. A statistic.
E. A parameter.
Use the following information to do the next two problems:
A survey of 800 College seniors produced the following
contingency table (cross-tabulation) regarding their
undergraduate major and whether or not they planned to go to
graduate school.
Undergraduate Major
Graduate School
Business
Engineering
Other
Total
Yes
70
84
126
280
No
182
208
130
520
Total
252
292
256
800
19. Of those students that are majoring in Business, what

24. percent plans to go to graduate school?
A. 27.78%
B. 8.75%
C. 70%
D. 72.22%
E. none of the above
20. Among the students who plan to go to graduate school,
what percent indicated “Other” majors?
A. 15.75%
B. 45%C. 49.22%
D. 32%
E. none of the above
Standard deviation
06. Is the following a probability distribution? If yes, find its
men and standard deviation.
X
0
1
2
3
P(x)
0.125
0.375
0.375
0.125
1
2
0
0
0
0

25. 1
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
8
6
4
2
0
M
k
t
g
M
a
n
a
g
e

26. r
S
a
l
a
r
i
e
s
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
H
i
s
t
o
g
r
a
m
o
f
M
k
t
g

27. M
a
n
a
g
e
r
S
a
l
a
r
i
e
s
W
e
s
t
S
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
N
o
r
t
h
e

28. a
s
t
2
0
0
1
7
5
1
5
0
1
2
5
1
0
0
7
5
5
0
D
a
t
a
B
o
x
p
l
o
t
o
f

29. N
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
,
S
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
,
W
e
s
t