Q & A Table of Contents
Breaking Deadlocks in Labor Negotiations
From: Labor Union Representative, Singapore
Question: We are negotiating a collective employnent agreement. For some benefits, the management has refused to move from their stand. These are not unreasonable benefits. It is present in most of our unionized companies.
We are willing to compromise to change the component of the benefit but management still refuses to budge. We are not willing to give up either. At one point, the management said her points and I said mine and then we remained silent (is this good ??).
In Singapore, if there is a deadlock we can refer to the Ministry of Labour for third
party intevention. But I just wondering, how can I go about cooling down the whole situation and making management see my point. I have to say that at this incident the lady who was negotiating was really rude and attempted to undermine
my power.
Response: What has happened is that, in spite of your willingness to modify your 'demands' in response to a similar modification in the 'conditions' offered by the management representative, the scenario has gone as follows:
The two sides state their 'positions' and at the end of that, there is silence. Silence is often the most appropriate response when the statement(s) uttered by either side are simply not acceptable as to substance or the manner in which they were stated. What complicates matters further is that in your eyes the management representative has behaved rudely toward you and has also effectively undercut your power and perhaps even your credibility with your constituency.
In negotiation, 'position' is a 'dirty word'. Someone who takes a 'position' is saying "do it my way or it won't get done". One possibility in your current situation, where you and the management representative have withdrawn to neutral corners before resuming the attack, is to say to the other person "We have each done a good job of describing our positions, the results each of us wants as an ideal consequence of our negotiation. Now it is time to take a step back and look at 'why' each side feels its' position is the best answer. In other words, 'why' does the deal between us have to contain the elements each of us has described to each other?"
What you are looking for is the 'interests' underlying the positions you have taken. When you find interests, it is often possible to discover there are at least some 'common' interests. Both labor and management want to keep the business operating; it yields profit for the owners and wages for the workers. There may be other common interests as well: a belief in the product or service that is produced, matters of pride in being affiliated with the company, a desire of each negotiator to prove to his or her constituency or boss that they are competent, the desire of the negotiators to save face, etc.
Take the common interests and see whether they can be applied to elements of the negotiation to begin to build those into elements of an agreement. "If we agree on this point, let's shake hands on it and implement it and see whether that gives our bosses/constituents a measure of confidence in us." Or perhaps this is a situation wherein the negotiators have to build confidence in each other.
Confidence-building measures can give each negotiating party an initial set of 'wins' that gives him/her confidence that there is something to gain in continuing to work together to resolve the issue.
One complicating factor that you don't describe specifically may be that the negotiators have parted in an unfriendly manner. And perhaps each is unwilling or fearful of re-opening the process. You have to ask yourself whether you have a 'BATNA', a Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement with this party. If you do, then it may make sense to head in that direction. If you do not, if you must reach an agreement with this party, then you have to find a way to re-open discussions without saying, "Okay, I accept your view of things, now you can beat up on me some more."
You must let the other party know that you are a human being with dignity and honor and that you have a strong enough sense of self-worth to be able to say, "Okay, our previous negotiation(s) have not gotten us to a mutually-satisfactory agreement. Let us meet to discuss the negotiation process, the ground rules for behavior and then, after that, set up a different time to negotiate substance following those behavioral rules."
I often recommend that people read a good negotiation textbook such as 'Getting To Yes' by Roger Fisher & William Ury to get a quick fix on some basic negotiation strategies. While reading a book is nowhere near as helpful as getting trained in negotiation, it is better than nothing. After you read that book -- or any other you may find appealing, you may want to make a gift of a copy of the book to the person with whom you must negotiate.
"This book describes the style of negotiation I tend to use. Since I hope we can understand each other better, and since I am not trying to 'pull a fast one' on you, here's a copy of the book with my compliments to help you understand me better." Giving the gift may well be a face-saving way of saying "Let's get back together and see if we can be co-workers in solving the issues in front of us."
One secret in all this is to leave your weapons outside the negotiating space. Separate the people from the problem. After all, if you could 'erase' the person with whom you are negotiating, the issues would still remain.
Let me know how things work out.
Good luck and good negotiating, Steve.
| 
