Q & A Table of Contents
Our Representatives Made A Bad Deal And Victimized His Fellow Union Members
From: Catherine, Hayward, Wisconsin
Question: During contract negotiations my union’s representatives did not bring back to the union the full information about the offers the school board was presenting for the contract. They only brought back the offer that benefited them and took money from the majority of the union. What action if any can I take towards those negotiators that negotiated unethically and benefited monetarily by this?
Response: There are several approaches you can take; each requires that you — and any other folks who agree to work with you — to do some homework.
The first set relates to the union and its rules:
- Are there any union bylaws that outline the responsibility of union representatives to report on all offers made by the school board?
- Are representatives required to provide progress reports before reaching agreement with the board?
- Is there an obligation to provide an explanation of the various offers and counter offers that occurred during the negotiation process prior to a union vote to accept or reject the contract?
- How does the rank and file feel about the situation you describe? Would they agree with your conclusion?
The next set of issues you need to investigate relate to the nature and accuracy of the information you have:
- Are you, or is anyone you know in possession of documentary evidence of the more attractive offers made by the school board during the negotiation process?
- Do you have evidence that anyone (union representative or school board member) misrepresented information in a fraudulent manner? This is a heavy-duty issue since it could have criminal implications.
Next you have to think about the long-term consequences:
- Are any of the ‘bad guys’ up for re-election or re-appointment any time soon?
- What would happen to them if their constituents came to believe that the union representatives behaved unethically?
- Would the school board members be thought of as heroes for having saved the taxpayers money? And would that ‘heroic’ status be threatened if union members made noises indicating a likelihood they plan to a) vote against the agreement or b) raise a ruckus in some other way?
Doing a proper job of negotiation in many ways reflects what is known in law as Agency. Negotiators are often effectively agents for their constituents — or to use the legal term, their Principals. In the case of a school union that may be a bad pun — but the fundamental principle remains that an agent’s obligation to his/her principals is absolute; the agent cannot act for his/her own benefit if it runs counter to the interests or objectives of his/her principal. If an agent cannot accept the principal’s objectives or interests, then the agent should resign from the agent/principal relationship. In negotiation, one must consider the three classes of stakeholders: negotiators, constituents, and Other Interested Parties (OIPs). If there is a conflict of interest between a negotiator and one or more of his/her constituents, that conflict must be addressed before the process of formal negotiation goes forward.
Not knowing the details of the story you present I am not comfortable drawing a set of absolute conclusions. You should consider who the stakeholders are, what there interests are likely to be in the situation, and whether any moral or ethical obligation has been breached. The questions raised above may give you hints of directions you might take — but you must be careful to ascertain whether the allegations are true and whether the agent/principal relationship has been handled improperly.
Good luck — and let me know what happens,
Steve
| 
